skunk-works-digest Tuesday, December 23 1997 Volume 06 : Number 100 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** F-22/Apology/Machrahanish Re: Machrihanish Re: F-22 Raptor Re: Machrihanish World Air Power Journal #31 Re: F-22/Apology/Machrahanish AIAA Meeting Re: World Air Power Journal #31 More 'Literature' Re: A-12 Pilot's Manual? Re: SR-71 "replacement" (was FOAS/Other) Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #99 Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #95 Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #99 photos of planes? SEALS on guard. Re[2]: skunk-works-digest V6 #99 Re: Discovery Channel Avweek- definite maybe for mach 3 attack a/c *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 23:03:11 +0900 From: "Darryl Matthews" Subject: F-22/Apology/Machrahanish Apology first: To Andreas: Sorry for those HTML-encoded messages...HTML was default for my program, and I didn't realize it was on!! It is now off... Re F-22: I have Novalogic's F-22...one of my 31 sims...and was quite disappointed with it actually. I assume you mean the first version (yes, a second version is coming out, and as far as I can tell it is marketed under the confusing title: Novalogic F-22 Raptor!!!). The flight model didn't seem that realistic...can you really accelerate to Mach 1.62 30 secs - 1 minute after takeoff!!?? The ground graphics are lovely, but the aircraft - - the Su-27, MiG-29 are awful!! Weapons are limited to 4 things, small number of enemies, missions range from incredibly easy to impossible, with not much in between...sorry, I have to disagree with you... Everyone: Looks like I'll have to make a Win95 version of my library program...well, guys...gimme time. Lots of time!! I'll get back to you. Machrahanish: Wasn't it closed down? The base is located at the tip of the Kintyre Peninsula in Western Scotland. It is/was used for heavily loaded C-5s to stop off - thus a long runway would be needed. The first strange incidence occured when an air-traffic controller saw an aircraft leave Machrahanish then accelerate quickly to Mach 3...he phoned Machrahanish and was told to forget it! I also was given a article about 4-5 years ago saying that the Aurora was in operation during the Gulf War. Food for thought... ____________________ James Matthews. E-mail (family): matthews@tkb.attnet.or.jp or matthews@tkb.att.ne.jp E-mail (private): james_matthews@hotmail.com Homepage: http://home.att.ne.jp/gold/tomcat21/index2.html ____________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 23:46:30 +0900 From: "Darryl Matthews" Subject: Re: Machrihanish This is the official status of RAF Machrihanish: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ RAF Machrihanish Currently the Station is under enhanced care and maintenance status. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ As stated from the offical RAF homepage: What does 'enhanced care' mean? James. ____________________ James Matthews. E-mail (family): matthews@tkb.attnet.or.jp or matthews@tkb.att.ne.jp E-mail (private): james_matthews@hotmail.com Homepage: http://home.att.ne.jp/gold/tomcat21/index2.html ____________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 07:11:45 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: F-22 Raptor Su Wei-Jen wrote: > >I "zoom up" to around 72,000 feet and got a max. speed of Mach 3.62 (I >empty the entire fuel tank doing that), of course, I don't know if the >real F-22 will melt at that speed. > ============================ Wei-Jen- You be careful. We don't want to lose you!! Are you familiar with the recovery procedure for a hi-speed stall? I think you better land that thing now. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 10:41:42 -0800 From: G&G Subject: Re: Machrihanish Darryl Matthews wrote: > RAF Machrihanish > > Currently the Station is under enhanced care and maintenance status. > > What does 'enhanced care' mean? Well, I'm sure that if we told you we'd then have to kill you... :) Greg Fieser ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 11:00:40 -0800 From: G&G Subject: World Air Power Journal #31 Well I think I just figured out how Andreas always gets his publications in the mail before me. My wife just handed me WAPJ #31 and said "oh, this came in the mail sometime last week - were you expecting it?" (doh!) #31's featured aircraft is the B-2 Spirit. It mentions "Project Harvey" and the XST program, including a rather grainy photo of Northrop's pole-mounted RCS testbed XST. WAPJ quotes it as "the only known public photograph of Northrop's 1975 XST design". Also in the