From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #79 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 Sunday, November 29 1998 Volume 07 : Number 079 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Fwd: Text: Feingold Letter to Cohen on F/A-18E/F F-117 Used for Recon? RE: F-117N Re: 'X-Hunters' trek through desert Re: ER-2 record and NASA press release Happy Thanksgiving to All RE: F-117N Re: Fwd: FEINGOLD ASKS PENTAGON TO SUSPEND F/A-18E/F BUYS PENDI Re: U-2 records Re: F-117N Air & Space U-2 Article Northrop Grumman UAV SR-71 license plates Re: F-117N Re: Fwd: FEINGOLD ASKS PENTAGON TO SUSPEND F/A-18E/F BUYS PENDI Aerospike testing facility in Nevada in '60s? Re: F-117N High Flying Aircraft... Re: High Flying Aircraft... Re[2]: High Flying Aircraft... Re: Re[2]: High Flying Aircraft... *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 15:05:45 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Fwd: Text: Feingold Letter to Cohen on F/A-18E/F Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: tchristi@oed-u1.oed.ida.org Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:43:38 -0500 To: Recipient List Suppressed:;;;@ida.org@ida.org; From: Thomas Christie Subject: Text: Feingold Letter to Cohen on F/A-18E/F Inside the Pentagon Text: Feingold Letter to Cohen on F/A-18E/F _______________________________________________ Date: November 26, 1998 - 23 November 1998 The Honorable William S. Cohen Secretary of Defense Department of Defense Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Secretary: In its brief history, the Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft program has suffered a spate of complications. Dating back to the program's genesis, when controversy erupted over whether the Super Hornet is, in fact, a modification of the existing Hornet or a new plane entirely, the program proceeds under a darkening cloud. Most recently, the Super Hornet's program team has had difficulty effectively correcting the program-threatening "wing drop" problem. According to press reports, this problem, which program officials stated before Congress was fixed in March, 1998, has been reduced at the cost of increased buffet. Moreover, the performance penalties of the fix are not fully understood. Since wing drop causes an aircraft to rock back and forth when it is flying at altitudes and speeds at which air-to-air combat maneuvers are expected to occur, I am particularly concerned about the performance of the Super Hornet in maneuvering dogfights. The most troubling aspect of the wing drop dilemma, however, is the apparent failure of Super Hornet program officials to provide superiors at the Department of Defense with timely information on the problem. The attached timeline of events lays out vital decision- making milestones and the circumstances surrounding key program decisions. Also attached is a piece from Franklin C. Spinney in Proceedings, which comments on the similarities in production decisions between the Super Hornet and the ill-fated A-12 aircraft. Finally, I have included Super Hornet program documents that validate my concerns. Note that Mr. Spinney also raises concerns about the agility of the F/A-18E/F. As I'm sure you are aware, Senator Charles Grassley, of Iowa, recently convened a hearing on the absolute necessity of accountability at the Defense Department. The clear message from the hearing was that both DOD and the Congress need to be more accountable for their actions, particularly as they affect national defense. Given the information I have, the Navy's Super Hornet test team has been less than forthright with DOD on a program that could easily end up costing more than $100 billion. Additionally, its apparent failure to provide information in a timely manner may increase program costs by billions of dollars. I have two requests that I ask you to forward to your Inspector General. First, I ask that the Inspector General investigate whether Super Hornet program officials provided the Office of the Secretary of Defense and others with timely information on the aircraft's test flight status, particularly with regard to the wing drop problem. I hope any report from your office will include recommendations for future communication between program officials and your staff members in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Second, I ask that the Inspector General submit a written report you and the Congress certifying that the results of the recently completed OT-IIB flight tests demonstrate: 1) That F/A-18E/F meets all performance specifications; 2) Whether the Super Hornet would have met its maneuvering performance goals stated on Page 6, Paragraph 4.a of the report if they had not been relaxed by Admiral Dennis McGinn in the special clarification letter issued in October, 1997 (attached); 3) That maneuvering performance is equal to or superior to that of the most likely current generation threat aircraft including, but not limited to the SU-27 and Mig-29, as well as the Lot XII F/A-18C/D; and 4) That the operational pilots deem the aircraft's performance to be demonstrably superior, across the board, to the Lot XII C/D in both the fighter escort and interdiction missions, and, if inferior in any aspects to the Lot XIX with enhanced engine performance engine, explain why the E/F is preferred over the Lot XIX, in order to meet the entrance criteria for the OT-IIC operational evaluation, now scheduled for Spring, 1999. Finally, I request that you suspend release of money for the third low-rate initial production lot until the Inspector General completes her investigation and the Super Hornet program officials certify formally that they fully understand the results of the recently- completed OT-IIB flight tests, and the program manager has corrected all maneuvering performance deficiencies identified in the OT-IIB test report prior to the initiation of Operational Evaluation next spring. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Russell D. Feingold United States Senator cc: Inspector General Eleanor Hill Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre _ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 13:29:40 -0800 From: David Lednicer Subject: F-117 Used for Recon? wrote: > I have never heard of any testing done of airborne radar on these > planes. You can bet that the Hughes A-3s were used to measure the airborne radar signature of the F-117. I know that this was done for the B-2. As to the post regarding possible ways to download recon data covertly - this is difficult to do with radio frequency. Almost any transmission produces sidelobes that can be detected. The best covert way would be to use a laser. The US Navy has experimented with communicating with submerged subs via blue/green laser. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (425) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (425) 746-1299 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 08:10:37 +1030 From: Dennis Lapcewich Subject: RE: F-117N > > Despite what you may have read, the Navy actually developed a > carrier-based > Stealth fighter, based on the F-117. I saw it last night on > "JAG". ;>) > > Tom > > Thanks! :( Now you've ruined the suspense for me. The season finale for JAG ended last night here in Australia with Harm and Mac being fired upon in the stolen MIG over Russia. Now that I know they lived, and probably without a scratch, there goes my hot summer wondering if ... :) Tell me though - does the JAG team resurrect the SR-71 as part of a case? Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 16:56:05 -0700 From: ewittig@c2i2.com (Everett E. Wittig, Jr.) Subject: Re: 'X-Hunters' trek through desert Hi, Terry, What's new on your front? Not much on mine, same old same old. Hope you and yours have a nice Thanksgiving - gobble gobble!! ....Ev ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 19:19:50 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: ER-2 record and NASA press release Jay Miller wondered: >The release on this consistently refers to a "Canadian P-42" aircraft as >being the previous record holder. Anyone have any insights on this >mysterious high-performer? NASA's public relations folks must know something >I don't. >I propose the previous record holder to be the Sukhoi P-42; anyone out >there with more accurate info? As I noted before, there is no such record for the ER-2 to break -- because it seems that nobody ever established this particular record before. The P-42 record was established for a different country, to a different altitude, in a different year and in a different class, than the NASA Press Release stated. I also want to mention that I doubt that the U-2/ER-2 can establish any such record in the "N" Class (for STOL aircraft) at all, because that would require start and landing within 500 m (1,640 ft.) without the help of either drag/break chute or arrester gear/cables (even though air breaks and reverse thrust are permitted). The start might not be a problem at all, but a STOL landing does not seem feasible to me. The AP and PRNewswire reports (apparently based on a Lockheed Martin Skunk Works Press Release), that included the two USAF U-2S record claims, made the same errors, even though they identified the previous record holder for the Payload-to-specific-Altitude record claim, the MiG-29, correctly. The NASA record, if verified by the FAI, would establish a new record height for "altitude in sustained horizontal flight without a payload" of 20,939 m (68,700 ft.) in Group 3 of the Sub-Class C-1h. That is a very specific record that only applies to fixed-wing (in opposition to rotary-wing), heavier-than-air, landbased aircraft, powered by at least 1 jet-engine, that have a take-off weight between 12,000 kg and 16,000 kg (26,455 lb. and 35,274 lb.). And even though it is a nice accomplishment, that just doesn't sound as "great" as what the PR people wrote. To put that record into perspective, the absolute altitude record (without payload) in that same sub-class was established by a MiG-29 three and a half years ago, reaching 27,460 m (90,093 ft.) -- 31% (nearly a third) higher. And in the next heavier weight sub-class "C-1i" (16,000 kg to 20,000 kg (35,274 lb. to 44,092 lb.)), the exact same altitude record (sustained horizontal flight without payload) stands since eight and a half years at 21,839 m (71,651 ft.) -- more than 5% higher -- and was established by a Myasishchev M-17 (NATO code 'Mystic A'). I don't want to degrade or minimize the Dragon Lady's accomplishments (and that of all the people involved), but I always get annoyed when I see incorrect, sloppy and/or hyped-up reporting, by people who get paid for