From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #63 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 Wednesday, May 26 1999 Volume 08 : Number 063 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: List Topics skunk-works-digest V8 #62 *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 20:29:23 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: List Topics >>> The skunk-works mailing list was created for discussions of advanced >>> technology aircraft and historical discussions about products of the >>> Lockheed Advanced Development Company (LADC), also known as the >>> Skunk Works. Pat responds: >Now I am a bit concerned. Where did or who wrote this introduction to the >newslist? Its not what I thought was agreed upon approximately 2 or 3 >years ago when the area of interest was broadened to include like aircraft >built by competitors to the Skunkworks and the reporting of black aircraft >sightings of unknown origin (manufacturer! Not solar system!!). It doesn't matter who wrote it. The reproduced section above, concisely states the original purpose of the list, as it was originally practiced, in my opinion. I have been a member for about 11 years now. The willingness to discuss only Lockheed-Martin aircraft is not correct. In fact it includes a lot of aircraft that Kelly never would have created a Skunk Works to design, build and fly in the first place. Also, I seriously doubt, that the Skunk Works has a restriction that they can only create new designs based on past Lockheed-Martin products! No, this list has always been about discussing advanced paradigm breaking aircraft. Something worth discussing. Something worth researching to find out more about. Something that has just become feasible that a small group of talented people with low overhead and no red-tape can go out and do. This list is therefore named skunk-works to honor the group that has created more of these kinds of designs than anyone else, namely the Skunk Works. But in the past 11 years, it never was exclusively just about Lockheed or Lockheed-Martin products. So the phrases: "discussions of advanced technology aircraft and historical discussions about products of the ... Skunk Works", captures the spirit well, IMHO. Keep it simple! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 20:30:15 -0600 (MDT) From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #62 skunk-works-digest Tuesday, May 25 1999 Volume 08 : Number 062 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Long-Term Stealth Project Gets The Ax Yugoslavia My mistake Re: Yugoslavia Re: My mistake X-43, HYPER-X Update Copyright Notices etc. Hi-Tech Weapons in the FY List Topics Re: List Topics RE: My mistake Skunk-Works Charter *************************************************** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 12:26:54 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Long-Term Stealth Project Gets The Ax Aviation Week & Space Technology May 24, 1999 Long-Term Stealth Project Gets The Ax By David A. Fulghum, Seattle In recent mergers, Boeing has committed itself to ruthlessly cutting programs that aren't going to make near-term profits. One victim is a stealthy, unmanned reconnaissance aircraft project, most of which is still classified. The Pentagon cut the unmanned Dark-Star aircraft program, and Boeing--despite years of research and its assemblage of unique expertise in stealth and reconnaissance technology--has chosen not to retain even a core development group. Initially, the 15-year-long black program was designed to build a strategic reconnaissance aircraft that resembled the Dark-Star in shape and approached the B-2 bomber in size and cost, according to several Pentagon officials. The aircraft was to penetrate contested airspace with the impunity that only an unmanned system can offer. It also was to carry a wide range of sensors and serve as a replacement for the long-lived U-2. High cost and the post Cold War political environment led to a scaling down of the project and the subsequent design of several smaller, cheaper versions. Boeing teamed with Lockheed Martin during the redesign on what was known as the Tier 3 UAV. This project was abandoned in 1992. The stealth design was then shrunk a third time and built as the Tier 3-UAV, later called DarkStar. DarkStars were to cost $12-14 million each, carry a single sensor (either a combination electro-optical/infrared camera or synthetic aperture radar) and fly undetected at altitudes up to 45,000 ft. After an early