From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #93 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 Thursday, December 24 1998 Volume 07 : Number 093 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Air Force Plants Re: Air Force Plants Re: Air Force Plants threatcons Re: threatcons Re: threatcons Re: threatcons Air Force Plants Re: threatcons Re: threatcons Re: Air Force Plants FWD: (IUFO) ORBIT - RADAR ANOMALIES RE: threatcons NORAD RE: NORAD Re: NORAD Re: NORAD AFNEWS flash Re: AFNEWS flash RE: AFNEWS flash Re: AFNEWS flash Re: Air Force Plants Defence Plants Re: AFNEWS flash Re: AFNEWS flash *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 22:39:13 -0800 From: G&G Subject: Re: Air Force Plants Jeff Clark wrote: > > Plant ?, Fort Worth TX which is the Lockheed/General Dynamics > F-16 / F-111 plant LMTAS is AF Plant #4, adjacent to Carswell JRB in Fort Worth, TX... Greg %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% %% %% Reality is for People Who %% %% Can't Handle Simulation %% %% %% %% habu@cyberramp.net %% %% gdfieser@hti.com %% %% %% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 23:55:19 EST From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: Re: Air Force Plants Jeff Clark asks: Are there more? Is every defense contractor assigned a plant number? I have seen many of them in the Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) listing. I'm not entirely sure that there is (or ever was) a complete sequence. (i.e. Just because ther is a Plant 42 doesn't necessarily imply that there is a Plant 41, for example.) On some maps, I have seen A. F. Plant 72, northeast of Boron. Ther are no buildings, paved roads, or runways, but the area is posted with signs declaring: RESTRICTED AREA THREATCON BRAVO EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT AREA U.S. GOVERNMENT INSPECTOR PATROLLED 24 HOURS 7 DAYS A WEEK NO SMOKING In 1984, a B-1A crashed just east of there while working in the Cordes Road low-altitude test corridor. Peter W. Merlin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 21:18:19 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Air Force Plants At 11:55 PM 12/21/98 EST, Peter Merlin wrote: > >On some maps, I have seen A. F. Plant 72, northeast of Boron. Ther are no >buildings, paved roads, or runways, but the area is posted with signs >declaring: > > >THREATCON BRAVO > Peter is this a for real designation? It sounds like something made up in Hollywood. And isn't it a category of defensive posture? I have heard of AF bases being classified at Security Level 1, 2, or 3. And even then the areas inside the base also have different levels. And finally they have different levels of overall alertness. But Threatcon Bravo??? Please confirm, over. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 02:26:54 EST From: MSU94@aol.com Subject: threatcons - -Peter is this a for real designation? It sounds like something made up in- - -Hollywood. And isn't it a category of defensive posture? I have heard of- - -AF bases being classified at Security Level 1, 2, or 3. And even then the - -areas inside the base also have different levels. And finally they have - -different levels of overall alertness. But Threatcon Bravo??? Please - -confirm, over. - - - -patrick Threatcon levels is how the air force designates their threat conditions. I believe Alpha is highest, and Bravo under that. During conflict, most all air force facilities at least go to Bravo. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Dec 98 09:03:23 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re: threatcons Just for a reference point, Shaw AFB outside Columbia,SC has been at Threatcon Alpha for at least 4 weeks! Probably since the President called off the forces of good in November..... And they have fairly strict security there, ALWAYS! Visitors cannot enter the base without a visitor's pass taped to the windsheild in plain view (above the driver's face is where they prefer), base personnel must notify security of a visitor, their purpose and their destination, how long they expect to stay (over 3 hours requires further measures) and they run your driver's license AND registration through NCIC before you enter the base! Greg W ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: threatcons Author: at INTERNET Date: 12/22/98 2:26 AM - -Peter is this a for real designation? It sounds like something made up in- - -Hollywood. And isn't it a category of defensive posture? I have heard of- - -AF bases being classified at Security Level 1, 2, or 3. And even then the - -areas inside the base also have different levels. And finally they have - -different levels of overall alertness. But Threatcon Bravo??? Please - -confirm, over. - - - -patrick Threatcon levels is how the air force designates their threat conditions. I believe Alpha is highest, and Bravo under that. During conflict, most all air force facilities at least go to Bravo. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 11:19:33 EST From: kc7vdg@juno.com (K. Rudolph) Subject: Re: threatcons I imagine to a bystander at an Aircraft test facility where bomber are falling out of the sky, you could consider the whole area THREATCON BRAVO. I suppose you could consider under your cars hood threatcon ALPHA if you stick your head in the fan. It may apply to the personal danger at the site, not the condition of the country at the moment. Kurt Amateur Radio Stations KC7VDG/KK7RC Monitor Station Registry KCA6ABB Based In Nevada, United States Of America In use: Kenwood: TM-251A/E, TS-570d, Yaesu: FT-8100R, FT-2500M, FT50rd, Realistic: DX-394, Icom: IC-706MKII, Uniden: BC-200xlt, BC-760xlt, Whistler: CO403DC scanning video reciever 55-806 MHz On Tue, 22 Dec 1998 02:26:54 EST MSU94@aol.com writes: >-Peter is this a for real designation? It sounds like something made >up in- >-Hollywood. And isn't it a category of defensive posture? I have >heard of- >-AF bases being classified at Security Level 1, 2, or 3. And even >then the >-areas inside the base also have different levels. And finally they >have >-different levels of overall alertness. But Threatcon Bravo??? >Please >-confirm, over. >- >-patrick > >Threatcon levels is how the air force designates their threat >conditions. >I believe Alpha is highest, and Bravo under that. During conflict, >most all >air force >facilities at least go to Bravo. > ___________________________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 09:30:01 -0700 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: threatcons Apparently ALPHA is the lowest threatcon and they go up at least through CHARLIE, which seems to be very threatening indeed. See http://www.af.mil/current/Khobar/partiiic.htm and http://www.wpafb.af.mil/sfs/alphax.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 12:22:53 -0800 From: Duane Schulke Subject: Air Force Plants To Whom it May Concern: Air Force Plant # 6 is leased by the Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems Company, for manufacturing F-22As and the C-130J. It's located at Dobbins NAS/ARB, Marietta, GA. Schulk - -- - ----------------------------------------- F-22 Name: Duane (Schulk) Schulke \ / Ramblin Wrek fm GA Tech & Zoomie Engineer _____-/\-_____ E-mail: hulk@gelac.mar.lmco.com \_\/_/ - ----------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 12:38:38 EST From: kc7vdg@juno.com (K. Rudolph) Subject: Re: threatcons Shows what I know! Kurt Amateur Radio Stations KC7VDG/KK7RC Monitor Station Registry KCA6ABB Based In Nevada, United States Of America In use: Kenwood: TM-251A/E, TS-570d, Yaesu: FT-8100R, FT-2500M, FT50rd, Realistic: DX-394, Icom: IC-706MKII, Uniden: BC-200xlt, BC-760xlt, Whistler: CO403DC scanning video reciever 55-806 MHz On Tue, 22 Dec 1998 09:30:01 -0700 "Allen Thomson" writes: >Apparently ALPHA is the lowest threatcon and they go up at least >through >CHARLIE, >which seems to be very threatening indeed. See > >http://www.af.mil/current/Khobar/partiiic.htm > >and > >http://www.wpafb.af.mil/sfs/alphax.htm > > ___________________________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 11:58:30 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: threatcons At 12:38 PM 12/22/98 EST, you wrote: >Shows what I know! > Same here. I worked at a base for year as a civilian and never heard the term before. It was supposedly a Class 3 base as I was told (the highest) due to s Space Surveillance squadron located there. But access to the base was almost totally open and once on the base one could drive legally anywhere except onto the flightline. Even past the SS squadron and all their equipment in the parking lot. The flightline was declared the highest security level possible but again one could drive down several roads thru open ungated breaks in the perimeter onto the runway or past the hangers. In fact a crazy lady in a VW supposedly chased some planes around on taxiway once. Oh well, you learn something new everyday...... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 00:59:40 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: Air Force Plants At 10:54 PM 12/20/98 -0500, you wrote: >Hi, > >I was wondering, is there a list of US Air Force Plant sites? > >I mean, everyone knows about Plant 42 in Palmdale. Where >are the other 41? > >Are there more? Is every defense contractor assigned a plant number? > > >Jeff Clark > - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Did a little web looking to-day and found these Air Force Plant locations Still looking for several others that I know existed at one time, like the C-46 plant here in Louisville Ky.. - --------------------------------------------------------------- Air Force Plant 3 - Tulsa OK built B-47,s Plant 4, Fort Worth TX which is the Lockheed/General Dynamics F-16 / F-111 plant Air Force Plant 6: Marietta, Georgia DCMC Lockheed Martin Plant 19, San Diego CA which is where a large part of Atlas rockets are made. Air Force Plant 36: Reading, Ohio General Electric (Evendale ?) Plant 42, Palmdale CA which has sections named Plant 10, Site 6, Site 7, and Site 8 Air Force Plant 44: Tucson, Arizona Raytheon Missile Systems Company Air Force Plant 59: Binghampton, New York Lockheed Ex-GE aircraft controls plant Air Force Plant 70 -Aerojet Corporation SACRAMENTO CA. Plant 74, West Palm Beach FL which is a few buildings at Pratt & Whitney's Florida center AIR FORCE PLANT NO. 78, BRIGHAM CITY, UTAH. Air Force Plant PJKS. Littleton, Colorado Jefferson County. Lockheed Martin, known as the Waterton Plant. assembly of Titan missile systems. AIR FORCE PLANT 85, COLUMBUS, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO Curtiss-Wright Corp. until 1950 North American Aviation(Rockwell International) McDonnell-Douglas Now Private industy http://www.ascem.wpafb.af.mil/plants.htm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 19:04:51 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD: (IUFO) ORBIT - RADAR ANOMALIES ORBIT - RADAR ANOMALIES: 1. DATA AND DISCUSSIONS: ORBIT: Crop Circles in the Sky: < http://members.aol.com/phikent/orbit/orbitback13.html > 2. ORBIT POSITION: With radar anomalies it is our position is to do a simple watch, advancing no theory. The radar anomalies have prompted us to look elsewhere for parallel events, the subsequent weather, the influence of solar activity, ELF monitoring, and likewise to look into various ionosphere heating projects such as HAARP, EISCAT, HISCAT, Arecibo; additional projects such as Sanquine, GWEN, accelerators (Fermilab, Triumf, CERN), even quake activities over regions such as China Lake, etc. 3. A SAMPLE OF AREAS OF ONGOING DEBATE : < http://www.cbjd.net/orbit/text/radr.txt > Clip: The heater frequency is at 6.77 MHz. The experiments at EISCAT are dated as 1992. Would this create almost instantaneous shifting that is seen in the radar imaging within the ORBIT website? Kent Steadman - -- 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) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 08:58:38 -0000 From: P Gavin Subject: RE: threatcons From what I've read on USAF web sites, the Threatcon concerns the "external" environment to an operational facility e.g. accommodation. Is it legal for me to describe the UK's system on the list? Gavin > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com > [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of patrick > Sent: 22 December 1998 19:59 > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: Re: threatcons > > > At 12:38 PM 12/22/98 EST, you wrote: > > >Shows what I know! > > > Same here. I worked at a base for year as a civilian and > never heard the > term before. It was supposedly a Class 3 base as I was told > (the highest) > due to s Space Surveillance squadron located there. But > access to the base > was almost totally open and once on the base one could drive legally > anywhere except onto the flightline. Even past the SS > squadron and all > their equipment in the parking lot. > > The flightline was declared the highest security level > possible but again > one could drive down several roads thru open ungated breaks in the > perimeter onto the runway or past the hangers. In fact a > crazy lady in a > VW supposedly chased some planes around on taxiway once. > > Oh well, you learn something new everyday...... > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 08:35:28 -0800 From: ehoel@esri.com Subject: NORAD While