From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #83 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 Tuesday, July 20 1999 Volume 08 : Number 083 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** RE: That Aurora Budget Line/ B-2 Competition Funding ? RE: That Aurora Budget Line/ B-2 Competition Funding ? Server Move In Progress How to Build a Flying Saucer Re: Aurora codename Next-to-last or last SR-71 flight flown Re: NASA SR-71 Re: New subsciber comments Re: [UASR]> FWD: (SW) Re: That Aurora Budget Line/ B-2 Competition Funding ? Re: SR-71 top speed. Was: Re: That Aurora Budget Line/ B-2 Comp Re: NASA SR-71 Re: SR-71 comeback? Re: That Aurora Budget Line/ B-2 Competition Funding ? Blackbird Reunion back in June in Reno Re: SR-71 comeback? Pyotr Ufimtsev FWD: (TLC-Mission) Sight of Sound Re: That Aurora Budget Line/ B-2 Competition Funding ? *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 20:15:23 -0700 From: Erik Hoel Subject: RE: That Aurora Budget Line/ B-2 Competition Funding ? Joe Donoghue wrote [while listing corrections to Ben Rich's book]: ... snip ... > Talking about the M-21 Tagboard: > > Page 266, Quote: "On June 16, 1966, we attempted the third test > launch of the drone piggybacking on the SR-71 Blackbird, a > two-seater. Bill Parks was our pilot, and in the sec- > ond cockpit was Ray Torick, the launch operator. The > Blackbird took off and headed for the California coast, > just north of L.A., to launch over the naval tracking > station at Point Mugu. The flight was a dandy. the > drone flew 1600 nautical miles, making eight programmed > turns while taking pictures of the Channel Islands, San > Clemente, and Santa Catalina from 92,000 feet at 4000- > plus mph." > > The launch aircraft was a M-12, two seat version of the A-12. And > _4000-plus mph_!! I don't think so. Surely Ben Rich should have > known that the Blackbird series were Mach 3.2 aircraft. Maybe > Mach 3.5 on a good day. 4000-plus mph would be in the Mach > 6 category. It does not sound like any experts checked this > book for facts. A nit of a clarification: In the context of the original quote, I believe that Ben Rich was referring to the D-21 ('505'). On this list in the past, it has been indicated that the D-21s can cruise at over 90,000 feet at Mach 3+. How high above Mach 3, I cannot recall a number (perhaps others can clarify), though "near" Mach 4 is a gut feeling. 92,000 feet for a D-21 is certainly believable; 4000 mph is certainly not. 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: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 06:02:12 -0700 From: patrick Subject: RE: That Aurora Budget Line/ B-2 Competition Funding ? I find it odd (disappointing?) we had many more posts regarding the parameters of the charter for this forum then interests in Pocock's revelation re the origination of the term "Aurora". I am not so arrogant to think we are the final arbiter on this issue but it seems we would have more opinions, either for or against. My concern now is Pocock's timing. If he knew this all along where was he the last five years during discussions of the budget description. His announcement seemed rather nonchalant. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:26:00 +0000 From: georgek@netwrx1.com Subject: Server Move In Progress Hello: This is to inform your that we are beginning the move to the new Dedicated Server. Here is the current status of the new server: DNS Routing to the new box is now being switched, it should complete by 5pm today Friday July 16, 1999. How long it will take other systems on the net to pick it up is not known, it SHOULD happen by the end of the weekend...since MANY of them will refresh or reload once a week usually on a Saturday or Sunday very early in the morning. E-Mail should function correctly with no changes on your part. I STILL need a password from one of you....you know who you are.... E-Mail Discussion Lists are moved and we are working on the digest features now....should be OK by the end of the weekend. Web Services are in process and should also be up & running by the end of the weekend. I'll try to transfer as much content as I can but make no promises on that one since we are not only moving but going to newer server software as well. Any problems or questions please email me at georgek@netwrx1.com or if its urgent PAGE at 888-953-3277 and I'll call you back. More updates to follow. George George, MR. Tibbs & The Beast Kasica Waukesha, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com gkasica@hotmail.com gkasica@netscape.com http://www.netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 Zz zZ |\ z _,,,---,,_ /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_ |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'_' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:43:53 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: How to Build a Flying Saucer How to Build a Flying Saucer How to Build a Flying Saucer After So Many Amateurs Have Failed An essay in Speculative Engineering by T. B. Pawlicki At the end of the nineteenth century, the most distinguished scientists and engineers declared that no known combination of materials and locomotion could be assembled into a practical flying machine. Fifty years later another generation of distinguished scientists and engineers declared that it was technologically infeasible for a rocket ship to reach the