crash and about a year's delay for redesign, the aircraft began operating successfully. In a surprise move early this year, Pentagon acquisition chief Jacques Gansler shut down the project after the Air Force decided the UAVs were too fragile to be used operationally. A flight scheduled for the next day, Jan.27, was canceled and project engineers have been reassigned or laid off; industry officials said. Parts have been crated and the aircraft preserved. Initially there was discussion of using the three DarkStars as a small reconnaissance unit or as testbeds for future stealthy UAVs, but Air Force officials say they consider the craft of no use except as museum displays. UAV builders throughout the industry were stunned by the urgency of the Air Force's termination. Some aerospace officials wonder if the decision was driven by the Pentagon's experiences in canceling other projects, only to have them revived by Congress. Officials now favor the quick kill. ANOTHER FACTOR WAS THE LOSS of active support for the program within the Defense Dept. The high-altitude, long-endurance UAVs were developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency which is now out of the UAV business, and the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office, which has been disbanded. Boeing officials will only say that they still believe in UAVs for intelligence gathering, reconnaissance and communications nodes, and that they are conducting an extensive reassessment of their business development plans. Abandoning military UAV development would leave the field to Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical and Lockheed Martin. The latter's aeronautics chief, Micky Blackwell, said they are nurturing several UAV projects in the company's Skunk Works. Much depends on how quickly Air Combat Command formulates a requirement for a stealthy, high-altitude, large-payload UAV. Pentagon supporters of the Global Hawk and DarkStar long-endurance UAV programs said Gansler's recommendation came at the Air Force's urging. The idea is to kill the DarkStar now, cancel production of the Global Hawk in a year or two and then launch into a new program for a large stealthy UAV It would have a 1-2-ton payload and the ability to operate covertly even when under observation by low-frequency radars. "We've lost the argument for retaining DarkStar," a Pentagon-based scientist said. "We were talking peanuts to finish the next year of operational evaluation for the warfighters. The Air Force's plan is to marshal what dollars they have for F-22 and Joint Strike Fighter. I'm afraid they will do the same with Global Hawk and then take 10 more years to build another stealthy UAV that can do everything for everyone." "The Pentagon's reconnaissance community still wants and desires a penetrating reconnaissance UAV," he said. "They know there is a need for platforms that can penetrate dense air defenses so covertly that the enemy doesn't know it's there." However, advocates of the existing endurance UAVs say a new, larger, stealthier aircraft will cost $1 billion to develop and cost $40-50 million each to build. By comparison, the DarkStar cost $250-300 million to develop. It had enough stealth to survive enemy air defenses--which would have made it useful in their destruction--but not enough to fly undetected. Industry officials believe Boeing might have supported an engineering design team for a year, possibly two, if a new military UAV contract were imminent. But without action soon by the Air Force, Boeing management is not expected to put more money into a stealthy reconnaissance UAV. However, the company is pursuing an unmanned air combat vehicle that will need to be stealthy. Work on the project is thought to be underway at Palmdale, Calif. Boeing officials say they do believe DarkStar-like vehicles have a commercial application in high-altitude operations above the corridors used by airliners. The fate of the DarkStar's payloads--two synthetic aperture radars and two EO/IR cameras--is still to be determined. They have limited applications on other aircraft because they were specifically designed for stealth - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 09:32:32 -0700 From: David Lednicer Subject: Yugoslavia > I agree with just about everything you said and definitely with the > sentiment. My problem with the NATO bombing is not in going to war > against Serbia but in believing that we can accomplish what needs to be > done without committing land troops. If you look at