From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #86 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, July 29 1999 Volume 08 : Number 086 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Are you suuuure? Just in case no one else posts it RE: Couple of things I've come across RE: Royal International Air Tattoo Review Re: RE: Couple of things I've come across Re: RE: Couple of things I've come across O-5/'RC-7B'/ARL information *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 14:41:13 -0700 From: David Lednicer Subject: Are you suuuure? An interesting twist just occured to me relative to the rumor of the Luftwaffe pilot being shot down in the F-117 over Serbia. Think about the "official account" released to the press. Remember the part about how he had a US flag against his chest, inside his flight suit? Either the story is bunk or we have a German pilot with an interesting view of patriotism. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 00:06:02 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: Just in case no one else posts it 991411. U-2S accident investigation report released LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. (AFPN) -- An aircraft accident investigation board concluded a partially latched canopy caused the March 17 Class A mishap of a U-2S reconnaissance jet based at Osan Air Base, Republic of Korea. The mishap occurred during flight when the canopy of the 5th Reconnaissance Squadron U-2 unlatched. This caused the acrylic transparency to break and damage the aircraft structure and engine. The pilot landed the aircraft safely at Osan, and there were no injuries associated with the mishap. At the time of the mishap the aircraft was on a night reconnaissance mission collecting signal intelligence and imagery. The report concluded the accident was caused by partial or incomplete latching of the canopy during preflight procedures. When the cockpit pressurization reached sufficient force to disengage the canopy from the latching mechanism, the canopy blew open. The 5th is a component of the 9th Reconnaissance Wing at Beale Air Force Base, Calif. The wing and its subordinate units are all part of Air Combat Command. The 9th maintains the nation's fleet of U-2 reconnaissance aircraft. It is responsible for providing national and theater commanders with timely, reliable, high-quality, high-altitude reconnaissance products. (Courtesy of ACC News Service) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:41:35 -0700 From: patrick Subject: RE: Couple of things I've come across At 09:26 AM 7/28/99 PDT, you wrote: >at 18:59 7/27/99 patrick wrote: > beadded to >the list of F-117 folklore however. No one has seems to be ableto produce >a shred of evidence nor any sensible logic as to why the USAFwould abandon >the dry clear climes of the desert Southwest and go to the addedexpense of >testing in a far off environment that is unfriendly in climateto the >F-117. What would be the point?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > for what its worth, i agree.consider the >following.during WW11 southern england was awash with airbases.there was no >room left for pilot training.so they did it in scotland.the weather was so >bad and the terrain so hostile,they were losing more pilots in training than >combat!so the USA offered to train some of them here.as most of their planes >were US made,this meant we did not have to fly them across the atlantic so >the "brits"could crack them up.end result?more pilots,more planes for >combat. > >wayne d.binkley > _______________________________________________________________ Interesting comment. The area known as White Sands Missile Range, which includes Holloman AFB was originally approriated from the civilian ranchers to be leased by the US government to Britain at the start of WW2. An agreement had been signed to allow the British to build an airbase and use the outlying areas for practice bombing. But as the US decided to join the war they rescinded the agreement and created the Alamogordo Bombing and Gunnery Range for use by the US Army Air Force. A side note.....the ranchers were only to willing to relinquish their property for the war effort. And they were only to willing to sue the US government for not giving the land back after the war. They felt swindled when the government decided to keep the land for future operations. Some of those last remaining lawsuits were recently settled. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 99 04:59:53 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: Royal International Air Tattoo Review On 7/28/99 12:19AM, in message <000001bed92f$b7b7d100$0200a8c0@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk>, "Gavin Payne" wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > U-2 > > > A few years ago it was flying skyhigh over Iraq. They said they'd shoot it > down, then had to admit they tried but couldn't. You're right though, these > days it doesn't need to overfly, the sensors are so good they don't need to. > During most of the '90s Saddam din't threaten any moves against the U-2s. As soon as Iraq threatened to shoot down the U-2s, they were pulled out of that areas where Iraq made those threats. During this period we lost that capability. Saddam later said that he wouldn't shoot, but whether this was becuase he feared reprisals, ahd already moved what he wanted to move or just wanted to jerk our chain some more is opent to debate. Even then we didn't immediately return the U-2s to teh disputed airspace, because we (wisely) didn't believe him. We flew them in the Southern area of Iraq. It's worth noting that when Saddam made his threats, there were calls down to Edwards asking how fast the SRs could be made ready (this was not that long after the veto so it wouldn't have taken that much time). This was quickly squelched, the embarrassment would have been too much. Since we have subsequently capitulated to Iraq's demands on inspections it's a moot point, anyway Overfly may give the wrong impression. The U-2 doesn't always have to fly directly over something to look at it, but various sensors it carries require it to be in certain places to use them in order to get the info we need. With some of its radar it can stand off a ways, but to use its full amazing capabilities it has to get within a certain distance for those sensors to be used. It remains that we do not fly the U-2 into defended airspace. Certainly didn't see a lot of them in the opening phases of the Kosovo Kapers, when there might have been a threat. >The B-52 did go over Kosovo (mid 20s altitude) emptying its load of Mk82s " >to within 250 feet". >Not sure if we had control of the sky though. During the period when Slobo's defenses were thought to be active, B-52s were restricted to firing CALCMs and remaining outside of the danger zone. Eventually we ran out of CALCMs, and it also became apparent that the Serbians weren't able to strike at anything above 15,000 feet. The B-52 is a double edged sword. When it's accurate, it's very accurate and can put a lot of ordnance on target at one time. When it's inaccurate, though, its miss distances can be measured in miles. Mid-20s is actually lower than the B-52 can bomb, but it increases accuracy. (What USAF wants is a "BF-22", to go with > their "EF-22" and possibly their "RF-22"). >Sounds like whats going to happen doesn't it. Anyone know the range of a >combat laden F-22? Carrying its internal payload (which isn't that large), the range is about the same as when carrying missiles. Because it carries so much gas, its range with external ordnance is supposed to be better than that of the F-15E, but verification of that is years away. It does have four underwing hardpoints and they're also plumbed for external tanks. Maybe USAF will announce a "KF-22". Don't laugh too much. After all, USN says that their upcoming JP5 sponge, the F/A-18E/F, will be their tanker. Art ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 10:22:24 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: RE: Couple of things I've come across Wayne writes: >at 18:59 7/27/99 patrick wrote: > beadded to >the list of F-117 folklore however. No one has seems to be ableto produce >a shred of evidence nor any sensible logic as to why the USAFwould abandon >the dry clear climes of the desert Southwest and go to the addedexpense of >testing in a far off environment that is unfriendly in climateto the >F-117. What would be the point?