visiting the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) web site, I learned the following startling information: - - Santa functions in a different time and space continuum, - - Santa will consume approximately 60,000 tons of cookies tomorrow night (for reference, the HMS Titanic weighs 45,000 tons, and the USS Nimitz [nuclear aircraft carrier] weights 90,000 tons), - - Santa will drink 375,000,000 pints of milk, - - Santa will consume 24,750,000,000 grams of fat, - - Santa's protein intake will be the equivalent of 571-857 million frozen dinners, and - - Santa's sleigh will carry a payload of 60,000 tons (presents) + 260 lbs. (Santa). For real-time tracking, and other very cool stuff, visit the friendly folks buried in the heart of Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado: http://www.noradsanta.org/english/ Erik - -- Erik Hoel mailto:ehoel@esri.com Environmental Systems Research Institute http://www.esri.com 380 New York Street 909-793-2853 (x1-1548) tel Redlands, CA 92373-8100 909-307-3067 fax ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 11:53:17 -0500 From: "Frank Markus" Subject: RE: NORAD Tiny pedantic note: Titanic was not a warship (His or Her Majesty's Ship) but, rather, a Royal Mail Ship. Therefore, she was properly known as the R.M.S. Titanic. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 09:00:07 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: NORAD At 08:35 AM 12/23/98 -0800, you wrote: >While visiting the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) web >site, I learned the following startling information: > >- Santa functions in a different time and space continuum, >- Santa will consume approximately 60,000 tons of cookies tomorrow > night (for reference, the HMS Titanic weighs 45,000 tons, and the > USS Nimitz [nuclear aircraft carrier] weights 90,000 tons), >- Santa will drink 375,000,000 pints of milk, >- Santa will consume 24,750,000,000 grams of fat, >- Santa's protein intake will be the equivalent of 571-857 million > frozen dinners, and >- Santa's sleigh will carry a payload of 60,000 tons (presents) + > 260 lbs. (Santa). > Oh those poor, poor reindeer. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Dec 98 12:12:24 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re: NORAD Cool! Santa must have one heck of a diet program!! NORAD huh? I knew those guys must be fairly bored these days, but I didn't realize HOW bored! Greg W. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: NORAD Author: at INTERNET Date: 12/23/98 8:35 AM While visiting the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) web site, I learned the following startling information: - - Santa functions in a different time and space continuum, - - Santa will consume approximately 60,000 tons of cookies tomorrow night (for reference, the HMS Titanic weighs 45,000 tons, and the USS Nimitz [nuclear aircraft carrier] weights 90,000 tons), - - Santa will drink 375,000,000 pints of milk, - - Santa will consume 24,750,000,000 grams of fat, - - Santa's protein intake will be the equivalent of 571-857 million frozen dinners, and - - Santa's sleigh will carry a payload of 60,000 tons (presents) + 260 lbs. (Santa). For real-time tracking, and other very cool stuff, visit the friendly folks buried in the heart of Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado: http://www.noradsanta.org/english/ Erik - -- Erik Hoel mailto:ehoel@esri.com Environmental Systems Research Institute http://www.esri.com 380 New York Street 909-793-2853 (x1-1548) tel Redlands, CA 92373-8100 909-307-3067 fax ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 21:59:49 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: AFNEWS flash "Borrowed" from todays AFNEWS - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 981999. U-2 pilot shatters world record by Senior Airman Kati Garcia 9th Reconnaissance Wing Public Affairs BEALE AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFPN) -- A pilot from the 1st Reconnaissance Squadron shattered a 19-year old world record Dec. 12 when he flew his U-2 and payload to an altitude of more than 12 and a half miles above the Earth's surface. At 11:16 a.m. PST, Maj. Alan Zwick, a U-2 instructor pilot, landed the aircraft, and with it a spot in the world record books. The previous record, held by a Czechoslovakian pilot flying the Yakovlev 40, was set Feb. 24, 1979 when pilot Rudolf Fiam flew to an altitude of 28,513 feet with a payload