doing something that they apparently don't care about, but that I would love to do! Also keep in mind that official world records don't mean too much in respect of actual capabilities. One has just to remember that not one of the famous X-1s, X-2s, or X-15s hold (or held) any official FAI records for speed or altitude. (I know they were all rocket-powered and mostly air-launched, but "rocket-powered" is a Group (4), while "air-launched/dropped" could be easily established as a Category, like air-refueled.) And not only Art will agree with me on the following: The SR-71 could (easily) beat and establish many more specific and absolute speed, altitude and probably even distance world records, if someone would just try. Anyway, I do wonder where the "Canadian" twist came from, in those press releases. - -- 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: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 03:27:58 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: Happy Thanksgiving to All Heres wishing all those on Skunk-Works a Happy and Safe Thanksgiving!! George (a day to sleep) Rachel (still time to study while the turkey is roasting) MR. Tibbs (Turkey?!? Did I hear Turkey...) The Beast (mmm....George is leaving the notebook home...warm naptime!) George, MR. Tibbs & The Beast Kasica West Allis, WI USA http://www.netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 Zz zZ |\ z _,,,---,,_ /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_ |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'_' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Nov 98 21:10:39 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: F-117N On 11/25/98 1:40PM, in message wrote: > Tell me though - does the JAG team resurrect the SR-71 as part of a case? > > Dennis > Yes, however it is used as the world's fastest submarine. Noisy, large thermal signature, but no torpedo can catch it. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Nov 98 21:22:12 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Fwd: FEINGOLD ASKS PENTAGON TO SUSPEND F/A-18E/F BUYS PENDI Thanks to Jim for posting these two interesting reports. I doubt if Feingold will get very far. It was originally DoD that forced the E/F on the Navy and made it clear that the future of Naval Air was the Hornet or Naval Air wouldn't have a future. So, the Navy read the tea leaves and said that if you weren't a Hornet booster you needed to leave the upper strata of Navair. Ever since, the Navy has been feeding back to DoD the kind of data DoD made it clear they wanted fed back to them i.e.: Rule 1: The E/F is performing wonderfully and can perform any mission the Navy needs to do. Rule 2: If the E/F has any performance problems or can't do the mission, see Rule 1. Art ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Nov 98 21:32:52 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: U-2 records Like Chris says, I've accepted the inevitable, I just hope the UAV people don't kill the Dragon Lady. The Blackbird routinely flew over 83,000 ft. Its payload was on the order of something over 8,000 lbs. A large portion of that was its unique DEF (DEFensive electronics) package which did not have to be carried on every flight. The DEF is still probably the most classified part of the Blackbird's capability. Art ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Nov 98 21:45:44 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F-117N There were actually about three versions (some of which carried an "X" suffix) that made it to a detailed stage ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 16:00:35 -0800 From: G&G Subject: Air & Space U-2 Article Smithsonian's Air & Space Dec98/Jan99 issue features the U-2 "spyplane. Several color photographs, and a nice photo of the Type B film camera... Greg - -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% %% %% Reality is for People Who %% %% Can't Handle Simulation %% %% %% %% habu@cyberramp.net %% %% gdfieser@hti.com %% %% %% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 13:32:08 +0100 From: "Stefan Dornbusch" Subject: Northrop Grumman UAV There's a picture of a UAV concept on the Northrop Grumman website - similar to a B-2 of course: http://www.northgrum.com/masd/ams_home.htm ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 08:53:16 -0800 From: G&G Subject: SR-71 license plates In an effort to help raise funds for the new Dulles exhibit (which will house #972) the National Air and Space Museum is offering a special auto license plate depicting an SR-71. It appears you may have to be a resident of the state of Virginia to apply for one, although I did notice they offered a "sample plate" not for use on a motor vehicle. See: http://www.nasm.edu/NASMDOCS/NASS/license.htm Greg %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% %% %% Reality is for People Who %% %% Can't Handle Simulation %% %% %% %% habu@cyberramp.net %% %% gdfieser@hti.com %% %% %% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 09:19:48 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: F-117N Art, Three versions of what? JIm >There were actually about three versions (some of which carried an "X" >suffix) >that made it to a detailed stage ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 09:18:29 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Fwd: FEINGOLD