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > for what its worth, i agree.consider the >following.during WW11 southern england was awash with airbases.there was no >room left for pilot training.so they did it in scotland.the weather was so >bad and the terrain so hostile,they were losing more pilots in training than >combat!so the USA offered to train some of them here.as most of their planes >were US made,this meant we did not have to fly them across the atlantic so >the "brits"could crack them up.end result?more pilots,more planes for >combat. Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet, but I don't see the connection Wayne. We're not talking about rookie pilot training...which in WWII was pretty basic and rapid over here in the UK according to the RAF combat vets I've spoken to. We're talking about whether an operational a/c is likely to have had its flight envelope extended by flying it outside CONUS over similar terrain and in similar weather conditions as it might be expected to encounter in combat missions. That's all. Given the often cited 'special relationship' between the US & the UK, the latter would seem to be a good place to perform that type of advanced testing, without compromising programme security. Dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 10:33:31 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: RE: Couple of things I've come across Patrick writes: >At 08:19 AM 7/28/99, you wrote: >>Patrick writes: >> >>>At 02:49 PM 7/27/99 +0100, Gavin wrote: >>> >>>>Officially you are correct, the first time the Nighthawk came to the UK was >>>>in 1996, however 'rumour' has it that part of its testing took place in >>>>northern Scotland (the same place the Aurora is rumoured to have gone to). >>>> >>> >>>I would consider this to be a totally baseless rumor. It can be added to >>>the list of F-117 folklore however. No one has seems to be able to produce >>>a shred of evidence nor any sensible logic as to why the USAF would abandon >>>the dry clear climes of the desert Southwest and go to the added expense of >>>testing in a far off environment that is unfriendly in climate to the >>>F-117. What would be the point? >> >>Perhaps because the DoD didn't envisage using the F-117 or its LGBs in >>CONUS ? >> >>With the 4450th being declared operational in late '83, it's >>perfectly feasible that an F-117 would have been brought to Europe to >>undergo flight testing in weather conditions similar to those it might be >>expected to encounter operationally. >> >=-===-=-=-=-== > >The F-117 is not an all weather aircraft. The plane does not come out of >the hanger when the weather is inclement. In fact I have seen training >missions cancelled and all plames returned to base when a sudden rain storm >threatens Holloman AFB. You're making it sound like the weather in Scotland or the UK for that matter is always bad. Not so. Perhaps you've spoken to different a/c designers than I. FWIW, I've never spoken to one who wouldn't like to test their a/c in real world conditions. Simulation is not real life. As I said before, I'm not making a case for or against the F-117 coming to Europe before '96 - just questioning your outright dismissal of the notion. Dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 07:40:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: O-5/'RC-7B'/ARL information Here is my file on the O-5/'RC-7', updated as of today. I don't know which of the aircraft crashed, and neither the FAA (AAI) nor the NTSB web sites list the incident yet, but they may update their web sites soon. Any corrections and additions are as usual welcome. I cross-post this to the Aircraft, C-130 and Skunk Works lists, so if it appears more than once in your inbox, you are probably "well subscribed". :) - -- Andreas Manufacturer: CMI (California Microwave Inc.) (ARL-I, ARL-M), TRW Inc. (ARL-C), original airframes: DeHavilland Canada (Boeing) Designation : O-5, ('RC-7B') Popular Name: --- Model Name : DHC-7-102 / DHC-7-103 / 'Dash 7' / 'RC-7B' Project Name: 'Crazy Hawk' or ARL (Airborne Reconnaissance Low), which has merged the 'Grisly Hunter' (or ARL-IMINT, on CASA 212) and 'Crazy Panther' (or ARL-COMINT) programs together into one; O-5A: ARL-I (Airborne Reconnaissance Low - IMINT), which flew 'Fulcrum Shield' missions; EO-5B: ARL-C (Airborne Reconnaissance Low - COMINT), which flew 'Fulcrum Ghost' missions; RC-7B: ARL-M (Airborne Reconnaissance Low - Multimission); FAA Code : 280-27-08 (DHC-7-102), 280-27-10 (DHC-7-103) User : California Microwave (Contractor), Washington County AP, Hagerstown, MD and US Army: - EUSA (Eighth US Army/8th Army, HQ Yongsan, Seoul, RoK (Republic of Korea)), - 501st MIBDE (CEWI), (Camp Humphreys, Pyongtaek, RoK), - 3rd MIB (AE), Desiderio AAF, Camp Humphreys, RoK, - A/3rd MIB ('RC-7B') - USSOUTHCOM (US Southern Command, HQ Quarry Heights, Panama), - USARSO (US Army South, HQ Fort Clayton, Panama), - 513th MIBDE, (Fort Gordon, GA), - 204th MIB (AE), Biggs AAF, Fort Bliss, El Paso, TX, usually deployed to Howard AFB, Panama, but now probably operating from Patrick AFB, FL, and other sites (O-5A/EO-5B/'RC-7B') - INSCOM (Intelligence and Security Command, HHC, Fort Belvoir, VA) - 470th MIBDE, (Fort Clayton, Panama), - MIB (LI), HHC, Orlando IAP, FL, ('RC-7B'/DHC-7) No c/n Serial Type, Version, Names, Remarks ============================================================================== 1 95 ..-.... O-5A, ('RC-7B' / EO-5C); ARL-I aircraft, based on Model DHC-7-102; registered 05/10/1991 'N5382W' to "California Microwave, Inc., Middletown, DE"; registered 04/20/1993 to "United States Government, SFAE 1EW SG (PMOARL), Vint Hill Farms Station, WarrEnton, VA", (built 1983), as 'Experimental', for 'Research and Development', (as of 03/25/1998); changed to "United States Government, Berryville, VA", as 'Standard', for 'Transport', (current 07/29/1999); operational (since 1996 ?) with 204th Military Intelligence Battalion, (MIB), deployed to Howard AFB, Panama, and assigned to the US-led Joint Inter Agency Task Force; 1 48 ..-.... EO-5B, ('RC-7B' / EO-5C); ARL-C aircraft, based on Model DHC-7-102; registered 06/05/1991 'N705GG' to "ESL, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA"; registered 04/14/1994 to "US Govt Dept of Army, Vint Hill Farms Station, WarrAnton, VA", (built 1981), as 'Experimental', for 'Research and Development', (as of 03/25/1998); changed to "United States Government, Berryville, VA", as 'Standard', for 'Transport', (current 07/29/1999); painted white over all with two red stripes; operational (since 1997 ?) with 204th Military Intelligence Battalion, (MIB), deployed to Howard AFB, Panama, and assigned to the US-led Joint Inter Agency Task Force; 2 59 ..-.... EO-5B, ('RC-7B' / EO-5C); ARL-C aircraft, based on Model DHC-7-102; registered 08/13/1993 'N59AG' to "California Microwave, Inc., Middletown, DE"; registered 12/02/1996 to "US Department of Army, Vint Hill Farms Station MS5, WarrEnton, VA", (built 1981), as 'Standard', for 'Transport', (as of 03/25/1998); changed to "United States Government, Berryville, VA", (current 07/29/1999); operational (since 1996 ?) with 204th Military Intelligence Battalion, (MIB), deployed to Howard AFB, Panama, and assigned to the US-led Joint Inter Agency Task Force; 1 58 ..-.... 'RC-7B' / EO-5C; ARL-M aircraft, based on Model DHC-7-102; registered 08/12/1988 'N42RA' to "General Electric Capital Corp., Stamford, CT"; registered 03/03/1994 'N158CL' to "California Microwave, Inc., Middletown, DE"; registered 12/02/1996 to "US Department of Army, Vint Hill Farms Station MS5, WarrEnton, VA", (built 1981), as 'Standard', for 'Transport', (as of 03/25/1998); changed to "United States Government, Berryville, VA" (current 07/29/1999); was supposed to be operational 06/1996; operational (since 1997 ?) with A Company, 3rd MIB, South Korea; 2 88 ..-.... 'RC-7B' / EO-5C; ARL-M aircraft, based on Model DHC-7-102; registered 01/11/1995 'N89068' to "California Microwave, Inc., Hagerstown, MD"; registered 01/29/1998 to "Department of Defense, Berryville, VA", (built 1982), as 'Experimental', for 'To show compliance with FAR', (current 07/29/1999); was supposed to be operational 06/1996; operational (since 1997 ?) with A Company, 3rd MIB, South Korea; 3 104 ..-.... 'RC-7B' / EO-5C; ARL-M aircraft, based on Model DHC-7-103; registered 06/04/1991 'N53993' to "ESL, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA"; registered 04/14/1994 to "US Govt Dept of Army, Vint Hill Farms Station, WarrAnton, VA", (built 1985), as 'Standard', for 'Transport', (as of 03/25/1998); changed to "United States Government, Berryville, VA", (current 07/29/1999); was supposed to be operational with US Army in 12/1996; undergoing testing for radar upgrades (1997); operational (since 1997 ?) with A Company, 3rd MIB, South Korea; 4 85 ..-.... 