the US Strategic Bombing Survey done at the end of WWII, they say exactly this. Bombing helps win a war, but you can't win it without ground troops. The trouble is, America is not willing to sacrifice lives to stop genocide being comitted in the Balkans. Norman Mailer, for all I dislike his books, had a great editorial in the May 24th Washington Post (you can see it online at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-05/24/003l-052499-idx.html). He makes an excellent point; to get to where he is Milosevic had to be an extremely cunning politican. He set up a trap for us and we fell for it. Without the bombing, he could not get away with the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo, so he set up the situation so that he could reach his goal, despite the price he would have to pay. -David Lednicer - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 13:00:21 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: My mistake My forwarding of the Senate staffer's comments about bombing in Belgrade generated a suggestion by some that I get thrown off the list. As a result, I reviewed the introduction to the Skunk Works list. It said: > The skunk-works mailing list was created for discussions of advanced > technology aircraft and historical discussions about products of the > Lockheed Advanced Development Company (LADC), also known as the > Skunk Works. > > Primary areas of discussion include: > > U-2 and variants > SR-71 and variants > F-117 > TR-3A > "Aurora" and variants > > Book reviews are occasionally posted. > > Since the list is mostly made up of aircraft enthusiasts, we're pretty > casual about the discussion topics. We've digressed in the past on the > XB-70 and the B-58 Hustler, for example, even though they don't > technically fit the charter. While I received this information in the beginning, I did not read it because I made an assumption that by using "skunk works" the issue was stealth an its ramifications, including but not limited to the effects of stealth in air-to-air and air-to-ground combat. I assumed that this list would be interested to discover operational successes and failures of the B-2. But it appears that it is not a topic of discussion. According to this introductory material, one cannot discuss stealth aircraft made by other manufacturers. Nor, does it appear, that the list cares about whether bombing from stealth aircraft has the effect attributed to it. There is no question that my comments were off the mark based on this description. But then, much of what is on this list does not fit this either. Accordingly, I will limit my discussions in the future just to the topic areas above. Jim Stevenson - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 13:05:53 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Yugoslavia I got it. Thanks. Jim Stevenson >> I agree with just about everything you said and definitely with the >> sentiment. My problem with the NATO bombing is not in going to war >> against Serbia but in believing that we can accomplish what needs to be >> done without committing land troops. > > If you look at the US Strategic Bombing Survey done at the end of > WWII, they say exactly this. Bombing helps win a war, but you can't win > it without ground troops. The trouble is, America is not willing to > sacrifice lives to stop genocide being comitted in the Balkans. > > Norman Mailer, for all I dislike his books, had a great editorial > in the May 24th Washington Post (you can see it online at: > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-05/24/003l-052499-idx.html). > He makes an excellent point; to get to where he is Milosevic had to be an > extremely cunning politican. He set up a trap for us and we fell for it. > Without the bombing, he could not get away with the ethnic cleansing of > Kosovo, so he set up the situation so that he could reach his goal, > despite the price he would have to pay. > > -David Lednicer > > > > - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 19:15:05 +0000 From: georgek@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: My mistake >There is no question that my comments were off the mark based on this >description. But then, much of what is on this list does not fit this >either. Accordingly, I will limit my discussions in the future just to >the topic areas above. > >Jim Stevenson Jim: I found your posting both interesting and informative, and not that widely off the mark as opposed to some we've seen in the past that got on. I don't think