article are pix of Northrop's wing planform studies for the ATB, including one with inward-canted rudders just outboard of the exhaust 'ports', and another with small outboard rudders and 'jet-reaction controls' at the wingtips. These evidently went away with the development of the split rudder-vators. A brief mention (and photo) of Northrop's BSAX "Tacit Blue" program is also made, and of course the XB-35/YB-49 episodes. Also mentioned are "Senior Ice" and Senior Peg", Senior Ice being Northrop's ATB proposal, while Senior Peg was (is?) Lockheed's "still classified" ATB design. Lots of talk about B-2 ordinance, including photos and descriptions of GAM-84 and GAM-113, with the formers' "strake jacket" - interesting. All in all an excellent article in another excellent issue. So Andreas, have you checked your mailbox lately? :) Greg Fieser ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 16:14:16 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: F-22/Apology/Machrahanish On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Darryl Matthews wrote: > Re F-22: I have Novalogic's F-22...one of my 31 sims...and was quite > disappointed with it actually. I assume you mean the first version (yes, a > second version is coming out, and as far as I can tell it is marketed under > the confusing title: Novalogic F-22 Raptor!!!). The flight model didn't > seem that realistic...can you really accelerate to Mach 1.62 30 secs - 1 > minute after takeoff!!?? The ground graphics are lovely, but the aircraft > - the Su-27, MiG-29 are awful!! Weapons are limited to 4 things, small > number of enemies, missions range from incredibly easy to impossible, with > not much in between...sorry, I have to disagree with you... I believe you are talking about the first version of F-22 from NovaLogic name: "F-22 Lighting II". I know this version is really bad. What I was talking about is the second version name F-22 Raptor from NovaLogic (1997). May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 16:34:10 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: AIAA Meeting Hello, any of you know if there is going to be any interesting technical papel from Lockheed Martin Skunk Works at the AIAA 36th Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit (Jan. 1998 in Reno, NV)? I will be presenting my research papel and I heard there will be some talk about the X-33 in this meeting. I will appreciate your answer and thanks in advances. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 17:01:27 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: World Air Power Journal #31 Greg Fieser asked at the end of his WAPJ No. 31 prevue: >So Andreas, have you checked your mailbox lately? :) Oh the pain.... My heart struck with terror! Those evil MIB (Mailmen In Blue) have conspired to keep my WAPJ from me, too. I haven't gotten any AW&ST for a couple of weeks either. Doesn't a soul count for anything anymore? But, at least I got yesterday the new Combat Aircraft magazine, Vol. 1, No. 5, January 1998. It doesn't include anything real skunky, but the article on the E-3 Sentry (AWACS) is quite nice. It also includes some Lockheed stuff in 'Air Intel', with a photo of the first 2 C-130Js in formation. Also under 'Air Intel', it is finally revealed (at least to me) which UAV received the designation RQ-2A. And the winner is... The TRW/IAI Pioneer, used by the USN and the USMC. - -- Andreas PS: I didn't really sell my soul for those aviation magazines... it just sometimes feels that way. :) PPS: Have a nice Holiday and a Happy New Year. :) - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 21:04:47 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: More 'Literature' I forgot to mention the other magazine that I got a couple of weeks ago, AirForces Monthly (AFM) No. 117, December 1997. It also has nothing really skunky to speak off, but several bits of information are interesting. The News includes some Lockheed info, including photos of the first F-22A Raptor, a WC-130J and a 'paintless' F-16. Articles about the Russian Akhtubinsk test center and Bulgarian Open Skies Missions might be considered of interest, while the Edwards AFB Open House article contains photos of the SR-71B, the second RQ-3A DarkStar prototype, the first RQ-4A Global Hawk prototype and the first X-38A CRV mounted on its NB-52B carrier. The Write Off section also includes some news on the F-117A crash in MD. It mentions that the wing modification on that particular aircraft was done 'seven or eight years ago' by Air Force maintenance personnel at Tonopah, rather than by the Lockheed Skunk Works at Palmdale. None of the other aircraft inspected (at that time 33 of 53), showed any similar problems, and flights resumed on October 2 at Holloman AFB, NV. Also, has anybody seen the new Warbird Tech Series, Volume 10, titled "Lockheed SR-71/YF-12 Blackbirds", by Dennis R. Jenkins? It is advertised in the above mentioned AFM issue by Midland County as: "Lockheed SR-71 & YF-12 Blackbirds (Warbird Tech Srs vol.10) Packed with exploded views, cutaways, technical manual extracts, engines and cockpit drawings. 