skunk-works-digest Saturday, April 11 1998 Volume 07 : Number 023 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** RE: skunk-works-digest V7 #22 C-5C Bakersfield crash - July 11, 1986 Re: Bakersfield crash - July 11, 1986 Re: Bakersfield crash - July 11, 1986 C-5C &Hubble Re: Bakersfield crash - July 11, 1986 Re: Bakersfield crash - July 11, 1986 Re: Bakersfield crash - July 11, 1986 *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 20:04:40 -0400 From: "Miller, Stacy" Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V7 #22 I just wanted to say that this is truely an informative newsletter. You guys continue to amaze me with the stuff you find out there. (Andreas, especially) I just had a few questions though. We know of the "unofficial" existence of the Aurora hypersonic aircraft. Is there any really good information out there that I could check out on the plane? I have been to a few sites and I want to learn more about this plane. Unfortunatley imfo is very limited. Any web pages or books about it that you guys could come up with would be appreciated. SAM > ---------- > From: > owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com[SMTP:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com] > Reply To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 1998 2:43 PM > To: skunk-works-digest@s1.net > Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #22 > > > skunk-works-digest Wednesday, April 8 1998 Volume 07 : > Number 022 > > > > Index of this digest by subject: > *************************************************** > Re: super duper way off topic [Ben Rich comment on hams] > The last "Astro-Chimp" > Re: The last "Astro-Chimp" > Re: WWII stealth including Mosquito > Re: WWII stealth including Mosquito > Re: F-117 designation > Re: F-117 designation==C-5C's > C-5Cs > New magazines > Sonic Boom > Re: Sonic Boom > JSF movies > test > *************************************************** > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Mon, 30 Mar 98 07:06:28 GMT > From: betnal@ns.net > Subject: Re: super duper way off topic [Ben Rich comment on hams] > > Glen and Quinte: > > > > He Was Making A Joke! > > He was kidding about an unusual use for the SR-71 in the Gulf > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 08:01:55 -0800 > From: patrick > Subject: The last "Astro-Chimp" > > I am saddened to have to report to the group that Minnie, the last > surviving "Astro-Chimp" of our early space program has died of natural > causes at the age of 41. > > Although never actually flown in space, Minnie was trained as an > understudy > to Ham and Enos for the Mercury program.. Ham was our first > "Astro-Chimp" > in space making a 15 minute sub-orbital flight in preparation for Alan > B. > Shepard's historic flight. Enos flew in orbit before John Glenn made > his > journey into space. > > Minnie was the only female in the program at Holloman Aero Medical. > She > later in life had 9 offspring who gave their lives to the study of > Hepatitus B and in AID's research. In addition she acted as a > surrogate > mother in raising other chimps at the Coulston Institute. The > Institute, > located on the edge of Holloman AFB, had the caretaking responsibility > of > the old Air Force programs for chimpanzee's. > > Minnie died of natural causes. She will be buried next to Ham in the > "Astro-Chimp" cemetary at the SpaceCenter in Alamogordo, NM. > > Vaya con dios Minnie. > > patrick cullumber > patrick@e-z.met > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:00:07 EST > From: MELUMAN > Subject: Re: The last "Astro-Chimp" > > Too bad - Minnie could have gone up instead of the senator. > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 12:24:56 EST > From: ConsLaw > Subject: Re: WWII stealth including Mosquito > > By starting this topic, I was indirectly trying to get a discussion > going > about how much was known about RCS and radar reflectivity reduction > during > World War II. Responding to Andreas, I don't know if there was a > standard > procedure to test radar reflectivity of aircraft during World War II, > and if > there was, whether the Mosquito or the Bat were tested. I do know > that there > was interest in the field going back to World War II. > > Of course, chaff (radar reflecting aluminum strips) was/were used > extensively > by just about everybody during the war, with the British taking the > lead. The > Germans conducted extensive research in the radar reflectivity of > materials > and even tried putting radar reflective coatings on U-boat periscopes > and > schnorkels. As I recall, they had problems coming up with a material > which > would be both effective and durable enough to stay on in the open > ocean, but I > believe they had a limited amount of success. > > If the Allies did investigate relative radar reflectivity of aircraft, > it > seems like the Mosquito would be a natural for the inquiry. It was, > afterall, > probably the premier insurgency bomber day and night of the war. The > Bat was > designed to perform some of the same functions as the Mosquito, plus, > it just > looks sleek with the recessed engines. > > Finally, I'm somewhat embarrassed that I got the designation