moon. Nevertheless, men were getting off the ground and out into space even while these words were uttered. In the last half of the twentieth century, when technology is advancing faster than reports can reach the public, it is fashionable to hold the pronouncements of yesterday’s experts to ridicule. But there is something anomalous about the consistency with which eminent authorities fail to recognize technological advances even while they are being made. You must bear in mind that these men are not given to making public pronouncements in haste; their conclusions are reached after exhaustive calculations and proofs, and they are better informed about their subject than anyone else alive. But by and large, revolutionary advances in technology do not contribute to the advantage of established experts, so they tend to believe that the challenge cannot possibly be realized. The UFO phenomenon is a perversity in the annals of revolutionary engineering. On the one hand, public authorities deny the existence of flying saucers and prove their existence to be impossible. This is just as we should expect from established experts. But on the other hand, people who believe that flying saucers exist have produced findings that only tend to prove that UFOs are technologically infeasible by any known combination of materials and locomotion. ...< %>< >...Full 28Kb article is available upon request. - -- 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 * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > 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: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:40:09 EDT From: UKdragon@aol.com Subject: Re: Aurora codename Ref my previous posting on the origin of the Aurora codename, and subsequent comments here. I don't want to be misrepresented. I never said that black hypersonics programs don't or didn't exist. I did say that, IMHO, Aurora was a codename for ATB funding circa 1985. Incidentally, I have a paper file where I file all of my bits and pieces on such stuff, (including the excellent discussions here from Larry, Dan, Patrick and others). I actually name that file AURORA, simply because that phrase has become a kinda shorthand for all that stuff! So it's convenient, but it ain't accurate. Regards, Chris Pocock Information is useless without Intelligence email: UKdragon@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 17:52:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Next-to-last or last SR-71 flight flown Well, it's getting short around here for flying the SR-71. They flew what is probably the next-to-last SR-71 flight on Thursday, although it may actually be the last if the permission doesn't come through for the add-on flight. I'm kind depressed, to be honest, and a little bored with my current assignments after the Blackbird. Regards, Mary PS. Ron Schweikert, would you drop me a line at shafer@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov, as the crew chief found your flown patch, stuck at the back of a drawer? I'll have some other names to mention, now that I have everything back that we thought was lost. MFS Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com "Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 18:09:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: NASA SR-71 I know I'm way behind on replying to this, but it was premature. We were already in '99 when it was posted (they start the fiscal year, which is all that matters when it's money, on 1 Oct of the previous calendar year). Anyway, the SR-71 has flown at least twice since it was posted, the most recent four day ago. As to what we'd do after the last one goes into storage and the pilots run out of currency, we'd do what we always do in that situation (this won't be the first time, nor will it be the last time, we've had to do this) is fire up the simulator, get out the manuals, and put the last people to fly it to work getting back up to speed. We've even found ourselves sending our pilots to fly newly-restored aircraft that hadn't been flown for years, as we had the last active pilot who'd flown that plane. Yes, the SR-71 is a unique airplane, but it's also a well-documented one, with a good simulator, and it wouldn't take any longer to get the pilot current than it wouldn to get the plane flight-worthy. It's OK to be sad, but there's no reason to go into deep mourning. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com "Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." On Wed, 18 Nov 1998 Xelex@aol.com wrote: > >Presently we have mounted a scale model of the AeroSpike ( X33 access > > to space vehicle engine ) rocket engine on the top of the SR71 > > This project is now cancelled. The hot firing has been delayed for a very > long time, and was impacting the X-33 flight schedule. Lockheed feels > confident that the X-33 can safely fly without the data that would have been > provided by the Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment (LASRE). > > NASA 844 has been the only flying SR-71A since the Air Force Blackbirds > stopped operating. The SR-71B is in storage, drained of fuel, and missing > some parts. There is no funding at NASA Dryden to fly the SR-71 in FY99. > There are some projects in the works for 2000, but what will happen in the > meantime? Will we still have anyone qualified to fly and maintain a Blackbird > by then? > > Peter Merlin > NASA Dryden History