From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #41 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Monday, August 3 1998 Volume 07 : Number 041 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: More on B-2 Stealth bomber as antigravity craft Re: More on B-2 Stealth bomber as antigravity craft Re: F-117A Re: F-117A Re: Simple Answer to Simple question Needed; & F-18 More on B-2 Stealth bomber as antigravity craft [Fwd: [Fwd: Simple Answer/Question SR-71 & F-18]] [Fwd: SR-71 Notes] Re: F-117A [Fwd: SR-71] Re: F-117 designation Re: Simple Answer to Simple question Needed; & F-18 Re: Simple Answer to Simple question Needed; & F-18 Fw: Re: Simple Answer to Simple question Needed; & F-18 [Fwd: SR-71] *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 18:32:40 -0700 From: G&G Subject: Re: More on B-2 Stealth bomber as antigravity craft Wei-Jen Su wrote: > > > Source: Richard Boylan, Ph.D. > > Where he got his Ph.D. from? What field? > I'd say he has a "B.S." in an electromagnetic "field". (probably from living under high-tension power lines..) Greg Fieser ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 20:11:08 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: More on B-2 Stealth bomber as antigravity craft At 11:39 PM 7/31/98 -0700, you wrote: >Source: Richard Boylan, Ph.D. >I have also heard, and deduced for myself after inspecting a >Stealth F-117A fighter at Beale Air Force Base, that the F-117A >_also_ has hybrid propulsion and lift technologies, utilizing >conventional thrust for public take-offs and landings, but >switching to antigravity mode for extended cruising range, for >lightning-fast maneuverability, and for shrouding the airframe >in invisibility (by having its local counter-gravity field bend >light around the airframe). The notorious extremely-unstable >lift and forward-motion of the F-117A is merely temporary, >until it moves into antigravity mode, where independent field >propulsion provides stability. {Unfortunately for the pilot who >went down in an air show over Maryland, his Stealth fighter was >in conventional jet- thrust mode at the time.) > > Well......I have seen photos of the inside of the cockpit of a 117, I have even seen the inside of the 117 and have taken my own photographs of the cockpit. There are absolutely no indications of anything out of the ordinary as far as propulsion/flight control systems as Boylan implies. Either I was viewing a non Warp engined version or they had a secret panel which opens up somewhere in the cockpit revealing the controls to the Warp drives. The reason the 117 went down as it did in Baltimore is the plane does not stall in the classic nose down attitude. It instead drops flatly in a fluttering motion which is unrecoverable by the pilot. This is what happened in Baltimore when the pilot lost his airspeed. And to his credit he did not exit the aircraft until after he determined the plane was uncontrollable. USAF regulations are available to the public which discuss security of parked aircraft. Low and behold in there is a paragraph discussing the F-117. It states that two armed guards are to be placed around the plane with a 10 foot perimeter rope. And the reason is....the reason is....."it is a touch sensitive airplane". They just don't want you dragging your car key across the RAM covering!!! Wait a minute. You guys are more of those "UFO wacko's" aren't you. Answer me this. I think my cat is an alien UAV of sorts. He just walks around staring at everything. And when he does his tail is always straight up in the air. It eerily causes me to think the tail is possibly an antenna. What does Boylan know about this? Please get back to me with any info in a private e-mail. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net There are only two elements in the universe that are common to everything. Hydrogen and Stupidity. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 01:03:10 EDT From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: Re: F-117A Ryan kirk writes, incorrectly, that the F-117A was not on display at the Edwards AFB airshow. In fact, two of the m are always on display at the Edwards airshow, after the flight demonstration. This past year, the aerial demo consisted of a three-ship formation. One returned to Palmdale, and the other two landed, and were put on static diplay behind the single-rope crowd barrier adjacent to the taxiway. Security guards were present, as always. The pilots answered questions and signed autographs. The ground crew demonstrated weapons loading. As far as getting a close look at the F-117A, many of the airshows provide that opportunity with a static display. Some include a work stand for photographers to get a good view of the exhaust section. There is also a pre- production F-117 at the USAF museum, with its weapons bay open, and no special security precautions. For the hardcore F-117A inspector wannabe, the Air Force has sold at least one crash-damaged F-117A airframe (82-0801) for scrap, RAM included. Peter W. Merlin ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 23:27:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: F-117A On Sun, 2 Aug 1998 Xelex@aol.com wrote: > security precautions. For the hardcore F-117A inspector wannabe, the Air > Force has sold at least one crash-damaged F-117A airframe (82-0801) for scrap, > RAM included. Really?!?! To whom? I want to buy some... Just to cover the RAM to my car... At least the RAM was proof to be working during the Gulf War ;) May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu Self-realization. The immortal words of Socrates, when he said "I drank what?" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 23:43:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: Simple Answer to Simple question Needed; & F-18 On Sat, 1 Aug 1998 ryankirk@juno.com wrote: > And as far as maneuverability is concerned, the F-18 is more > maneuverable than an F-16 because it doesn't have an alpha limiter, > meaning that it can pitch its nose up higher -- without stalling -- in > order to fly slower. This is especially important for when the pilot > gets stuck in a rolling dogfight, which is not a really good situation to > be in, but if you find yourself in that situation then you want the > slower plane because the slower plane wins a rolling dogfight The F-16 > can acccelerate faster but it is not even as maneuverable as the F-18 > because of this, and other reasons which I don't really understand > because I'm not an engineer or a pilot. For example, the F-18 can do a > *square* loop -- A loop, except it has right angles, and the corners are > just a little rounded. This is possible mainly due to the fact that the > F-18 can fly slower than the F-16. So, price? Fuel? I'm not sure about I think what you or he means by saying flying "slower" is that the aircraft can fly at higher angle of attack. I learned this from my performance class but I forgot a lot of it. It is not that to outmaneuver an enemy aircraft during a "roll" you need to have a higher rate of turn? Or it is the tightest turn? Anyone working in A/C Stability and Control? May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu Self-realization. The immortal words of Socrates, when he said "I drank what?" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 08:48:52 +0900 From: "James Matthews" Subject: More on B-2 Stealth bomber as antigravity craft > Retired Air Force Colonel Donald Ware has passed on to me... > ...without refueling. Oh, pleeeeease! Lol, this guys watched ID4 *one* too many times. For one, why would it take off conventionally, when it could 'levitate' off the ground, all the big thing these days is about aircraft that don't need runways etc...and like someone else has corrected it costs $3.6 billion last time I checked. Aviation Week was allowed to fly one of those things, you think they'd fail to mention its anti-gravity capabilities?! (If you need the reference, ask...) On the topic of the B-2, how does that thing fly?! Is it computer-controlled like the X-29, or is it aerodynamically stable? Just curious...being tailless, it seems odd that its naturally stable. But then, they had the XB-49 (am I right?...I'm referring to that old flying wing), and I assume that wasn't controlled by computers :)... James. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 11:27:17 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: [Fwd: [Fwd: Simple Answer/Question SR-71 & F-18]] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------4B8924FFFE7C3677B83842F3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean@primenet.com > Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/8832 Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: http://www.seacoast.com/~jsweet/brotherh/index.html Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) - --------------4B8924FFFE7C3677B83842F3 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from smtp01.primenet.com (daemon@smtp01.primenet.com [206.165.6.131]) by primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA06412 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 17:49:52 -0700 (MST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp01.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA02490 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 17:49:52 -0700 (MST) Received: from mailsorter-105.iap.bryant.webtv.net(207.79.35.95), claiming to be "mailsorter-105.bryant.webtv.net" via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id smtpd002468; Sat Aug 1 17:49:49 1998 Received: from mailtod-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net (mailtod-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net [207.79.35.124]) by mailsorter-105.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.8/ms.gso.08Dec97) with ESMTP id RAA09889; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 17:49:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from production@localhost) by mailtod-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.5/mt.gso.26Feb98) id RAA09556; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 17:49:47 -0700 (PDT) X-WebTV-Signature: 1 ETAtAhRSb5pnU+BLzG0GgVv7gCSaC9zf3gIVAIOiq0BPUUen3Formqmd23QuNR72 From: clummer@webtv.net (Larry Clum) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 19:49:47 -0500 (CDT) To: fortean@primenet.com (Terry W. Colvin) Cc: TLC-Brotherhood@NoPostage.com (TLC Brotherhood) Subject: Re: [Fwd: Simple Answer/Question SR-71 & F-18] Message-ID: <719-35C3B7AB-395@mailtod-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net> Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit MIME-Version: 1.0 (WebTV) Terry... One day at Udorn, we got some SR-71 Recce film...They were flying out of Kadena, Okinawa, starting their run at the southern tip of South Viet Nam and running the entire