that there is anyone here that would say we should limit our discussion to just one "brand" of hardware, but rather the name simply is used to refer to various "skunky" projects. Keep right on posting, I have no problem with the topic or content. Nuff said, Enjoy, George ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 414 541 8579 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 800 520 4873 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com West Allis, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com gkasica@hotmail.com gkasica@yahoo.com gkasica@netscape.com ICQ #12862186 Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 12:26:32 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: X-43, HYPER-X Update Flight International - 12-18 May, 1999 pg 30; "Hyper-X test on track for July" The first X-43A Hypersonic test vehicle, designed to demonstrate airframe integrated scramjet technology in flight, is expected to be delivered to NASA in July. The X-43 vehicle itself is 11 ft. long. It is boosted to its test condition by a modified Pegasus Booster carried by a NASA B-52. First flight is to be to Mach 7, currently scheduled at around the end of January 2000. The second X-43A is currently scheduled to arrive at NASA near the end of february 2000. Published Flight profile: B-52 Launch at approx. 18,000 to 20,000 ft. near San Nicolas island off the CA coast. Pegasus boost to approx. 45,000 ft. Power-off climb to approx. 100,000 ft. X-43A seperation from Pegasus booster. Stabilize flight path to achieve test conditions - approx 30 sec. Open inlet cowl (scramjet nozzle covering was assumed to be opened at Pegasus sep. - interesting, known drag of hypersonic airbreathing nozzles is high). Ignite scramjet at Mach 7 for 7 sec. Assume measure/verify scramjet Mach 7 cruise capability. I assume that the first X-43A is a Mach 7 point design. Unknown if acceleration will be attempted or is even designed in. After 7 sec. of scramjet operation, shutdown scramjet, close inlet cowl (again no information on hypersonic airbreathing nozzle configuration after inlet cowl is closed). Initiate high speed maneuvering glide to collect approx. 6 minutes of data (aerodynamic and stability and others probably). The Mach number here will vary as the vehicle decelerates. Test conditions are at Mach 6, 5, and 4. This phase sounds somewhat like SWERVE (Sandia Winged Energetic Reentry Vehicle Experiment). SWERVE also tested at Mach 14, a very cool X-band Intercept Sensor Radar installation designed by Raytheon, integrated on the vehicle, as well as off-vehicle based flight path direction (at Mach 14!)). However, X-43A is a very different design from SWERVE, besides the fact that the first X-43A is Mach 7 and SWERVE was Mach 14. So X-43's hypersonic maneuver tests are undoubtedly oriented around the X-43A design itself. SWERVE resembled a cone in shape. X-43A is an evolved and improved X-30A (NASP) shape. First two X-43A vehicles are targeted at Mach 7 autonomous flight, whereas NASP was to be Mach 0 to Mach 25+ (airbreathing orbital insertion Mach number - usually approx. Mach 27 or so). Earlier, it was stated that there was to be an attempt to land the vehicle on or near San Nicolas island. This plan has been abandoned. The X-43A's are not to be recovered. Probably a budget decision. The Mach 7 flights are to cover approx. 700 nm in 500 s. The 3rd X-43A is a Mach 10 vehicle design (same base design probably, with different inlet, nozzle, combustor geometry, and fuel injection parameters - hypersonic propulsion duct details vary with Mach number). First Mach 10 flight is currently scheduled for approx. Sept. 2001. Vehicle will travel at 2mi/sec, or approx. 7,200 mph asl. Originally there was to be a 4th flight vehicle, but budget considerations caused cancellation of that vehicle. X-43 is a 5-year (was to be approx. $170 milion) program and is considered Phase I of a scramjet technology validation program. Phase II is a larger, reuseable hypersonic X-plane. Chronology (so far): - - ------------------- Phase I Mach 10 configuration development contract award to McDonnell Douglas: 8/6/96 Official NASA announce of vehicle fabrication program: 10/9/96 Fabrication Contract Award to Microcraft: 3/24/97 Announce Hyper-X designated X-43: 8/27/98 Announce first X-43A scramjet engine (developed by GASL) delivered to NASA for testing at NASA Langley: 8/27/98 First Mach 7 X-43A vehicle to be delivered to NASA: 7/99 First Mach 7 flight scheduled: 1/2000 Scheduled delivery of 2nd