Office > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 18:59:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: New subsciber comments We roll numbers over at random. The tail number on the SR-71A, 844, was the tail number on an F-18 (the one Steve had to eject from when the LEF came up over the stops on one side), for example. That wasn't the first time. However, we haven't gone back to the 80n series--look for 83n-85n these days. Also , the Santa Fe trail is a place on the lakebed that pilots sometimes mention when giving a position report on final. All NASA aircraft with a three-digit number belong to the Dryden part of our fleet. However, we've gotten some aircraft down from Ames Research Center (the ER-2s, for example) and I haven't the faintest idea whether these have Ames numbers (700s I think) or have been renumbered in the 800s. I'll ask around. Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com "Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." On Sun, 20 Jun 1999, G&G wrote: > > > Scott Cullen wrote: > > > > Then they were handed off to Joshua APR and said " NASA 809 descending from > > DELTA plus 9"- then a minute or two later "SANTE FE 807, and NASA 809 > > descent out of 60 over Lake Isabella". (348.7) > > anyone know what these NASA aircraft are or what altitude "DELTA" is? > > My records show NASA 809 (N809NA) is/was a Martin B-57B. > It has been 'parked' at Edwards AFB since October 1990. > > Does NASA reuse or reissue N-numbers? > > Greg Fieser > > -- > > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > %% %% > %% Reality is for People Who %% > %% Can't Handle Simulation %% > %% %% > %% habu@cyberramp.net %% > %% srcrown@flash.net %% > %% gdfieser@hti.com %% > %% %% > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 21:23:42 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Re: [UASR]> FWD: (SW) Re: That Aurora Budget Line/ B-2 Competition Funding ? I think we're all sick of Aurora. Don't talk to me about replacements for the SR-71. Yawn. In any case it's not the USAF who have/had the most interesting black projects aircraft. It's always been the US Navy and much of the research has been going on at China Lake under the noses of us all. My source - as well as what we know already? A guy who actually worked there and was very heavily leaned upon when he came forward with some interesting things about projects at the China Lake Navy Test Sites.... Most so-called "UFO" sightings related to black projects a/c are likely to be large hybrid triangular airships or 'stealthy transports' which is probably what 'Senior Citizen' is. What about the Advanced Airborne Reconnaissance System scrapped in '93? Although I can understand the cynicism there was en excellent programme on Channel 5 here a couple of weeks ago where Boyd Bushman of Lockheed admitted to having participated in anti-gravity technology work, with some success, and where Bob Widmer, formerly of GD-Convair told the viewers about the incredibly restrictive secrecy surrounding black projects. The main reasons for our not being able to find things out are; 1 - They're classified and the workers won't talk because their livelihood, pensions and families are tied into their keeping silent. 2 - Many of the documents relating to these projects are burned/destroyed. 3 - The 'aliens in UFOs' cover story - the one swallowed and believed by most researchers - is very effective - an excellent diversion.... 4 - Documents not destroyed and latterly made available via FOIA are to some extent 'forward sanitized". I have learned this from bitter experience with both USAF and US Navy. In addition, one researcher told me that it had taken her 7 years to get hold of one photograph dating back to 1947/8......so the process can be held up for years where necessary - even to keep minor secrets...... BTW, what about the admissions by Major-General Kenneth Israel of DARO relating to the Air Force Special Reconnaissance Platform as reported in our very own Daily Telegraph some weeks back? Tim Matthews (the real one). Author - UFO Revelation - The Secret Technology Exposed? (Blandford, 1999) - -- 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 * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > 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: Mon, 19 Jul 99 05:48:07 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: SR-71 top speed. Was: Re: That Aurora Budget Line/ B-2 Comp We know that an SR will do at least M3.5, because the one sitting at the Castle Air Museum is acknkowedged to have done that over Libya. That's noticeably above normal operational speed, though. Other design factors tend to indicate Vne (if that term is relevant) at around M3.7. Note that this is airspeed. groundspeed could be higher due to winds. Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jul 99 05:50:08 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: NASA SR-71 On 7/18/99 3:09PM, in message , Mary Shafer wrote: > > As to what we'd do after the last one goes into storage and the pilots run > out of currency, we'd do what we always do in that situation (this won't > be the first time, nor will it be the last time, we've had to do this) is > fire up the simulator, get out the manuals, and put the last people to fly > it to work getting back up to speed. We've even found ourselves sending > our pilots to fly newly-restored aircraft that hadn't been flown for > years, as we had the last active pilot who'd flown that plane. > > Yes, the SR-71 is a unique airplane, but it's also a well-documented one, > with a good simulator, and it wouldn't take any longer to get the pilot > current than it wouldn to get the plane flight-worthy. > > Keep something else in mind, NASA pilots are also Test pilots. The normal rules of currency aren't as applicable (no one is ever current in a new aircraft the first time it flies, after all). Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 03:14:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: SR-71 comeback? One of those two aircraft had been kept in flyable storage down at Dryden and the other in dead storage in a warehouse at Plant 42. The USAF didn't have to bring both aircraft back, as we'd kept ours up so carefully. They saved money, but the taxpayer was paying for that readiness, just to a different agency. Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com "Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." On Tue, 11 May 1999 betnal@ns.net wrote: > On 5/10/99 7:24PM, in message <01BE9B34.1A221B00@oldpc>, Martin Hurst > wrote: > . > > The House may challenge USAF's claimed $100-million-plus price tag > > for reactivation, > > > > Well, we know USAF is lying because it didn't come anywhere near $100 million > to bring two back when they had been sitting abandoned in the desert for five > years. Since these have been hangared and preserved we KNOW it would cost less, > although more training for crews would be required. > > > > Art > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 09:16:19 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: That Aurora Budget Line/ B-2 Competition Funding ? Joe writes: David wrote: [edit] >> Given the sensitive nature of that budget line I'm surprised so many >>people made such a glaring error. >>FWIW, I don't feel too concerned about the Aurora budget line. It doesn't >>mean much in itself, much less imply a hypersonic a/c. I am concerned with >>the way people pick and choose what to believe from experts and I'm >>concerned with facts checking out. >Speaking of picking and choosing, I found the following errors in Rich's >book and I believe Andreas posted a different list of errors from the same >list to this group several years ago. A lot of these errors were easily >checkable but they still made it into the book. Ben Rich's book is very >readable but not reliable as history in itself. [edit] > It does not sound like any experts checked this book for facts. [edit] >So which of Ben's statements are YOU picking and choosing? That's a perfectly fair question, but I really don't see how I can clarify my position any further. I'm not picking and choosing any facts to support a premise that Aurora does or doesn't equate to a hypersonic platform or any other unacknowledged aircraft. I've said I'm concerned with facts checking out. The explanation Ben Rich provided for Aurora clearly doesn't check out...though people (including me) have repeated his explanation both here and elsewhere and that shows a disturbing lack of objectivity which my question was intended to redress. If the head of the Skunk Works sees fit to tackle the highly sensitive issue of just what >that< budget line actually meant, I'm inclined to believe him. Not because of any hidden agenda, but just as I would believe what Jay Miller or Chris Pocock write. I wonder has anyone contacted Warner Books to let them know just how many factual errors the SW book contains ? It seems a great pity that a book co-authored by one of aviation's leading figures shouldn't be read as a reliable document because it contains so many fundamental and serious mistakes. Has anyone collated the entire list ? D ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:18:40 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Blackbird Reunion back in June in Reno Did anyone attend the Blackbird Reunion in Reno from 6/3-to-6/6? How was it? Larry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jul 99 03:35:57 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: SR-71 comeback? On 7/19/99 12:14AM, in message , Mary Shafer wrote: > One of those two aircraft had been kept in flyable storage down at Dryden > and the other in dead storage in a warehouse at Plant 42. The USAF didn't > have to bring both aircraft back, as we'd kept ours up so carefully. They > saved money, but the taxpayer was paying for that readiness, just to a > different agency. > > Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com > "Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard > Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." > > On Tue, 11 May 1999 betnal@ns.net wrote: > > > On 5/10/99 7:24PM, in message <01BE9B34.1A221B00@oldpc>, Martin Hurst > > wrote: > > . > > > The House may challenge USAF's claimed $100-million-plus price tag > > > for reactivation, > > > > > > > > Well, we know USAF is lying because it didn't come anywhere near $100 > million > > to bring two back when they had been sitting abandoned in the desert for five > > years. Since these have been hangared and preserved we KNOW it would cost > less, > > although more training for crews would be required. > > > > > > > > Art > > > Actually, Congress directed that sufficient SRs be brought back to permit a operational capability and deployment with 48-72 hours notice at any time. This would mean three A models, to provide the