ASKS PENTAGON TO SUSPEND F/A-18E/F BUYS PENDI Art, Not sure your assumption "It was originally DoD that forced the E/F on the Navy and made it clear that the future of Naval Air was the Hornet or Naval Air wouldn't have a future" is correct. I believe it was the Navy, specifically Jeremy "Bear" Taylor's group that made that conclusion. Jim >Thanks to Jim for posting these two interesting reports. > > I doubt if Feingold will get very far. It was originally DoD that >forced the >E/F on the Navy and made it clear that the future of Naval Air was the >Hornet or >Naval Air wouldn't have a future. So, the Navy read the tea leaves and >said that >if you weren't a Hornet booster you needed to leave the upper strata of >Navair. >Ever since, the Navy has been feeding back to DoD the kind of data DoD >made it >clear they wanted fed back to them i.e.: > > > Rule 1: The E/F is performing wonderfully and can perform any >mission the >Navy needs to do. > > Rule 2: If the E/F has any performance problems or can't do the >mission, see >Rule 1. > > > Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 12:26:11 -0700 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Aerospike testing facility in Nevada in '60s? In http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/x-33/aero_faq.htm we read, - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---------------------------------------- " The following information comes from an article 'Nozzle Design' by R. A. O'Leary and James E. Bech in the Spring 1992 (No. 8) issue of Rocketdyne's *Threshold* magazine (call (818) 586-2380/2771 or write to Rockwell Aerospace/ Rocketdyne Division, 6633 Canoga Avenue, Mail Code AB57, Canoga Park, CA, USA, 91304-7922 to get a copy). "The article 'Nozzle Design' states 'During the 1960's, Rocketdyne tested numerous aerospike engines, ranging in size from subscale, cold-flow models to this 250,000-pound-thrust oxygen/hydrogen shown at a test stand in Nevada (picture of engine firing).' " - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---------------------------------------- Anybody here know where in Nevada this test stand was? Skunk Works hook: A oxygen/hydrogen linear aerospike engine is to power the Skunk Work's X-33 technology demonstrator and follow-on Venture Star single-stage-to-orbit vehicle. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 14:45:17 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: F-117N > Art, > > Three versions of what? The F-117 Nighthawk. The F-117A, F-117N and F-117X, if I recall correctly. > > JIm > > >There were actually about three versions (some of which carried an "X" > >suffix) > >that made it to a detailed stage > > Sam ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Nov 1998 22:11:03 EST From: kc7vdg@juno.com (K. Rudolph) Subject: High Flying Aircraft... I couldn't find a reference to my posting this earlier, so I may have forgotten to. Last Friday, a week before yesterday, while traveling throught Palmdale, on HWY14 south, I heard on 128.225 MHz, an aircraft report its altitude as 140,500 feet. Does anybody know what this may have been? 140,500 seems pretty high. Kurt Amateur Radio Stations KC7VDG/KQ6NG Monitor Station Registry KCA6ABB Based In Nevada, United States Of America ___________________________________________________________________ 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/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 18:44:21 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: High Flying Aircraft... > I couldn't find a reference to my posting this earlier, so I may have > forgotten to. > > Last Friday, a week before yesterday, while traveling throught Palmdale, > on HWY14 south, I heard on 128.225 MHz, an aircraft report its altitude > as 140,500 feet. Does anybody know what this may have been? 140,500 > seems pretty high. Could you please provide some more details? How did the aircraft report their altitude? FL? feet? meters? Did the crew use military or civilian lingo? Did they report their position or air speed? What was the local time and date when you heard this transmission (do I presume correctly that the date was 11/20/98)? After a very brief and sloppy search on the net, I sound a site which claims 128.225MHz is CLE ATC, can anyone confirm this? http://www.li.net/~j4dice/frequencies/NewYork/buffalo.html Finally, I'd like to ask a question, assuming 128.225MHz is an ATC frequency, what is an aircraft flying at 140,500 feet doing reporting to ATC??? Aircraft flying at altitudes greater than 60,000 feet do not report to ATC (please correct me if I'm wrong). If this aircraft was in fact flying at 140,500 feet then I would think it would be a military plane (most likely the result of a classified project) and would not use insecure ATC frequencies under any circumstances. Sam > > Kurt > > Amateur Radio Stations KC7VDG/KQ6NG > Monitor Station Registry KCA6ABB > Based In Nevada, United States Of America > > ___________________________________________________________________ > 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/getjuno.html > or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Nov 98 20:06:31 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re[2]: High Flying Aircraft... Don't the standard ATC radar screens 'filter out' a/c flying higher than 60K? I thought we talked about that once (or twice) before. Actually, I was thinking that the Space Shuttle would be at about that altitude, if they were landing at Edwards, but I don't think any of them were up at that time. Don't think any have flown since John Glenn landed... Could an air-breather run that high? Or would it have to switch to ramjet or something? Greg W. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: High Flying Aircraft... Author: at INTERNET Date: 11/29/98 6:44 PM > I couldn't find a reference to my posting this earlier, so I may have > forgotten to. > > Last Friday, a week before yesterday, while traveling throught Palmdale, > on HWY14 south, I heard on 128.225 MHz, an aircraft report its altitude > as 140,500 feet. Does anybody know what this may have been? 140,500 > seems pretty high. Could you please provide some more details? How did the aircraft report their altitude? FL? feet? meters? Did the crew use military or civilian lingo? Did they report their position or air speed? What was the local time and date when you heard this transmission (do I presume correctly that the date was 11/20/98)? After a very brief and sloppy search on the net, I sound a site which claims 128.225MHz is CLE ATC, can anyone confirm this? http://www.li.net/~j4dice/frequencies/NewYork/buffalo.html Finally, I'd like to ask a question, assuming 128.225MHz is an ATC frequency, what is an aircraft flying at 140,500 feet doing reporting to ATC??? Aircraft flying at altitudes greater than 60,000 feet do not report to ATC (please correct me if I'm wrong). If this aircraft was in fact flying at 140,500 feet then I would think it would be a military plane (most likely the result of a classified project) and would not use insecure ATC frequencies under any circumstances. Sam > > Kurt > > Amateur Radio Stations KC7VDG/KQ6NG > Monitor Station Registry KCA6ABB > Based In Nevada, United States Of America > > ___________________________________________________________________ > 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/getjuno.html > or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 21:21:21 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Re[2]: High Flying Aircraft... Ok, I think I'll stick my foot in my mouth again... > Don't the standard ATC radar screens 'filter out' a/c flying higher > than 60K? I thought we talked about that once (or twice) before. Yeah, I think we're both right. > > Actually, I was thinking that the Space Shuttle would be at about that > altitude, if they were landing at Edwards, but I don't think any of > them were up at that time. Don't think any have flown since John > Glenn landed... I haven't heard of any shuttle flights since then either. > > Could an air-breather run that high? Or would it have to switch to Using conventional technology that I am aware of, the answer is absolutely not. > ramjet or something? I am almost positive you'd need a ramjet or rocket engine for altitudes greater than 100,000ft. As far as I know, there is insufficient oxygen at those altitudes for an air-breather to run on. I suspect the number given (140,500ft.) in the original post is simply incorrect. Perhaps they used FL's and there was some confusion because of that. As far as I know, ATC uses Flight Levels exclusively. Is this not true? Anyone have any details on this ft. vs. FL's? > > Greg W. > Sam > > ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ > Subject: Re: High Flying Aircraft... > Author: at INTERNET > Date: 11/29/98 6:44 PM > > > > I couldn't find a reference to my posting this earlier, so I may have > > forgotten to. > > > > Last Friday, a week before yesterday, while traveling throught Palmdale, > > on HWY14 south, I heard on 128.225 MHz, an aircraft report its altitude > > as 140,500 feet. Does anybody know what this may have been? 140,500 > > seems pretty high. > > Could you please provide some more details? > How did the aircraft report their altitude? FL? feet? meters? > Did the crew use military or civilian lingo? > Did they report their position or air speed? > What was the local time and date when you heard this transmission (do I presume > correctly that the date was 11/20/98)? > > After a very brief and sloppy search on the net, I sound a site which claims > 128.225MHz is CLE ATC, can anyone confirm this? > > http://www.li.net/~j4dice/frequencies/NewYork/buffalo.html > > > Finally, I'd like to ask a question, assuming 128.225MHz is an ATC frequency, > what is an aircraft flying at 140,500 feet doing reporting to ATC??? Aircraft > flying at altitudes greater than 60,000 feet do not report to ATC (please > correct me if I'm wrong). If this aircraft was in fact flying at 140,500 feet > then I would think it would be a military plane (most likely the result of a > classified project) and would not use insecure ATC frequencies under any > circumstances. > > Sam > > > > > Kurt > > > > Amateur Radio Stations KC7VDG/KQ6NG > > Monitor Station Registry KCA6ABB > > Based In Nevada, United States Of America > > > > ___________________________________________________________________ > > 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/getjuno.html > > or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] > > > ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #79 ******************************** 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