of 4,400 pounds of weight. Zwick surpassed that record just 12 minutes into his 1 hour 55 minute flight and continued to climb. Fifty-eight minutes into the flight, Zwick and the aircraft were just over 66,800 feet -- roughly 38,287 feet higher than the Czechoslovakians were able to reach 19 years ago. "There are a lot of planes out there that could have broken this record, they just didn't try," said Maj. Doug Dillard, a 1st RS U-2 instructor pilot. Brig. Gen. Charles Simpson, 9th Reconnaissance Wing commander, summed up the mission later that evening when he said, "this record demonstrates out in the open what we can and do achieve on a daily basis." "We would have never gotten this mission off the ground if it were not for the tremendous support of our maintenance personnel," Dillard said. "These guys had the difficult task of weighing each sensor and piece of equipment prior to installing it on the lane." Dillard added that to achieve the record, the payload didn't have to be installed in an operational configuration, but since it was, the task of loading the aircraft was that much more difficult. Master Sgts. Anthony Bircham, 99th Reconnaissance Squadron B-section chief, and William Spinks, 9th Operations Group chief inspector for quality assurance, were key in the record attempt, according to Dillard. "These guys really worked hard to make sure we could pull this off without any snags," he said. While people at Beale knew upon Zwick's landing that he had shattered the record, it took a little while longer for the inspector to verify it. Ted Kelly, a National Aeronautic Association chief inspector, was required to witness the actual downloading of the aircraft's flight data recorder, which he then hand-carried to the Lockheed plant in Palmdale, Calif., where a team of experts reviewed the information and verified the record. While this is an official record, it isn't exactly an unheard-of feat. Zwick said U-2 aircraft accomplish it several times a day almost every day of the week. So why do it for the record now? "We just wanted to make it official ... let the world know we can," Dillard said. "I'd just like to see someone come and try to beat our record now," he added. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 14:35:49 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: AFNEWS flash At 09:59 PM 12/23/98 +0000, you wrote: >"Borrowed" from todays AFNEWS > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >981999. U-2 pilot shatters world record > >by Senior Airman Kati Garcia >9th Reconnaissance Wing Public Affairs > >BEALE AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AFPN) -- A pilot from the 1st >Reconnaissance Squadron shattered a 19-year old world record Dec. 12 >when he flew his U-2 and payload to an altitude of more than 12 and a >half miles above the Earth's surface. > >At 11:16 a.m. PST, Maj. Alan Zwick, a U-2 instructor pilot, landed the >aircraft, and with it a spot in the world record books. > >The previous record, held by a Czechoslovakian pilot flying the Yakovlev >40, was set Feb. 24, 1979 when pilot Rudolf Fiam flew to an altitude of >28,513 feet with a payload of 4,400 pounds of weight. > snip, snip..... >While this is an official record, it isn't exactly an unheard-of feat. >Zwick said U-2 aircraft accomplish it several times a day almost every >day of the week. > >So why do it for the record now? > >"We just wanted to make it official ... let the world know we can," >Dillard said. > >"I'd just like to see someone come and try to beat our record now," he >added. > > So who held the record before Yakovlev? Gary Powers? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 18:14:14 -0500 From: "michael mcalister" Subject: RE: AFNEWS flash i think the max altitude of the u-2 is quite a bit higher... i understand that the USAF would want to under-report its capability.. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com > [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of patrick > Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 1998 5:36 PM > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: Re: AFNEWS flash > > > At 09:59 PM 12/23/98 +0000, you wrote: > >"Borrowed" from todays AFNEWS > > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >981999. U-2 pilot shatters world record > > > > > snip, snip..... > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 17:37:51 -0800 From: Ryan Kirk Subject: Re: AFNEWS flash What exactly is the record here? Other planes have flown much higher than that. Ryan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 02:37:29 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: Air Force Plants At 11:55 PM 12/21/98 EST, you wrote: >Je >On some maps, I have seen A. F. Plant 72, northeast of Boron. Ther are no >buildings, paved roads, or runways, but the area is posted with signs >declaring: > Air force Plant 72 is listed as Phillips Lab and appears to be rocket assemb & test stand area. in Antelope Valley near Lancaster I have also found an Air Force Plant #62, in Middletown Conn unable to find any other information as to who,what,when.. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 19:04:48 -0800 From: David Lednicer Subject: Defence Plants Not every military contractor has a plant number. These numbers are only assigned to plants owned by the US government. These plants are then leased to contractors for production purposes. The idea is that in peace, the government can hang on to the production capacity needed in war, instead of loosing the facilities to other production. As far as numbers, I too have been curious about this. I know the Lycoming palnt in Stratford CT is one such plant, but I don't know the number. In the early 1980s, it was producing the AGT1500 (M1 tank engine), as well as the civil LTS101, LTP101 and ALF502 engines. Lycoming fell behind on AGT1500 production and the DoD threatened to take the plant over. Lycoming quickly moved LTS101 and LTP101 production to Williamsport and stopped making ALF502s for a time. This got them caught up, but Canadair sued them for late deliveries of engines for the Challenger business jet. In the end, Canadair got so unhappy that they switched to a GE engine (CF34) for the aircraft. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 19:37:41 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: AFNEWS flash At 05:37 PM 12/23/98 -0800, you wrote: >What exactly is the record here? Other planes have flown much higher >than that. > >Ryan - -=-==-=-=-=-====----=-=-=--=-=-=-=---====----=-==-==-=-=-===-=-----====---== - -=\ The AF article is not real clear #5797: Sub-class C-1h (Landplanes: take off weight 12 000 to 16 000 kg) Group 3 : turbo-jet Type of record : Greatest mass carried to a height of 15000 m Estimated performance : 1503 kg Course : Palmdale, CA (USA) Date of flight: 18/11/98 Aircraft: Lockheed Martin U-2S Pilot(s): Bryan GALBREATH (USA) Status: File not yet received It's the record for weight in this particular class of aeroplane. The AF article is vague. I dug this out of the FAI website. Personally I am more impressed with the An-225 although I don't recommend the Soviets attempt an overflight of the US in one. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 05:38:19 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: AFNEWS flash Kirk Ryan asked: >What exactly is the record here? Other planes have flown much higher >than that. And Patrick Cullumber responded: >The AF article is not real clear >#5797: [...] >It's the record for weight in this particular class of aeroplane. The AF >article is vague. I dug this out of the FAI website. Personally I am more >impressed with the An-225 although I don't recommend the Soviets attempt an >overflight of the US in one. Slight correction. The record claim listed above (# 5797) pertains to one of the 3 records claimed by Dragon Lady's last month (remember the factually incorrect NASA/Lockheed press releases and AP/UPI news articles, I bitched about ?) :-) The complete list of those three record claims is: #5795: Sub-class C-1h (Landplanes: take off weight 12000 to 16000 kg), Group 3: turbo-jet Type of record: Altitude in horizontal flight without payload Estimated performance: 20950 m Course: Edwards AFB, CA (USA) Date of flight: 19/11/98 Aircraft: Lockheed Martin ER-2 Pilot(s): James L. BARRILLEAUX (USA) Status: File not yet received #5796: Sub-class C-1 (Landplanes) Group 3 : turbo-jet Type of record: Greatest mass carried to a height of 15000 m Estimated performance: 1503 kg Course: Palmdale, CA (USA) Date of flight: 18/11/98 Aircraft: Lockheed Martin U-2S Pilot(s): Bryan GALBREATH (USA) Status: File not yet received #5797: Sub-class C-1h (Landplanes: take off weight 12000 to 16000 kg) Group 3: turbo-jet Type of record: Greatest mass carried to a height of 15000 m Estimated performance: 1503 kg Course: Palmdale, CA (USA) Date of flight: 18/11/98 Aircraft: Lockheed Martin U-2S