100pp. Sbk...L9.95" Jenkins' Space Shuttle book is quite good, which lets one hope that the SR-71 book is too. Zenith Books has all Warbird Tech volumes 1 through 9 and also 11 listed in their latest catalog, but not Volume 10! They each cost $16.95 and seem to be worth it. Another cute gift might be the "Supersonics CD" that Zenith Books sells. It features a taxiing SR-71A on its cover, and includes: "Sixty full minutes of enormous jet engines in full, glorious ear-popping sound! Man-made thunder comes to life on your stereo in this exciting group of jet sounds, each with its own unique signature. You'll duck as the C-5A flies over! From engine start to shut down, including sonic booms, you'll hear the incredible sounds of the A-10 Warthog, F-117 Stealth fighter, SR-71 Blackbird, F-16 Fighting Falcon and more. Go on the ramp at Edwards AFB to hear F-15s, the B-1 bomber, C-17s, F-16s, KC-10 tankers, the T-38 and many more. Includes a conversation with Roger [sic] Smith, one of NASA's elite SR-71 pilots. 60 min. 125929C.....NEW $15.00" That reminded me of the soft plastic record with F-16 engine sounds, that I got with Jay Miller's Aerograph 1, General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon. Back then, I thought it would be a great idea to 'replace' the engine sounds of my vintage Karman Ghia, Type 34, with sampled (digitized) jet engine noise, played on the car stereo, and synchronized with the engine's RPMs. I guess they actually have something like that now for cars with active sound cancelation systems, but of course they use Ferrari or Porsche 911 engine sounds instead of aircraft noise, to replace the silence they just created so painstakingly. Anyway, as we Cold War Low-Level Flight lovers (ehhh, victims) said back in Germany: The Sound of Freedom -- Jet Noise. Enjoy the Holiday season. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 20:15:02 -0800 (PST) From: Paul Suhler Subject: Re: A-12 Pilot's Manual? Blackbird, of course! Paul James Stevenson wrote: Do you mean the A-12 Avenger II or the original Mach 3 aircraft? Jim Stevenson Paul Suhler wrote: > Has anyone encountered a flight manual for the A-12 Blackbird? I've > heard of them for the YF-12A and the SR-71, but not the A-12. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 12:18:14 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: Re: SR-71 "replacement" (was FOAS/Other) At 12:38 19/12/97 -0800, you wrote: > >>Also, the SR-71 was originally designated RS-71, for "Recon/Strike" - it was >>designed to be capable of carrying nuclear air-to-surface missiles. IF there >You mean like the B-12/B-71 !! > >Larry > Apparently. Reading Crickmore's "SR-71: The Secret Missions Exposed", there are drawings of an SRAM-equipped Blackbird, a flight plan over western Russia showing targets... and I read somewhere else that the SR-71 could carry a one-megaton nuclear free-fall bomb in a centereline pod... I'm not sure about the attribution of that, tho' - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 08:53:42 +0000 From: "Paul Heinrich" Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #99 >Machrihanish is indeed on the Kintyre Peninsula and the Campbeltown >Courier, the local paper has carried a few articles on the base's link >with a secret aircraft..presumed to be of US origin. The base is around 5 >miles West of Campbeltown. > >I understand the base is now pretty well deserted although 500 airborne >troops parachuted in during Ample Train earlier this year and in its prime it >was guarded by US Navy SEALS. It has a very long runway...some say the >longest in Europe. > > > The Navy SEALs part of this really sounds like an urban legend. Why would an elite US NAVAL commando unit be guarding a British airbase? One would suppose that the SAS, SBS (if they needed boats) or, much more likely, some regular British MP unit would be guarding the base. Supposing that the SEALs really were there, what would they be up to? Training with the SAS or SBS? Special forces units seem to a lot of traveling around and "playing" with