required capability with one in Phase inspection. USAF took the number "three" and ignored the fact that it had to mean three As. They counted the SR-71B flying for NASA as one of the three and said they'd only bring two back. One of these was indeed one of NASA's which had been maintained in flyable but not operational condition. The other one had had nothing done to it since the day it was parked back in '90. USAF forbade any money being spent on preservation. Had the NASA bird not been available, it still wouldn't have taken anywhere near the $100 million to bring two (or even three) As back. In fact, during the restoration while they had everyone there and all the equipment was still there, Lockheed made USAF an offer to bring a third one back for a fixed price of approximately $3 million. USAF turned them down cold. In late April-early May (the last period I had hard data for), 971 and 967 could have been made operational in 30 days for about $2.5 million (crew would take an extra thirty days). 968 and 962 could have followed 6 months behind the first two. No way would it cost anywhere near $100 million, let alone the $200 million number that USAF pulled out of thin air and used on the Hill. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 12:56:23 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Pyotr Ufimtsev Does anyone happen to have a copy of the famous paper by Pyotr Ufimtsev that is said to have inspired HAVE BLUE and the F-117? I was talking with someone recently who said that it included a section on counter-stealth techniques, including something like Lockheed's Silent Sentry. For that matter, does anyone here know Ufimtsev? I understand that, thanks to the inscrutable workings of time and fate, he's now an associate professor at UCLA. Maybe he could be persuaded to drop in to the list now and then. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 13:08:50 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD: (TLC-Mission) Sight of Sound For a couple of fantastic photos check the following sites: < http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul1999/n07161999_9907162.html > and < http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/images/sightofsound.jpg > The second site takes longer to download and there is a smaller version of the picture on the first page. The second page is a great close up shot. I'm sending this to both lists because I think a majority of the members will have some interest in this one. Have you ever "seen the sight of sound"? This is an awesome photo of a Navy F/A 18-Hornet creating a shock wave as it breaks the sound barrier. I'm not sure that I understand how it works so if anyone has time to explain it to me back channel I'd appreciate the lesson. Cheers! Leigh Coleman Hotujec AKA - The Air America Brat Secretary, TLC (Thailand-Laos-Cambodia) Brotherhood SEA 62-74 Heeding The Call to The Wall - See you in DC!! - -- 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 * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > 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: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 16:08:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: That Aurora Budget Line/ B-2 Competition Funding ? David wrote: >I wonder has anyone contacted Warner Books to let them know just how many >factual errors the SW book contains ? It seems a great pity that a book >co-authored by one of aviation's leading figures shouldn't be read >as a reliable document because it contains so many fundamental and serious >mistakes. Has anyone collated the entire list ? As a matter of fact, Mike Rich, Ben Rich's son, contacted the Skunk Works Mailing list (through me) in August of 1995, requesting help with the correction of several errors found in the first edition of Ben's autobiography, after those errors were briefly discussed here on the list. Several Skunk Works List members noted and listed various real and perceived errors, and many were discussed in this forum. Some of those errors found by the Skunk Works List, including all the captions, were corrected in the second (paperback) edition of the book. Several of the errors discussed by the list, were -- though acknowledged in their factual inaccuracy -- not changed or corrected in the later edition, because Mike Rich decided it was more important to keep his father's original version, rather than a sanitized or revisionist's (in some way) version. Ben Rich was quite ill at the time the book was finished, and some inaccuracies and errors might be due to his incapacitation. The consensus on the list was that it would be the preferred way to keep those inaccuracies, because the book is not -- and this is important -- a historically accurate, scholarly work (like Jay Miller's "Skunk Works, The First Fifty Years"), but a subjective autobiography. For example the "twin-engine fighter, called the F-20" became the corrected "single-engine fighter, called the F-20", while the "SR-71 Blackbird, a two-seater" as launch aircraft of the "4,000-plus mph" drone was left unchanged. For the book-related discussions, see also Skunk Work Digests 5-180, and 5-398 through 5-405, available on the Skunk Works List's web page/ftp site (if they were transfered to the new server). - -- 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 V8 #83 ******************************** 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