length of the country, made a right turn and back to Okinawa. We had never seen film like this...You could blow it up and almost see grass blades. Amazing stuff Kodak developed in their secret building in NY, isn't it. Anyway, there were time tics on each frame.....It didn't take a rocket scientist to be able to figure out ground speed by analyzing frame by frame and measuring against maps......Your friend was right. We calculated approx 2490MPH. Bugger could scoot, eh? We also heard from the guys that monitored ChiCom traffic that there were diplimatic protests of overflight by the SR. Seems that it started it's turn a little late a few times and before it completed the turn, it had gone a hundred miles or so into their air space....at those speeds that's about 40 miles a minute....WOW!... I used to watch the SR test flights when I was at 456th at Beale in SAC. ....watched it from the alert shack at the end of the runway....awesome and beautful aircraft. - --------------4B8924FFFE7C3677B83842F3-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 12:41:39 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: [Fwd: SR-71 Notes] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------E12F3FB990A09CCFEA73A6C7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean@primenet.com > Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/8832 Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: http://www.seacoast.com/~jsweet/brotherh/index.html Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) - --------------E12F3FB990A09CCFEA73A6C7 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from smtp01.primenet.com (daemon@smtp01.primenet.com [206.165.6.131]) by primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA26506 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 19:22:14 -0700 (MST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp01.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA20416 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 19:22:11 -0700 (MST) Received: from Lists.NoPostage.com(204.178.64.146) via SMTP by smtp01.primenet.com, id smtpd020364; Sat Aug 1 19:22:02 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by Lists.NoPostage.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA24802 for tlc-brotherhood-list; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 22:26:51 -0400 Received: from imo21.mx.aol.com (imo21.mx.aol.com [198.81.17.65]) by Lists.NoPostage.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA24797 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 22:26:50 -0400 From: JimmieTLC@aol.com Received: from JimmieTLC@aol.com by imo21.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id FBLTa12330 for ; Sat, 1 Aug 1998 22:14:35 +2000 (EDT) Message-ID: <71a1a62b.35c3cb8f@aol.com> Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 22:14:35 EDT To: TLC-Brotherhood@NoPostage.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: SR-71 Notes Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: MAPI Transport v2.0 Sender: owner-tlc-brotherhood@NoPostage.com Precedence: bulk Hi, Everyone, On Tuesday I'm going to Los Angeles to stay for five days with Wolfpack MiG- killer Ralph Wetterhahn for a few days. On Sunday, 9 Aug, I'll be going to Las Vegas to stay for a couple of days with former SR-71 pilot Terry Pappas. If any of you have access to the Jun 1991 edition of Popular Mechanics, you'll see a NASA Blackbird depicted on the cover. The cover article, NASA Calls the SR-71 Blackbird to Active Duty, was written by Terry. I worked with Terry to help him get his technical information into a format along the lines of the writing techniques I'd learned from my mentor, Paul Gillette. Anyway, Terry's article gives some ideas about what it was like to fly the Blackbird. So, I'll be pretty much away from my e-mail box for a few days after Monday night. Jimmie. - --------------E12F3FB990A09CCFEA73A6C7-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 13:52:35 -0700 From: ryankirk@juno.com Subject: Re: F-117A Wow!... how did I miss that? What time of day is the flight demonstration? Ryan _____________________________________________________________________ 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: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 14:54:17 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: [Fwd: SR-71] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------50F457241BE2282A820FB35B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean@primenet.com > Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/8832 Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: http://www.seacoast.com/~jsweet/brotherh/index.html Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) - --------------50F457241BE2282A820FB35B Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from smtp02.primenet.com (daemon@smtp01.primenet.com [206.165.6.132]) by primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA12013 for ; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 14:48:58 -0700 (MST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp02.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA28283 for ; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 14:48:57 -0700 (MST) Received: from Lists.NoPostage.com(204.178.64.146) via SMTP by smtp02.primenet.com, id smtpd028266; Sun Aug 2 14:48:51 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by Lists.NoPostage.