similar units. Even supposing that the US had something so secret that "we" couldn't trust the British to guard it (seems sorta unlikely, since it's a British airbase and the only reason to take secret US aircraft to a British base would be to SHOW it to the Brits), the US Airforce has plenty of elite guard and commando units of its own, so why use SEALs? The point I trying to make is that a lot of black aircraft "fans" and government secrecy activists seem to be willing to accept nearly any statement, at face value. This makes us very susceptible to hearsay, wild sillyness and outright disinformation. Paul - -- Paul Heinrich - Webmaster Bodega Marine Laboratory www: www-bml.ucdavis.edu phone: (707) 875-1937 fax: (707) 875-2089 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 10:14:32 -0800 (PST) From: "Louis K. Scheffer" Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #95 >From: Wei-Jen Su >Subject: Re: LO by speed ? >On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, David wrote: >> I seem to remember reading that certain radars have software that ignores >> very high and very low velocity targets that would fall outside the >> performance envelopes of a/c. I wonder how common this system is.. > I don't know about slow, but talking about fast "aircraft"... I >have a friend whom fly the F-14 Tomcat, he commented me that one day he >was flying in a Fleet Defense mission, he detected a UFO and tried to >target it, but suddenly, the UFO accelerate so fast that the doopler >system of the F-14's radar doesn't work anymore... When a object fly >faster than Mach 25, the F-14's radar doesn't work. > Oh well... just a bed time story :) Sounds like the result you might see from a typical anti-radar technique known as 'range-gating'. When you first detect a pulse, you send a pulse back immediately. This provides a much brighter return than the natural reflection. One the next pulse, you delay the echo a bit. On the next pulse a bit more, and so on. Any radar that does the obvious and compares objects from frame to frame will miscompute your range, thinking you are farther away than you really are. In addition, the delays can be adjusted so the radar sees any apparent velocity you want. There is also a dim return from the skin echo at the original position, but stealth technology can reduce this to undetectable levels, or the target may be far enough away so that only the enhanced and not the natural echo can be seen. -Lou Scheffer ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 13:47:40 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #99 On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Paul Heinrich wrote: > The Navy SEALs part of this really sounds like an urban legend. Why would > an elite US NAVAL commando unit be guarding a British airbase? One would > suppose that the SAS, SBS (if they needed boats) or, much more likely, some > regular British MP unit would be guarding the base. Supposing that the SEALs > really were there, what would they be up to? Training with the SAS or SBS? > Special forces units seem to a lot of traveling around and "playing" with > similar units. Even supposing that the US had something so secret that "we" > couldn't trust the British to guard it (seems sorta unlikely, since it's a > British airbase and the only reason to take secret US aircraft to a British > base would be to SHOW it to the Brits), the US Airforce has plenty of elite > guard and commando units of its own, so why use SEALs? From a friend of mine who was in the training for Navy SEAL (he fail in the last test to become a Navy Seal: The POW camp), he said that Navy SEAL are around any place in the world. Why in UK? Well, it will be for them faster to take action in Europe than if they are based in the USA. Also, if the British goverment doesn't want to take action using their SAS (I saw their training one time... they are very good), USA have to relay in their SEAL. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 11:31:56 +0100 From: Lieve Peten Subject: photos of planes? Hi All, I have been lurking on this list for a few weeks now - and I just wanted to say thank you, so far it has been very interesting. I'm afraid I couldn't ever contribute much to the discussion since I'm by no means an expert on planes, unless crashing with my flight simulator counts for anything -) I do like planes (especially if they look elegant, which most of them do) and I have a few pics of Nasa planes on my Tornado site (URL below), and the reason I'm writing to you all now is because I would like to know if there ar any sites out there with photos of experimental aircraft? I know of a site called mystery aircraft which has amongst others pics of the (rumoured) Aurora (artist impression version, of course) - of course I lost the URL in my latest crash !! (not flight sim but windows 95 -), and there are the Nasa sites (or Dryden research), but does anybody know of any others? (apart from the ones in the sigs of the people who post regularly - BTW the one called 'Tomcat' gives javascript errors on my browser, Netscape Gold 3.0, but I got to the pics in spite of that - great page) Further, I would like to make a request - could you please refrain from using too many abbreviations? I do realise it's done a lot in the States, and particularly in email, but for a foreigner (I'm from Belgium), a non-plane expert (certainly am that -) and a woman (which I am too) it can get very confusing. What, f.i., is FOAS? I don't suppose somebody on this list has a list of the most commonly used abbreviations? I don't mean the usual internet email ones, but the ones pertaining to aircraft etc... If someone has, I would appreciate it if he or she could send it to me - my email is in my sig. (And I apologize for the 2 U** words in my sig -) A very merry Christmas to all of you CU Lieve (who one day will learn to write a SHORT email message, she promises -) * Lieve Peten, Vlaanderen, Belgium : Mailto:virginia@tornado.be * Homepage : http://www.tornado.be/~virginia/ * Loch Ness/UFO : http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/9054/ * UFO-series/Animated Gifs : http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/1470/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 14:07:56 -0800 From: patrick Subject: SEALS on guard. >On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Paul Heinrich wrote: > >> The Navy SEALs part of this really sounds like an urban legend. Why would >> an elite US NAVAL commando unit be guarding a British airbase? > Me too. me too. I never liked this aspect of the rumor either. IMHO (sorry, In My Humble Opinion) the SEALS (another acronym!) were trained for hit and run missions requiring as few people as possible and usually near a water environment for ingress and egress. But this is no limitation. But to be guarding a base, a very static and defensive move is just not what they were trained for or nor had the desire to be doing. As far as being stationed overseas, I would look for them at a place where they may blend in more so as to provide more discrete training and less view of their comings and goings. Surely in Great Britain there are large Navy bases that would provide adequate facilities and activity to provide the transparency these teams prefer. And after all, the guards at Groom Lake are civilians who work for a civilian contractor (Wackenhut). Except for the Blackhawk helicopters, which may or may not be flown by military personnel, only civilian guards, working in conjunction with the county sheriffs were ever observed guarding the borders of Groom. Now I will throw a monkey wrench in and add that whomever guarded the Tonopah Test Range (TTR) used equpment similar to what the SEALS used. At TTR there were a dozen dunebuggy vehicles modified to carry an M-60 machine gun in the passengers seat. Additionally the driver had a box that stored an M-16. These were elementary machines compared to those used by the SEALS. I suspect these were used by Air Force guard units assigned to Tonopah for perimeter defense. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Dec 97 18:59:16 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re[2]: skunk-works-digest V6 #99 I posed this question of a friend of mine who was a SEAL for 8 years... he told me that they work security for bases around the world, anywhere they have immediate access to water, for training purposes and for cross-training with similar units in other countries. He said that their priority, if any SEALs had been there, would have been more a training mission as opposed to actual security for the base. The home country is responsible for outer perimeter security on those bases where the US may have some sort of presence.... he would NOT confirm or deny that he had ever been to the mentioned base (medical discharge 1991) but he had indeed heard of it and confirmed that SEALs, as well as Rangers and various other elite teams train at friendly bases all around the world as a matter of course. One of the nice things about living close to the Army's largest basic training facility (Fort Jackson here in Columbia, SC) is that lots of ex-military people live around