Mach 7 X-43A vehicle: 2/2000 Scheduled Mach 10 Flight: 9/2001 - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 19:45:07 +0000 From: georgek@netwrx1.com Subject: Copyright Notices etc. >belong on this list. I also do not like posts (personal preference here) >which copy whole articles from papers, magazines or web sites (not to mention >that the act of copying and retransmitting that material may violate >copyright laws) and re-post them to a list. Drew: This is an EXCELLENT point you brought up here, I'll delete the rest since it has been dealt with and needs no further discussion. I've been pretty lax on the copyright issue here (mainly due to serious lack of time these last few months, but I WILL start to look more closely at the contents. Let's face it we all see alot of email daily, and a URL take up a whole lot less space than the whole article, no to mention it tends to hit the 40K digest "trigger limit" pretty quickly as well. Thanks for a good point, George ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 414 541 8579 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 800 520 4873 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com West Allis, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com gkasica@hotmail.com gkasica@yahoo.com gkasica@netscape.com ICQ #12862186 Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 21:21:59 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Hi-Tech Weapons in the FY I wonder what listmembers thought of how hi-tech weapons are performing in the former Yugoslavia. The CBU-94s seem to be doing well, but how about the UAVs, JDAM and LGBs etc ? Haven't heard much about rotary wing deployment. I understand the conflict is seeing the most intensive use of UAVs from around the world and the heaviest use of satellite intel. ever known. As we often talk about these assets from an objective, peacetime POV, how do you think they're doing in practice ? If this is OT for the list, maybe you'd let me know by e-mail. Best Dave - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 17:20:48 -0700 From: patrick Subject: List Topics At 01:00 PM 5/25/99 -0400, you wrote: >My forwarding of the Senate staffer's comments about bombing in Belgrade >generated a suggestion by some that I get thrown off the list. As a >result, I reviewed the introduction to the Skunk Works list. It said: > >> The skunk-works mailing list was created for discussions of advanced >> technology aircraft and historical discussions about products of the >> Lockheed Advanced Development Company (LADC), also known as the >> Skunk Works. >> >> Primary areas of discussion include: >> >> U-2 and variants >> SR-71 and variants >> F-117 >> TR-3A >> "Aurora" and variants >> >> Book reviews are occasionally posted. >> >> Since the list is mostly made up of aircraft enthusiasts, we're pretty >> casual about the discussion topics. We've digressed in the past on the >> XB-70 and the B-58 Hustler, for example, even though they don't >> technically fit the charter. > - - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Now I am a bit concerned. Where did or who wrote this introduction to the newslist? Its not what I thought was agreed upon approximately 2 or 3 years ago when the area of interest was broadened to include like aircraft built by competitors to the Skunkworks and the reporting of black aircraft sightings of unknown origin (manufacturer! Not solar system!!). According to this intro to our list the TR-3A exists and was built by Lockheed. Not to mention the Aurora. I am very concerned that this topic description lends credence to the existence of these vehicles, thus generating new inquiries from new members. This negates all standards of investigating or reporting we have been clinging to. And as Jim mentions it essentially prohibits mention of other stealth aircraft. We chose to include aircraft similar to Lockheed's as is the case with the Northrup XST, and the various UAV's made by all the companies not purchased by Lockheed. To discuss one and not the other made no sense. This description forbids hypersonic aircraft not designed by Lockheed-Martin. But the B-2? Seems it should be in and not out of bounds for topic limitation. Course an examination of the digests would indicate we all have failed the guidelines. Like Orwell's Animal Farm, though, we're all guilty but some of us are more guilty than others. And you extraterrestial believing blasphemer's know who you are. I say that description of our lists' topics is not correct and needs