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id RAA27857 for tlc-brotherhood-list; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 17:44:57 -0400 Received: from bdcnt.brooksdata.net (bdcnt.brooksdata.net [207.18.67.130]) by Lists.NoPostage.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA27853 for ; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 17:44:54 -0400 Received: from default ([207.18.67.159]) by bdcnt.brooksdata.net (Netscape Mail Server v2.0) with SMTP id AAA77 for ; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 16:33:47 -0500 Reply-To: "Dan Decker" From: "Dan Decker" To: "TLC Brotherhood" Subject: Re: SR-71 Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 16:31:01 -0500 Message-ID: <01bdbe5c$d8e077e0$9f4312cf@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-tlc-brotherhood@NoPostage.com Precedence: bulk Guys, Before I retired I read an article in Airman magazine about the SR-71. Two things stick in my mind from that article; it gets so hot from high speed through the atmosphere that the crews' astronaut type gloves will get burned if put too close to the canopy, and it gets so hot that at speed it is actually 6 inches longer than it is on the ground. That temperature induced expansion and contraction must really play hell with the electrics/electronics, and hydraulics/pneudraulics systems. Dan Decker 432 AMS, Udorn, 1970 - --------------50F457241BE2282A820FB35B-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 18:37:18 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: F-117 designation At 10:25 PM 3/29/98 -0500, you wrote: >James P. Stevenson wrote (as HTML text, which I converted to pure ASCII text >for easier readability): > >>To all, > >>I have sent the FAX below to a high ranking individual in the Air Force >>who worked on the F-117 program. I have a telephone interview with in the >>near future. > >>If any of you believe that I have left out anything significant, please >>let me know no later than April 5, 1998. > >>Thanks, > >>Jim Stevenson > Any good news regarding your investigations?? patrick patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 98 03:00:36 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Simple Answer to Simple question Needed; & F-18 For Ryan and Terry: The thermal limits include the heat of the fuel, not just the leading edges. Regarding the photos, were they vertical or obliques? Was the camera panning? In any case, ground speed does not equal how fast the a/c can go. I once flew a Grumman Tiger with a good 40 knot+ tailwind, but that doesn't make the Grumman a 200 mph plane. I also got a Cessna 150 to have zero ground speed in a 45 knot headwind at Oakland, but that doesn't mean I'd want to try a vertical landing in it. Not trying to be flippant, but there's usually more than meets the eye involved. Regarding F/A-18 vs. F-16. The Hornet is easier to fly and in the earlier models had a Much better cockpit, probably the finest in the world at the time. The A model Hornet was much more capable than the A model Viper, primarily because of its avionics. However, the workload in the single seat Hornet is often described as intense because of all the things you have to keep track of. With later C/Ds of both models, the Viper has caught up in capability and in some ways surpassed the Hornet (which hurts for an ex-Navy guy to say). The Hornet has better alpha limits and turns better at low speed. On the other hand, the F-16 accelerates faster, rolls better and turns tighter at transonic and supersonic speeds. It's harder to see and it also maintains speed longer. When the Navy Fighter Weapons School had to turn in its Vipers for Hornets (which they've since turned in for F-5Es), one of the comments was that they'd no longer be able to simulate high speed attacks by adversaries. As for the F-14D not being able to take the place of the Super Hornet, lesseee...(keep in mind this is academic since the F-14 production line no longer exists) Compared to the Super Hornet, the Super Tomcat is faster (the F-14 carrying 4 AIM-54s, two AIM-7/120s, two AIM-9s and two 280 gallon tanks is faster than the Hornet is clean), accelerates and decelerates better, turns tighter but doesn't roll as well and has similar alpha limits when DFCS is installed. Its radar sees farther and in fact covers a search volume eight times that of the Hornet. It has infrared search and track which the Hornet doesn't, as well as TV acquisition and track (ditto). Its radar can penetrate ECM which leaves the Hornet's blind. It can retain its tanks in air combat, since they impose not maneuvering limitations, while the Hornet must drop its if it looks like a knife fight is coming. The F-14 also performs better in a multi-bogey furball. It's interesting to note that when the Tomcat is forced out, they intend to replace it with the two seat F/18F even though that model has even less range than the E. Even that model doesn't divide the duties like the Tomcat does. With the Block IV upgrade (canceled to preserve a reason for the Hornet E/F to exist), the F-14D would have been an all-weather strike aircraft of the caliber of the F-15E. The Hornet E/F is only all-weather if you accept a redefinition of all-weather strike. The F-14 has better range/payload. The F-14 can self-designate laser payloads, and even though the Block IV was never done, it can carry USAF's LANTIRN, which is