of the > Bat > incorrect. I must have associated the number 85 with MacDonnell > because of > the Goblin, then transferred that to the Bat. I feel ashamed because > the > Goblin is in residence at the Wright-Pat Air Force Museum, where I met > Andreas > and his wife Katherine, two very fine people. I can therefore verify > that > Andreas definitely exists. Dr. David Baker, I wonder. . . > > Steve Hofer > conslaw@aol.com > (sometimes I wonder if I exist) > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 11:46:01 -0800 > From: patrick > Subject: Re: WWII stealth including Mosquito > > Steve- > > I believe you may be looking at the Mosquito from the wrong > perspective. > With what we know today it would seem reasonable if one elimenated the > metal skin of an airplane's fuselage it would be relatively > stealthier. > But I don't believe the technology existed to measure RCS during WW2 > nor > the subject well understood. > > I have to believe, without specific knowledge that the Mossie was > built of > plywood for several other reasons. Keep in mind the conditions at the > time. To build a plane of wood saved metal for vital other needs. It > also > spared existing production lines requiring metal fabrication. And it > was > probably quicker to assemble a wood airplane than that requiring many > preformed metal parts all requiring proper scheduling. And wood > technology > was nothing really new. The Mossie was a rather fast airplane but I > won't > guess if there was a weight saving in the choice of wood. I think if > the > designers were able to use a good wind tunnel they probably felt > complete > in their design efforts. > > Looking back at the decision, it was mentioned earlier that a wood > skin is > transparent to many reflective surfaces such as engines, guns, fuel > tanks, > armor plate, seats, etc. RCS is a funny thing. With the F-117 > design, the > pilots helmet turned out be a real problem. So were the compressor > blades > of the buried engines. A Quail radar decoy exhibits the same RCS as a > B-52. I am wondering if one were to test the RCS of a Supermarine > Spitfire > that it may exhibit a lower RCS than the Mossie. Its possible the > Spits > surfaces may be reflective in the right angles to exhibit a lower RCS. > > But despite all my conjecture I see no logic as the Mosquito being an > early > low observable design. I still don't believe that body of knowledge > was > beyond the theoretical state. If it did have a low RCS it was not by > design. Chaff was a strategic weapon designed to mask bomber fleets > over > a large area using highly reflective surfaces. > > patrick cullumber > patrick@e-z.net > > Why can't you find a good Brit Aeroplane designer when you need one? > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 23:26:41 -0500 > From: jeffhclark@juno.com > Subject: Re: F-117 designation > > On Sun, 29 Mar 1998 22:25:58 -0500 (EST) Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl > writes: > >On the other hand, even designations not listed therein, because of > secrecy > >considerations, might exist, including relatively mundane aircraft > such > >as the C-5C, AH-6, MH-6 and AH-60 models, which were not listed, at > least > >while they were classified. > > What is / was the C-5C? I've never heard of it. Searching on > Dejanews > produced only a mention of a Lockheed proposal of a C-5C which was > a regular C-5 with C-17 engines. Is that it, or something else? > Did this ever get into production, like the helicopters you listed > did? > > Jeff Clark > > _____________________________________________________________________ > You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. > Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com > Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 23:48:57 -0800 > From: patrick > Subject: Re: F-117 designation==C-5C's > > >What is / was the C-5C? I've never heard of it. Searching on > Dejanews > >produced only a mention of a Lockheed proposal of a C-5C which was > >a regular C-5 with C-17 engines. Is that it, or something else? > >Did this ever get into production, like the helicopters you listed > did? > > > >Jeff Clark > > > - --------------------------------------------- > > Couple of years ago the AF had two C-5's gutted out including part of > the > crew area behind the cockpit. The intent was to be able to haul > oversize > cargo such as big radar satellites for DARO that are built in LA and > launched from Cape Canaveral. They are designated C-5C's and are > recorded in the AMC's inventory in "Air Force" magazine. I believe > they > are still based at Travis. > > patrick cullumber > patrick@e-z.net > > PS: Andreas, if you can get the serial number of these two guys then > you > really are good!!! > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1998 07:40:48 -0500 (EST) > From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl > Subject: C-5Cs > > Jeff Clark wondered: > > >What is / was the C-5C? I've never heard of it. Searching on Dejanews > >produced only a mention of a Lockheed proposal of a C-5C which was > >a regular C-5 with C-17 engines. Is that it, or something else? > >Did this ever get into production, like the