to reflect our previous agreement. patrick - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 17:32:17 -0700 From: tonydinkel@clubnet.net (Tony Dinkel) Subject: Re: List Topics Could someone please post the charter to the list or e-mail it to my privately? td I want to believe, but to convince me, one of them is going to have to take me out to diner. - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 21:24:40 -0400 From: Martin Hurst Subject: RE: My mistake - - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BEA6F6.C0C42C00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I say go for it, it all makes for good discussion, AND, new insightful information for other on this list, we who would otherwise not have access to or have known these things !!! >>Jim Stevenson wrote: >>of discussion. According to this introductory material, one cannot >>discuss stealth aircraft made by other manufacturers. Nor, does it >>appear, that the list cares about whether bombing from stealth aircraft >>There is no question that my comments were off the mark based on this Not in my opinion !! Keep it coming - right on the "leading-edge mark". - - -Martin - - ---------- From: James P. Stevenson Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 1999 1:00 PM To: Skunkworks Subject: My mistake My forwarding of the Senate staffer's comments about bombing in Belgrade generated a suggestion by some that I get thrown off the list. As a result, I reviewed the introduction to the Skunk Works list. It said: > The skunk-works mailing list was created for discussions of advanced > technology aircraft and historical discussions about products of the > Lockheed Advanced Development Company (LADC), also known as the > Skunk Works. > > Primary areas of discussion include: > > U-2 and variants > SR-71 and variants > F-117 > TR-3A > "Aurora" and variants > > Book reviews are occasionally posted. > > Since the list is mostly made up of aircraft enthusiasts, we're pretty > casual about the discussion topics. We've digressed in the past on the > XB-70 and the B-58 Hustler, for example, even though they don't > technically fit the charter. While I received this information in the beginning, I did not read it because I made an assumption that by using "skunk works" the issue was stealth an its ramifications, including but not limited to the effects of stealth in air-to-air and air-to-ground combat. I assumed that this list would be interested to discover operational successes and failures of the B-2. But it appears that it is not a topic of discussion. According to this introductory material, one cannot discuss stealth aircraft made by other manufacturers. Nor, does it appear, that the list cares about whether bombing from stealth aircraft has the effect attributed to it. There is no question that my comments were off the mark based on this description. But then, much of what is on this list does not fit this either. Accordingly, I will limit my discussions in the future just to the topic areas above. Jim Stevenson - - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BEA6F6.C0C42C00 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+Ig0BAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEkAYAMAEAAAEAAAAMAAAAAwAAMAIAAAAL AA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAATQAAAAAAAACBKx+kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAHNrdW5rLXdvcmtzQG5l dHdyeDEuY29tAFNNVFAAc2t1bmstd29ya3NAbmV0d3J4MS5jb20AAAAAHgACMAEAAAAFAAAAU01U UAAAAAAeAAMwAQAAABgAAABza3Vuay13b3Jrc0BuZXR3cngxLmNvbQADABUMAQAAAAMA/g8GAAAA HgABMAEAAAAaAAAAJ3NrdW5rLXdvcmtzQG5ldHdyeDEuY29tJwAAAAIBCzABAAAAHQAAAFNNVFA6 U0tVTkstV09SS1NATkVUV1JYMS5DT00AAAAAAwAAOQAAAAALAEA6AQAAAAIB9g8BAAAABAAAAAAA AAL/OgEEgAEADwAAAFJFOiBNeSBtaXN0YWtlAMUEAQWAAwAOAAAAzwcFABkAFQAYACgAAgBLAQEg gAMADgAAAM8HBQAZABUAEwARAAIALwEBCYABACEAAAA4QzZFNjcxM0U2MTJEMzExQUY0RjAwMDAy MTY4OEYwOAD2BgEDkAYApAgAABQAAAALACMAAAAAAAMAJgAAAAAACwApAAAAAAADAC4AAAAAAAMA NgAAAAAAQAA5AIDo9oYWp74BHgBwAAEAAAAPAAAAUkU6IE15IG1pc3Rha2UAAAIBcQABAAAAFgAA AAG+pxaG9hNnbo0S5hHTr08AACFojwgAAB4AHgwBAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgAfDAEAAAAWAAAA bWFydGluaEBpeC5uZXRjb20uY29tAAAAAwAGEPQmRIUDAAcQlwcAAB4ACBABAAAAZQAAAElTQVlH T0ZPUklULElUQUxMTUFLRVNGT1JHT09ERElTQ1VTU0lPTixBTkQsTkVXSU5TSUdIVEZVTElORk9S TUFUSU9ORk9ST1RIRVJPTlRISVNMSVNULFdFV0hPV09VTERPVEgAAAAAAgEJEAEAAAAgBwAAHAcA AJAOAABMWkZ13w+P5/8ACgEPAhUCpAPkBesCgwBQEwNUAgBjaArAc2V07jIGAAbDAoMyA8YHEwKD RjMDxQIAcHJxEiJzqHRlbQKDNBMNfQqAiwjPCdk7F58yNTUCgAcKgQ2xC2BuZzEwMy8UIAsKEvIM