'RC-7B' / EO-5C; ARL-M aircraft, based on Model DHC-7-102; registered 02/21/1990 'N177RA' to "PanAm Express, Inc., Philadelphia, PA"; maybe registered (xx/xx/19xx) to "Wilmington Trust Co., Wilmington, DE"; registered 01/30/1997 to "California Microwave, Inc., Belcamp, MD", (built 1982), as 'Standard', for 'Transport', (as of 03/25/1998); changed to 'Experimental', for 'Research and Development', (current 07/29/1999); under modification at contractor site (1997, 01/1999); 5 65 ..-.... 'RC-7B' / EO-5C; ARL-M aircraft, based on Model DHC-7-102; registered 04/13/1989 'N765MG' to "Antl, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, FL"; maybe registered (xx/xx/19xx) to "Wilmington Trust Co., Wilmington, DE" (?); registered 03/11/1997 to "California Microwave, Inc., Belcamp, MD", (built 1982), as 'Standard', for 'Transport', (current 07/29/1999); under modification at contractor site (1997, 01/1999); 6 76 'RC-7B' / EO-5C; ARL-M aircraft, based on Model DHC-7-102; registered 12/14/1995 'N176RA' to "Wilmington Trust Company Trustee, Wilmington, DE", (built 1982), as 'Standard', for 'Transport'; registered 02/27/1999 to "United States Government, Berryville, VA", (current 07/29/1999); under modification at contractor site; Summary: ======== O-5A | 1 | (to 'RC-7B' / EO-5C) EO-5B | 2 | (both to 'RC-7B' / EO-5C) 'RC-7B' | 6+ | (plus the O-5A and both EO-5B after modification) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- O-5 | 9+ | (up to 9 more planned) Others: ======= No c/n Serial Type, Version, Names, Remarks =============================================================================== 1 11 --- Model DHC-7-103; registered 04/29/1993 'N273EP' to "First Security Bank NA Trustee, Salt Lake City, UT", (built 1979), as 'Standard', for 'Transport', (current 07/29/1999); leased by US Army from 1990 for shuttle transports; operated by Raytheon Corp. Range Systems Engineering Division; based at Dyess AAF, KWMR (Kwajalein / Pacific Missile Range), Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands; 2 44 --- Model DHC-7-102; registered 10/30/1992 'N702GG' to "First Security Bank NA Trustee, Salt Lake City, UT", (built 1981), as 'Standard', for 'Transport', (current 07/29/1999); leased by US Army from 1990 for shuttle transports; operated by Raytheon Corp. Range Systems Engineering Division; based at Dyess AAF, KWMR (Kwajalein / Pacific Missile Range), Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands; 3 57 --- Model DHC-7-102; registered 05/14/1992 'N341DS' to "First Security Bank NA Trustee, Salt Lake City, UT", (built 1981), as 'Standard', for 'Transport', (current 07/29/1999); leased by US Army from 1990 for shuttle transports; operated by Raytheon Corp. Range Systems Engineering Division; based at Dyess AAF, KWMR (Kwajalein / Pacific Missile Range), Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands; 4 106 --- Model DHC-7-103; registered 03/30/1991 'N54026' to "Pacificorp Capital, Inc., McLean, VA"; registered 06/21/1995 to "US Dept of Energy, Albuquerque, NM", (as of 03/25/1998); (not longer registered as of 07/29/1999); was probably based at Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque, NM; 5 69 --- Model DHC-7-102; registered 01/04/1993 'N169AG' to "Wilmington Trust Co., Wilmington, DE", (built 1981), as 'Restricted', for 'Aerial Surveying', (current 07/29/1999); 6 ... --- Model DHC-7-...; used for training by US Army, maybe actually 'RC-7B'; 7 ... --- Model DHC-7-...; used for training by US Army, maybe actually 'RC-7B'; Remarks: ======== The designation O-5A was applied to "a DeHavilland Canada aircraft, equipped with 4 PT-106 turboprop engines" (which is most likely a variant of the DHC-7 'Dash 7'), and "which is operated by the US Army", and "performs day and night airborne observation / reconnaissance." The designation EO-5B was applied to a version of the same DeHavilland Canada aircraft with 4 PT-106 turboprop engines (DHC-7 'Dash 7'), also operated by the US Army, which is "a near all-weather, low speed turboprop aircraft with extended range capability and SIGINT mission equipment". (both quotes from: DoD 4120.15-L, 02/1993, 03/1996, and 10/1998) The designation EO-5C for the ARL-M is a logical extrapolation (by me). The US Army uses for the ARL-M version the non-standard designation "RC-7B", which is probably based on the DHC Model designation (DHC-7) mixed with an "R" for "Reconnaissance" and "C" for "Cargo" (Transport). The C-7 designation was originally applied in 1968 to the DeHavilland Canada DHC-4 'Caribou', when these