helicopters you listed > did? > > Two C-5As (c/n '500-0016', USAF Serial '68-0213' and c/n '500-0019', > USAF > Serial '68-0216') were modified in the early 1990s under the 'Space > Cargo Mod' > program, and were redesignated C-5Cs. They are both operated by the > 60th AMW > (Air Mobility Wing), 15th AF (Air Force), AMC (Air Mobility Command), > and are > based at Travis AFB, CA. I don't know to which of the two C-5 Airlift > Squadrons they are assigned, the 21st AS, the 22nd AS, or maybe both. > > The aircraft are used to transport out-sized cargo, specifically > satellites, > like KH-11 and MILSTAR, as well as other secret cargo from and to > factories, > test and launch sites. The 'Space Mod' included removing the upper > passenger > deck all the way from the cockpit to the tail, and required major > (complete) > re-routing of all control cables and electric, hydraulic and pneumatic > lines/ > systems. The only external difference between C-5A/Bs and C-5Cs is > apparently > the C-5Cs rear cargo door layout, which now has double-hinged external > cargo > doors, unlike any other transport aircraft that I know of. The > center/middle > part, which usually folds up (inside) on other C-5s, is now on the > outside of > the two smaller side doors, but this is probably only visible when the > doors > are open. > > There was a show on the Discovery Channel a year or so ago, which has > been > repeated a couple of times since then, called "Spies in the Skies". > They > showed the inside and outside of one of the two C-5Cs, loading a > Lockheed > MILSTAR communications satellite into it. And in AirForces Monthly No. > 108, > March 1997, on pages 18/19 is a photo of '68-0213', showing one of the > > modified back doors. > > I believe the semi-OTS (Off-The-Shelf) C-17 replacement aircraft > proposed by > Lockheed was dubbed C-5M (for modified or modernized) and C-5D. > > - -- 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: Fri, 3 Apr 1998 19:11:22 -0500 (EST) > From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl > Subject: New magazines > > I purchased several new aviation magazines in the past month, some of > which > contain Skunk Works-related stuff, while other are just interesting, > some > of which I have listed below: > > * WAPJ (World Air Power Journal), Vol. 32, Spring 1998: > - nothing skunky at all, but otherwise interesting as usual; > > * AE (Air Enthusiast), No. 74, March/April, 1998: > - nothing really skunky, but the Caribou article is interesting; > > * AI (Air International), Vol. 54, No. 3, March 1998: > - C-135 series (RC-135s and EC-135s), part 3; > - Tu-144 SST research update; > > * AFM (AirForthes Monthly), No. 120, March 1998: > - nothing skunky besides an F-117 photo, but AFM and AI have > commercials > for the new AFM Special called 'X-Planes', apparently featuring > Black > Program aircraft, rather than Experimental types. Couldn't find it > yet > anywhere, though; > > * AFM (AirForthes Monthly), No. 121, April 1998: > - article on the USAF purchase of Moldavian MiG-29s; > - article about covert CIA operations in Vietnam, including a > 'silent', > 'black' helicopter project; > > * AC (Air Combat), Vol.26, No. 2, March/April 1998: > - X-35 Update; > - U-2 Dragon Lady article -- has several annoying typos and some > rather > inaccurate data (didn't want to say 'facts' there), and basically > no > new photos; > > * WoH (Wings of Honor, Collector's Edition), USAF Series, Summer 1997, > probably a 'one-of': > - has pictures of several Skunk Works planes: SR-71, F-117, F-22, > etc. as > well as a new, at least to me, photo of U-2D '56-6954', equipped > with the > MIDAS pickle barrel mod. The officer in front of the aircraft > wears the > name tag 'Capt. D. Levans', and he looks vaguely similar to the > navigator > posing in a pressure suit on the backseat of a U-2D, in a photo in > Chris > Pocock's book 'Dragon Lady', on page 127; > > * ACL (Air Classics), Vol. 34, No. 3, March 1998: > - very interesting article on RB-45s during the cold war, including > overflights of denied territory; > > * AAG (Aviation Art Gallery), Vol. 1, No. 1, March 1998: > - article with artwork about the Skunk Works by Mike Machat -- some > > paintings are quite nice; > > Besides those periodicals, I also finally found a copy of Warbird Tech > > Series, Vol. 10, titled: "Lockheed SR-71/YF-12 Blackbirds" by Dennis > R. > Jenkins (known for his excellent Space Shuttle book). > > The book has many b&w and several color pictures of A-12, YF-12, D-21 > and > SR-71 Blackbirds, including more YF-12 material than usual. It > includes > drawings from SR-71 and YF-12 manuals, and several new pictures. I > haven't > read anything other than the captions yet, and they were near perfect! > Another must buy for Blackbird fans. > > Publisher is Airlife Publishing Ltd, in the UK and Specialty Press in > the USA, ISBN is 0-933424-75-2, and I paid $16.95 at Barnes & Noble. > > - -- 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, 04 Apr 1998 11:34:23 -0600 > From: Dave Bethke > Subject: Sonic Boom > > If a plane flies overhead, or nearly overhead, at a speed greater than > Mach 1, will a sonic boom always be heard by persons on the ground