Pilot(s): Bryan GALBREATH (USA) Status: File not yet received The new record claim is not yet listed at the FAI site, because it always takes quite a bit of time to get all the paperwork through the official channels, and then someone has to update their web site, etc. But when they post the claim, it probably will look something like this: #57..: Sub-class C-1h (Landplanes: take off weight 12000 to 16000 kg) Group 3: turbo-jet Type of record: Altitude with 2000 kg payload Estimated performance : 20360 m Course: Beale AFB, CA (USA) Date of flight: 12/12/98 Aircraft: Lockheed Martin U-2S Pilot(s): Alan ZWICK (USA) Status: File not yet received The 20360 m equal the 66,800 feet mentioned in the article, and the 2000 kg are roughly 4400 pound. This record "Altitude with 2000 kg payload" is another specific (in contrast to an absolute) record, established in SubClass C-1h, Group 3: Class "C" ==> Aeroplanes (powered, heavier than air, and 'fixed' wing) SubClass "C-1" ==> Landplanes (land based take-off and landing) SubClass "C-1h" ==> Landplanes, take-off weight from 12000 kg to less than 16000 kg) Group "3" ==> powered by Turbo-Jet engine(s) They have beaten the following record (which they also mentioned in the Press Release) in the same SubClass/Group, and by a very substantial margin: Type of record: Altitude with 2000 kg payload Site/Course: Prague (Czechoslovakia) Performance: 8674 m Pilot(s): Rudolf FIAM (Czechoslovakia) Aeroplane: Yakovlev Yak-40K Date of record: 24/02/1979 The accompanying photos reveal that the aircraft was U-2S Article '081', (originally a TR-1A, than U-2R), USAF FY Serial '80-1081', tail code "BB"/ "AF 80"/"081", equipped with a complete operational payload of Hughes ASARS-2 (RADAR), SENIOR SPUR (SATCOM datalink), and SENIOR GLASS (SIGINT suite), consisting of a combined set of SENIOR SPEAR (COMINT) and SENIOR RUBY (ELINT) sensors. I do wonder though, whom they (the USAF) want to impress with all those records, lately, surely not the Russians or Iraqis. It seems to me that the U-2 community might fear the Dragon Lady will suffer the same faith as the Blackbird, if they don't get enough publicity. And it seems to work -- the U-2 is intended to stay in service with the USAF until at least 2020. Because of this, all U-2S will receive a cockpit upgrade, including a new 150 x 200 mm (6 x 8 inch) color LCD, advanced mission system processors and new software, as well as (maybe) new defensive equipment, including a towed decoy (the ITT Industries AN/ALQ-211 SIRFC with LM Sanders AN/ALE-55 FOTD is under consideration and is probably currently tested). The USAF is also developing a new integrated reconnaissance system for the U-2S, dubbed MARS (including SAR/MTI, SIGINT, EO/IR and MSI/HSI sensors), which might later also be used for the TRA RQ-4A Global Hawk HAE UAV. The NASA record in November was flown by ER-2 Article '063', USAF FY Serial '81-1063', 'NASA 806', registered 'N806NA', (which was 'NASA 706'/'N706NA'), but which U-2S claimed the two USAF records? Was it maybe the U-2S prototype, Article '090', USAF FY Serial '81-1090', which I believe is still used by LMSW for development? Curious minds want to know. :) Abbreviations: ============== AFB = Air Force Base AP = Associated Press ASARS = Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar System COMINT = Communications Intelligence ELINT = Electronic Intelligence EO/IR = Electro Optical / Infra-Red FAI = Federation Aeronautique Internationale FOTD = Fiber Optic Towed Decoy FY = Fiscal Year HAE UAV = High Altitude Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ITT = ??? (must be a secret, or the meaning has been lost in time) :) LCD = Liquid Crystal Display LM = Lockheed Martin LMSW = Lockheed Martin Skunk Works MARS = Multi-sensor Agile Reconnaissance System MSI/HSI = Multi-Spectral Imaging / Hyper-Spectral Imaging NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration RADAR = Radio Detecting And Ranging SAR/MTI = Synthetic Aperture Radar / Moving Target Indicator SATCOM = Satellite Communications SIGINT = Signals Intelligence SIRFC = Suite of Integrated Radio Frequency Countermeasures TRA = Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical UPI = United Press International USAF = United States Air Force - -- 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/ - --- --- ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #93 ******************************** 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