AWMAQCBJACBzYXkgZ28gowIQBcBpdCwdQSAHQHsDIADAaweRHRIc4ARwINJkBABjdQQQaQIgHXDo QU5EHXBuB9ELgACQ5GdoADB1bAqFC4AdEY0AwHQfYR0Db3RoBJDPIkADoCJgBAAgbAQAHWFUd2Uj gGgc8HcIYGxXHtAiUwPxZQqFbiJQIG0RwHYjoADQYweQBCB01xzwBbElo2slYHciwgeQ7yOgIuEa oAQgIShACoUKhfw+PgtGFcIMARTAIlAFkP0FQEoHcAYAFUAlwACAAiDvG18cYCOAKnI6KX8qhAqH pyvfKV8qZm9mHukuE3B/JgAFsB7wGqAmUiLjC4B0+QNgZHUqsAWwHMAhoQZx7wdAHXACICOgYwBw JWEuz/8v3zDvHvUckBVAB0AiYB2wdGlyBQBhAYAd8Q2wIE5iHMAiVAOBdWYA0HRrCHAEkHMywE4F sB1wZD5vB5EdUDYfNy84P2Fw/nA54DzBImAhsCdiIyM1of8XoAQgAaAIYAVAI8ASACJy/wbgBtAz QgNSOb8KjxusRQ/3Pi8/PyqTVCJxI6AjASVgvCBxClAVMCHSQRNtHMD9BaBtB4ACMAQgI5BKoTHw pzIAQWIAwHJrOxBhEfD/JEEixEb/Rh9O8jygBUALgDlMAm9wC4Ah0ihAIEudCeBwHYJMQTNCLSAF EGcggSKkI6AibDngMzItJQmAZ02EIi5OxS1NOwrAIcBuKHwK9CMwMTiCMALRaS0xNDQN8KcM0FhT C1kxNipXLVp3rz1tWYUMMCpmRgNhOlt+1ypmDIIq0GEHglAywCsnv1sfXC0GYAIwXV9ea1RLQX5k HLAdcFYQHMAZ0B1wMbY5ZZBlcDpX8F+ATWBfGVwtVG9in15rU2t1fG5rJABNwE64Zt9h9XXcYmoq oWhvXmtNNLEjQeceEVZ/V4MzNlj3Kf1vMf0dEXcLETNCMfFBYmJRNOHrQ/E6kGYEkCcEIExHQlTj QzZRYUJlbAnAOuJOxV9VACAAOoAVQB7QYRyQdf5nVQBLZDshK4AHgEEEHID/VQBBQgNgJ0FNJiMy MsFCMb9OxUIRIMAdYRyAfGF2CJD/I5Ae0EFiNAdLgzOSdAFqUmwgV2qie1VJBUAcoGm8ZDoofUpi HJBqUi1qk/8d8QMQM0JBo3MwdREXoHgj3x0SHvgEIDHxOuB2AHAmELZkgUcqkWglYBcwZxzA3zpH AHAe0CLxNIFpNbADIH+EqkJUKmE0UoVDImGBR0xYb2NrInBOIUGFpSBWRCtBFzBwTHIgCFBtBU7w bhzAKExBREP+KR1wB0ArgCcFg7GKun859VWGPoFHUAUQTaGHMYPx94VDHvggMWMKQA2wgMaRKPmV BlUtEiCH4oWwByFMkeGUj1NSLTccYJXflNpSRlhAMTeYz1SXsDMyQZovIkEIcAWwYSL7l/+Q+0Ie sE3QfSRCMUzynyYATgAfYR3BHMBwbxUx/mSQrwYAk4EnskGFIwEEYPcVMKChOtN1UqCFYjpWTIGu aB8wBzAVMHMjcidKobMUwBIAdHmBR6AhdYih30JUQWKS2SZgUdBjPHF/gP+mACXBHvAJwQQQTiFR YUFiz07wQcFT5IFHWEKXwGYAh4fiQWKsUDU4IEgfMM+joASQHXAdEmV4X0ALUP5lHXArQiLRCGAg gCdiHMD5PPBuJz1WhoWIgqChWCDfQUQRsjTxVYZOxVci8FRg9xxxF6AmEGklwH2SM9MhePGqlWJl ZwuAAwAaoHzS/x7wHtAlYoPxqnE9VrXwNbD/HzCzojrTA5FOAHiQjXBLePc7IaVhM1EighMj8Wqx nQD/fbO5USOhTgBOxTnHk2FMof86gFMQWCA1sCHCpcGThDNC/mJCgSViIzBTEHgyfsUNwb8qoU62 MfE5xlFhOkEtJmD+LTpBh9PCpQnACGCH8UxB/03we5AofHzxuUN9g0EzIwV/I/W18DPySpGg8iZS HvJv/yXAIjFAsHgRoFO8hjRgJhJ/QiKH8TvwAxA8MYpmrREy/TLAQkKBHZJAo48SQTEdkf9K0x2h qPTBWDIvMz80TzVf/4SHQ/86zzvfPO1An0GvQr//Q89E2BHAjxPA1R2wAkAFEP+/ccBEHVCyfUp/ S49Mn02vf062DbAE9NATzLIiYR+Bbf/R4NTgz3EjwM3ChUEiyTzk/yVisYROp7QQImLQSaCgfNL/ A/Ad0b/z4eKEqqqVILDW4vwgaq2BJlFOxdliqQOSNf/aUSXAsn1wv3HPKu8bmS5NBRbBAPXwAwAQ EAAAAAADABEQAAAAAEAABzCAQgnGFae+AUAACDCAQgnGFae+AR4APQABAAAABQAAAFJFOiAAAAAA AwANNP03AACz9g== - - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BEA6F6.C0C42C00-- - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 02:29:59 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: Skunk-Works Charter - - --- Here Skunk-Works Charter as I have had it handed down to me several years ago. As with all things possibly we need to update it to be more current? Suggestions and comments are welcome, and so would be a volunteer to rewrite it for list approval..... George - - -- The skunk-works mailing list was created for discussions of advanced technology aircraft and historical discussions about products of the Lockheed Advanced Development Company (LADC), also known as the Skunk Works. Primary areas of discussion include: U-2 and variants SR-71 and variants F-117 TR-3A "Aurora" and variants Book reviews are occasionally posted. Since the list is mostly made up of aircraft enthusiasts, we're pretty casual about the discussion topics. We've digressed in the past on the XB-70 and the B-58 Hustler, for example, even though they don't technically fit the charter. Classified information is strictly prohibited. To post to the list, address your mail to "skunk-works@netwrx1.com". To unsubscribe from the list send e-mail to "majordomo@netwrx1.com" with the 1 line message of unsubscribe skunk-works If you have any questions or problems please send e-mail to the listowner at georgek@netwrx1.com Thank You, George R. Kasica Listowner George, MR. Tibbs & The Beast Kasica West Allis, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com gkasica@hotmail.com gkasica@yahoo.com gkasica@netscape.com http://www.netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 Zz zZ |\ z _,,,---,,_ /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_ |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'_' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) - ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #62 ******************************** 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 ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #63 ******************************** 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