or > is > this dependent on other factors? > > Not to skunky, but I'd appreciate the experts opinion. > Thanks, > > - -- > Dave Bethke - on the fringe of Houston > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sat, 04 Apr 98 20:24:48 GMT > From: betnal@ns.net > Subject: Re: Sonic Boom > > On 4/4/98 9:34AM, in message <35266F1E.BA742BFD@ix.netcom.com>, Dave > Bethke > wrote: > > > If a plane flies overhead, or nearly overhead, at a speed greater > than > > Mach 1, will a sonic boom always be heard by persons on the ground > or is > > this dependent on other factors? > > > > Not to skunky, but I'd appreciate the experts opinion. > > Thanks, > > > > -- > > Dave Bethke - on the fringe of Houston > > > > > It could depend on the altitude, atmospheric conditions, design of the > aircraft > and a number of other factors including speed. In the latter case, > the faster the > speed the "louder" the boom. However, as speed increases, the angle > of the shock > wave off the nose becomes more acute. Eventually (around Mach 10 I > believe), the > shockwave is almost parallel to the direction of flight and will > dissipate (you've > got to be pretty high to cruise Mach 10) before it ever reaches the > ground. > > > > Art > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Sat, 04 Apr 98 20:37:32 GMT > From: betnal@ns.net > Subject: JSF movies > > Boeing has updated their JSF website to make it as pretty as > Lockheed's. There > are some interesting computer animations at > http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/jsf/jsf video.htm. > > You should either have a fast connection or go there on weekends or > late at night > because their server isn't super fast and these are big files that > have to > download before they can run. > > These animations give a lot more detail of the design than has > heretofore (always > wanted to use that word!) been available, and also show the problems > and ingenious > techniques necessary to pack a lot of stuff into a confined space (and > the Boeing > JSF is a little airplane). > > The movies also illustrate some of the unusual aspects of this > competition. They > talk about affordability and innovation but don't brag about > performance or > capability. This is the quandary that Boeing is in: They want to > build and > promote an aircraft that is good enough to beat their rival, but not > so good that > the Air Force will either just select their rival to keep theirs out > of service or > will even kill the JSF program entirely. > > > Art > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 14:40:52 -0400 > From: Drew > Subject: test > > testing > > ------------------------------ > > End of skunk-works-digest V7 #22 > ******************************** > > 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 > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 07:17:30 -0700 From: "Anderson, Richard W" Subject: C-5C The discussion of the C-5C reminds me of when NASA finally wanted to ship the Space Telescope to Florida for launch. I knew they were going to use one of the C-5Cs so I was contacting everybody trying to get permission to photograph the aircraft when it came to pick up the telescope. In the end they shipped it in the middle of the night so nobody could see anything. I was told shortly after by a NASA Public Affairs person that they had wanted the event to be very public - The Space Telescope is on its way etc. etc. - but it was the Air Force that wanted no publicity. Not because they didn't want people to look at the C-5C but because they didn't want people seeing the shipping container the telescope was in. I always found it intriguing that the Air Force already had a shipping container for the supposedly one of a kind Space Telescope. This is Rick Anderson and that's a personal opinion. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 08:24:50 -0700 From: "A.J. Craddock" Subject: Bakersfield crash - July 11, 1986 On July 11, 1986 an object crashed near Bakersfield, Ca just north of the Kern River on the southeast side of Saturday Peak, less than a mile from the Richbar Campground. The crash sparked a brushfire that spread over 120 acres. The site was secured by the military for four weeks, during which period an explosive charge was detonated on the site. Secured debris was covered with tarps. Allegedly the craft, which was not flying in restricted airspace, was out of Nellis, and a pilot's name was released as having perished in the crash. Question: with the passage of time, do we now know which model of craft (and serial number) crashed here? Thanks for any response. Tony Craddock ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:09:06 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Bakersfield crash - July 11, 1986 >On July 11, 1986 an object crashed near Bakersfield, Ca ... >Question: with the passage of time, do we now know which model of craft >(and serial number) crashed here? This sounds like Maj. Ross Mulhare's F-117A crash. I don't have the details in front of me, but I have the thick crash report at home. The serial number is well known and I'm sure someone will post it. AW&ST did a story on the crash report right after it came out which gave a glimpse as to how black aircraft are operated over public airspace. I know that several people on this mail list have been out there and picked up pieces of crash debris that were left all over. So, I'll defer to the people who have the serial number handy or who've been there. But I've read the crash report. Yes, I believe it was an F-117A. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 00:11:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: Bakersfield crash - July 11, 1986 I wrote: >The pilot, Major Ross E. Mulhare, 'Bandit 198' (who achieved Bandit status >just six months before the crash, on 11 July, 1986), died in the accident. But meant to say that he achieved Bandit status on January 7, 1986, which was six months before the accident on July 11, 1986. - --- --- 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, 11 Apr 1998 00:11:04 EDT From: CatshotKim Subject: C-5C &Hubble The Air Force required security for the Hubble delivery flight because the shipping case was the same one used for certain spy satellites like the KH-11 & -12. It was felt that views of the case would give away some details of the configuration of those "black birds". Of course, just knowing that Hubble fit in the case gives away something, doesn't it? Kim Keller ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 03:38:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: Bakersfield crash - July 11, 1986 This post was apparently lost somehow, so here is a (corrected) repost: Larry Smith already answered Tony Craddock with: >>On July 11, 1986 an object crashed near Bakersfield, Ca ... >>Question: with the passage of time, do we now know which model of craft >>(and serial number) crashed here? >This sounds like Maj. Ross Mulhare's F-117A crash. I don't have the details >in front of me, but I have the thick crash report at home. The serial >number is well known and I'm sure someone will post it. AW&ST did a >story on the crash report right after it came out which gave a glimpse >as to how black aircraft are operated over public airspace. I know that >several people on this mail list have been out there and picked up >pieces of crash debris that were left all over. So, I'll defer to the >people who have the serial number handy or who've been there. But I've >read the crash report. Yes, I believe it was an F-117A. The aircraft was F-117A '792', the 13th F-117 and the 8th production F-117A built (but the 7th accepted by the USAF), and also the 1st of the 3rd lot. Its serial number (if one was assigned at the time of the accident) was most likely '81-10792'. The pilot, Major Ross E. Mulhare, 'Bandit 198' (who achieved Bandit status just six months before the crash, on January 7, 1986), died in the accident. He was at the time assigned to the 4450th TS (Test Squadron) 'Nightstalkers' (originally known as 'I-Unit') of the 4450th TG (Test Group) (or 'A-Unit'), based at TTR (Tonopah Test Range) and used the call sign 'ARIEL 31' during that routine night training flight. There is actual a small, lonely memorial dedicated to him near the crash site. The cover story, that the crash recovery team cleaned the site up, and then scattered the remains of a derelict McDonnell Douglas F-101B Voodoo from Nellis (or Tonopah, or Groom Lake), at that site instead, to confuse anyone who might have ventures there, is obviously not true. Several fragments that were recovered by Peter Merlin from the crash site are definitively from an F-117A, and no F-101 parts could be located. I don't know exactly how and from where, but one should be able to get the crash investigation report via a FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) request from the USAF. Real conspiracy buffs would argue the F-117A remains were scattered there for deception, to hide what secret vehicle had really crashed there, but I wouldn't go so far... :) - -- 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, 11 Apr 1998 04:48:26 -0500 (CDT) From: jaz5@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: Bakersfield crash - July 11, 1986 >On July 11, 1986 an object crashed near Bakersfield, Ca just north of the >Kern River on the southeast side of Saturday Peak, less than a mile from >the Richbar Campground. > I don't have the details, but I believe the cause was alledged to be the aircraft flew into the mountain because the pilot wasn't aware the ground level was increasing. JZ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 03:14:37 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Bakersfield crash - July 11, 1986 The report indicates he was totally unaware he was in a dive. This was found to be a reoccuring problem with the early program, possibly a result of their day/night training schedules. The pilots were admonished to continually check their normal gauges (attitude and altimeter) while reading other data off of the video screen's as spatial disorientation was sometimes setting in unexpectedly. Mulhare was confident he was in level flight at a higher when in fact, sadly, he flew his plane into the ground. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #23 ******************************** 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