aircraft were transferred from the US Army to the USAF. The DHC-4 was originally designated "AC-1" by the US Army (in 1956), and was later redesignated "CV-2" (in 1962) with the introduction of the Joint Designation System. The "AC-1-DH" became the "CV-2A-DH" and later the "C-7A-DH", while the "AC-1A-DH" became the "CV-2B-DH" and later the "C-7B-DH". The 'Pathfinder' C-7B Caribou of the Vietnam era was designated RC-7B. DoD 4120.15-L (03/1996 and 10/1998) both list the RC-7B as Caribou (with 2 engines, right below the C-7A Caribou and YC-7A Caribou). [Idiots]. The first 3 (both ARL-C and the ARL-I) are supposed to be modified to ARL-M standard in FY 97-98. The ARL-I was based in Budapest, Hungary (and later at Taszar AB, Hungary ?), operating on behalf of IFOR. It carries DIS (Daytime Imaging System) video, FLIR (Forward Looking InfraRed), IRLS (InfraRed Line Scanner), as well as HF/VH/UHF intercept and direction finding ESM (Electronic Support Measurement) systems. Other possible sensors include LLLTV (Low Light-Level TV), multi-spectral camera, acoustic range extension system, precision targeting subsystem, and remote configuration using a direct air-to-satellite datalink. 3 more ARL aircraft are under construction (conversion) as multi-function aircraft with SAR and moving target indicator system. (AW&ST 03/18/1996, pg. 25/26) 9 more ARLs (RC-7B) (3 systems with each 3 airframes) are planned, as well as the modification to T800-based CTB800 turboprop engines, which are planned to be developed by LHTEC. (AW&ST 07/08/1996, pg. 25) 2 more DHC-7s were bought by California Microwave for ARL-M conversions, amounting to 1 ARL-I and 2 ARL-Cs with the 204th MIB, 3 ARL-Ms with the 3rd MIB, and the other 2 are the new ones. (AFM 113, 08/1997, pg. 2) 5 of 8 ARL O-5/RC-7Bs are operational in Panama -- apparently 2 are DHC-7s used for training. (AFM 119, 02/1998, pg. 6, and WAPJ 33, Summer 1998, pg. 17) A report with several photos, development history and current status can be found in the magazine "Combat Aircraft", Vol.1, No.1, May 1997, on pg. 52-55, titled "Airborne Reconnaissance Low", by Tom Kaminski. There are four articles in AW&ST Vol.147, No.21, 11/24/1997, on pg. 58-64, in a section titled: LOW COST RECON. They include: "Army spy aircraft watch North Korea", "Multisensor observations key to Army's RC-7", "North Korean forces suffer mobility loss", and "Army's RC-7 touted for overseas sales". The articles include information such as the price for an aircraft (quoted at $27 million) and the military designation of the ARL-M system: AN/ASQ-223. Additional historic and program information comes from the SEMA home page, the book "Weapon Systems - United States Army - 1996", the FAA N-Number database, WAPJ Volume 27, Winter 1996, and WAPJ Volume 28, Spring 1997, AFM 129, 12/1998 and AFM 130, 01/1999. On 07/23/1999, one of the 201th MIB 'RC-7B' crashed into a mountain somewhere near the town of Orito, in Putumayo State, southern Colombia, while on a "routine counter-narcotics" mission. The crew of 5 US soldiers (two captains, a warrant officer and two enlisted men) and two Columbian Air Force officers, radioed in for the last time at 1:40 a.m. (0640 GMT) Friday when they were flying 80 kilometers (50 miles) south of San Jose del Guaviare, in an area known as a coca-growing stronghold of the FARC. The remains of 4 crew members were recovered from the crash site on the slope of the 2,576-meter (8,500-foot) high mountain, but the other three are still missing. The identities of all crew member are still being withheld (as of 07/29/1999). According to the Colombian Air Force, the "unarmed intelligence aircraft" took off from the Tolemaida military air base in the province of Tolima southwest of Bogota at 1 a.m. (0600 GMT) Friday. But the US Southern Command said the flight departed from an air base at Apiay in Meta province, 45 miles to the east of the capital Bogota. Some reports state the aircraft was a "photo-reconnaissance" plane, while others say it was used for "communication intercepts". It is not possible at this time to identify the aircraft involved, but it was most likely the ARL-M (or 'RC-7B') version (as of 07/29/1999). (c) 1996-1999, Andreas Gehrs-Pahl - --- --- 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 #86 ******************************** 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