better than the system the Hornet uses. The Tomcat is also a more capable recon platform, even though that capability has been held back for the last 13 years while they try and get the RF-18 to work. Again, though, this is all academic By the way, depending on whose figures you use, developing the Super Hornet took at least five years more and cost 22 times as much as adding all-weather strike to the F-14D would have cost (these are using figures published by Hornet boosters, if you used Tomcat fans' figures, the differences would have been bigger). So tell me, just what is it about the Super Hornet that the F-14D could never take the place of? Art "Bring on JSF" Hanley ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 20:41:16 -0700 From: ryankirk@juno.com Subject: Re: Simple Answer to Simple question Needed; & F-18 I'm in a little over my head... I was just considering the difference in size between the two aircraft and which is better at dogfighting. Not as if that's even as big of an issue these days. Ryan _____________________________________________________________________ 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: Mon, 03 Aug 98 06:31:48 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Fw: Re: Simple Answer to Simple question Needed; & F-18 - --------------------------Forwarded Message------------------------------ On 8/2/98 8:41PM, in message <19980802.210437.7350.4.ryankirk@juno.com>, ryankirk@juno.com wrote: > I'm in a little over my head... I was just considering the difference in > size between the two aircraft and which is better at dogfighting. Not as > if that's even as big of an issue these days. > > Ryan > > Ryan, Don't worry about it. We're all over our heads in most things, anyway. I'll answer your private message tomorrow, I'm going to bed now. FYI, the F-14D will and has consistently fought the F-16 to a draw in close in dogfighting, and the F/A-18E/F is virtually teh same size as the F-14D. ARt ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 05:46:11 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: [Fwd: SR-71] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------80247C9CA3C4D37ECCDF967B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean@primenet.com > Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/8832 Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: http://www.seacoast.com/~jsweet/brotherh/index.html Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) - --------------80247C9CA3C4D37ECCDF967B Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (daemon@smtp01.primenet.com [206.165.6.134]) by primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA25263 for ; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 15:49:11 -0700 (MST) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp04.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA23462 for ; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 15:49:10 -0700 (MST) Received: from Lists.NoPostage.com(204.178.64.146) via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpd023415; Sun Aug 2 15:49:01 1998 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by Lists.NoPostage.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA28105 for tlc-brotherhood-list; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 18:57:54 -0400 Received: from apollo.worx.net (root@apollo.NetWorx.net [204.178.64.136]) by Lists.NoPostage.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA28101 for ; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 18:57:52 -0400 Received: from john-sweet (a132.hylas.seacoast.com [204.178.68.132]) by apollo.worx.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id SAA04148; Sun, 2 Aug 1998 18:03:50 -0400 From: "John & Nancy Sweet" To: , Subject: Re: SR-71 Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 18:46:15 -0400 Message-ID: <01bdbe67$5b4995e0$8444b2cc@john-sweet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-tlc-brotherhood@NoPostage.com Precedence: bulk While catching a hop accross from Beale to Orlando Field to Dover on the way to Boston in Feb 68 I was stuck early in the morning at Orlando Field. Sitting in Base Ops I asked about when something was inbound and headed up the coast. The reply I got was that the only thing headed in was a Blackbird leaving Beale in a few minutes. I walked on over and dropped onto the green couch under the clock....2:15 AM, lit a cigarette and wondered when in hell I would get going. A little less than an hour later.....in walks this Col. dressed in a silver spacesuit with a helmet attached by a wide silver hose under his left arm.....and a big stogie in his mouth. I was stared at him and said "Morning Sir - Where you coming from?" To which he replied "Beale" and walked over to the Ops Dispatcher's Desk. After a few seconds conversation with the dispatcher that I could not hear.....the Col. turned to look over his shoulder at me and noded to the dispatcher. Five minutes later I was being questioned by two OSI guys because I knew that the Col. made the trip in about an hour or so.... That is the only SR71 story I have....but its a good one....and the truth! Regards, John - --------------80247C9CA3C4D37ECCDF967B-- ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #41 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe 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 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