here, regardless of the branch they served in. I know people who have been in the elite units in all of the branches (does the Coast Guard have an elite unit?) and most of them can/will talk about almost anything... to a point. Then all of a sudden they'll just clam up and it would take sodium pentathol to loosen them up again. Some good stories though, but sometimes I listen to them and say, No Way! Reagan, Bush and Clinton wouldn't have authorized some of these missions.... some of them sound like something Tom Clancy wrote! But sometimes.... I wish I could pick their brains just for an hour..... course, then they'd have to kill me! :-) Greg Columbia,SC ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #99 Author: at INTERNET Date: 12/22/97 1:47 PM On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Paul Heinrich wrote: > The Navy SEALs part of this really sounds like an urban legend. Why would > an elite US NAVAL commando unit be guarding a British airbase? One would > suppose that the SAS, SBS (if they needed boats) or, much more likely, some > regular British MP unit would be guarding the base. Supposing that the SEALs > really were there, what would they be up to? Training with the SAS or SBS? > Special forces units seem to a lot of traveling around and "playing" with > similar units. Even supposing that the US had something so secret that "we" > couldn't trust the British to guard it (seems sorta unlikely, since it's a > British airbase and the only reason to take secret US aircraft to a British > base would be to SHOW it to the Brits), the US Airforce has plenty of elite > guard and commando units of its own, so why use SEALs? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 00:37:35 EST From: Xelex Subject: Re: Discovery Channel "Area 51: The Real Story" on Discovery Channel may not have been great, but it was better than any previous effort. At least it was not a saucerfest. When they interviewed me, I was afraid that I would be sandwiched in between a handful of UFO enthusiasts, a lone cry of reason in the wilderness. I was happy that they devoted the first half of the program entirely to aircraft. UFOs were given refreshingly brief, and light, treatment with plenty of rebuttal. Regrettably they failed to use the best material I gave them, mainly that the Groom Lake facility is currently operated by the Air Force Flight Test Center, and that recent programs have leaned heavily towards electronic warfare, classified avionics, "black" weapons programs, and low observables. Sorry, no saucers. It was unforgivable to let Jim Wilson (of Popular Mechanics) say that the facility closed up shop and moved to Utah. There should have been some rebuttal. Wilson's story has been discredited by numerous people recently visiting the Groom Lake Road area, and by one individual who visited the so- called "new Area 51" and found it to be an abandoned rocket site. And I don't mean that he just looked at it from a distance! On another topic: Does anyone know why the D-21 drones are radioactive? I took readings of up to 0.4 mR/Hr. on the upper surface of the aft section of a D-21B. That is about ten times the natural background radiation. Since the reading remains strong only within a few inches of the surface, it appears to be emitting alpha particles. Peter W. Merlin THE X-HUNTERS Aerospace Archeology Team ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 08:57:00 -0500 (EST) From: "Joseph F. Donoghue" Subject: Avweek- definite maybe for mach 3 attack a/c Did I get my Aviation Week before Andreas? p. 96 of the Dec22/29 AW&ST features an 'Editors Perspective' in which William B. Scott makes the following wishy-washy allegation: "..They just as easily could raise the curtain on the few Mach 3 attack aircraft that APPARENTLY ˙My caps.˙ lurk around the British Isles, Langley AFB, Va., and Western U.S. bases.." The article also questions, "But what do the secret hangars at Groom Lake, Nev., Norton, Edwards and Beale AFBs, Calif.: and remote sites in Alaska, New Mexico and the Southeast U.S. still hide?" I hope AvWeek's source on this is not Jim Wilson of Popular Mechanics. Joe Donoghue ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #100 ********************************* To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "skunk-works-digest-request@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 local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to 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 viewing by a www interface located at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R. Kasica Listowner