From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #15 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Sunday, February 20 2000 Volume 09 : Number 015 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** RE: propulsion system BVRAAM, or is it BSRAAM? Re: propulsion system Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #14 Stealth Blimp Propulsion? Re: FWD (SW/FT) Re(27.22): B2 and YF22 electrogravitics Re: BVRAAM, or is it BSRAAM? Re: On achieving optical invisibility Active stealth marketed FWD (SW/FT) Stealth Blimps [[was Re(11.11): invisible Radar? #2]] *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:47:32 -0500 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: RE: propulsion system This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. - ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF7A7B.49F3F3D6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" For once I can actually add something to this list... The spinning wheel on the bike actually acts as a gyroscope, helping keep the shuttle turned in the right direction, and allowing for less use of the thrusters!! Originally, Mission Control had turned down using the bike as a method to help the shuttle through their problems, but apparently they decided that it wasn't such a bad alternative (to not finishing the 3-D mapping mission). I imagine that what is happening, although I haven't seen the exact explanation, is that with a 250' mast sticking out of the cargo bay, the drag on that side of the shuttle is probably greater than on the other, and they have to constantly correct their attitude because of that. But with a leaky thruster fitting, they were going to run out of hydrazine (or whatever) before they could finish the mapping.... well, when Thiele was using the bike back on Wednesday (I think) the shuttle all of a sudden moved differently! After a little investigation, by repositioning the bike, they could keep the shuttle aimed properly, using less of the thrusters.... Kinda weird, but it makes sense when you think about the small amounts of thrust needed up there to accomplish the needed maneuvers. Greg W - -----Original Message----- From: Timothy Toth [mailto:Timothy_toth@bc.sympatico.ca] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2000 6:42 PM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: propulsion system Endeavour Gets Go Ahead for Full Mission By Brad Liston CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (Reuters) - After days of uncertainty, NASA told the astronauts aboard the space shuttle Endeavour on Thursday that they have enough fuel to complete their ambitious Earth-mapping mission. Early in the 11-day mission a tiny thruster at the end of the 197-foot (60-meter) mast malfunctioned. The thruster was in the right spot to keep the mast configuration steady with just a whisper of gas. When it failed, the shuttle had to use its control jets, with 24 pounds of thrust, to accomplish the same job. That began eating up critical fuel supplies. At one point, ground controllers were amused to learn that astronaut Gerhard Thiele's workout on an exercise bike actually helped hold the shuttle in the right position. Mission commander Kevin Kregel and pilot Dom Gorie took their turns on the bike Wednesday... Could the B-2 be using this same revolutionary propulsion system? :-) Anyone have an idea how pedaling on a bike could help the shuttle? - ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF7A7B.49F3F3D6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: propulsion system

For once I can actually add something to this = list...

The spinning wheel on the bike actually acts as a = gyroscope, helping keep the shuttle turned in the right direction, and = allowing for less use of the thrusters!!   Originally, = Mission Control had turned down using the bike as a method to help the = shuttle through their problems, but apparently they decided that it = wasn't such a bad alternative (to not finishing the 3-D mapping = mission).

I imagine that what is happening, although I haven't = seen the exact explanation, is that with a 250' mast sticking out of = the cargo bay, the drag on that side of the shuttle is probably greater = than on the other, and they have to constantly correct their attitude = because of that.  But with a leaky thruster fitting, they were = going to run out of hydrazine (or whatever) before they could finish = the mapping.... well, when Thiele was using the bike back on Wednesday = (I think) the shuttle all of a sudden moved differently!  After a = little investigation, by repositioning the bike, they could keep the = shuttle aimed properly, using less of the thrusters....

Kinda weird, but it makes sense when you think about = the small amounts of thrust needed up there to accomplish the needed = maneuvers.  

Greg W

-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy Toth [mailto:Timothy_toth@bc.symp= atico.ca]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2000 6:42 PM
To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com
Subject: propulsion system


Endeavour Gets Go Ahead for Full Mission By Brad = Liston CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla.
(Reuters) - After days of uncertainty, NASA told the = astronauts aboard the space
shuttle Endeavour on Thursday that they have enough = fuel to complete their
ambitious Earth-mapping mission. Early in the 11-day = mission a tiny thruster at the
end of the 197-foot (60-meter) mast malfunctioned. = The thruster was in the right
spot to keep the mast configuration steady with just = a whisper of gas. When it
failed, the shuttle had to use its control jets, = with 24 pounds of thrust, to
accomplish the same job. That began eating up = critical fuel supplies.
At one point, ground controllers were amused to = learn that astronaut Gerhard
Thiele's workout on an exercise bike actually helped = hold the shuttle in the right
position. Mission commander Kevin Kregel and pilot = Dom Gorie took their turns on
the bike Wednesday...

Could the B-2 be using this same revolutionary = propulsion system? :-)
Anyone have an idea how pedaling on a bike could = help the shuttle?

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01BF7A7B.49F3F3D6-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 23:36:17 -0500 From: Jim Rotramel Subject: BVRAAM, or is it BSRAAM? I've been watching all the speculation about a ramjet-powered AMRAAM having been used in Desert Storm for the last couple of months. What a load of BS! Here are the facts: 1) The baseline AMRAAM program, which had been proposed in November 1975 and in development since 1979, encountered numerous technical problems and badly missed its originally-promised 1986 IOC. It was still not in service when Saddam invaded Kuwait in August 1990. 2) Heaven and earth were moved to get AIM-120s to the Gulf in time for the war. The 33rd TFW flew with the AIM-120A during the latter stages of the conflict in February 1991. However, by the time it arrived in theater, Saddam's air force was either in Iran or smoldering ruins in their shelters (thanks to the unheralded work of the F-111Fs). No kills were scored by AMRAAMs because none were fired. Normal fleet introduction of the missile didn't begin until September 1991. The first AMRAAM kill was scored by a family model Lawn Dart in December 1992. 3) Because of its pre-planned product improvement program, AMRAAM is gradually undergoing improvements to its guidance, fuzing, warhead and propulsion. One of the options considered was the Aerospatial RAmjet, Small Caliber (RASCAL). This was marketed by Raytheon and several European partners as the Future Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (FRAAM) to arm their Typhoons. Then the Europeans came up with a similar missile called Meteor and the FRAAM fell by the wayside. 4) BVRAAM is a UK competition, the winner of which should be announced in another couple of months. It pits the ramjet-powered Meteor against a rocket-powered AMRAAM derivative called the Extended Range AAM+ (ERAAM+) to arm RAF Typhoons. 5) Although ramjet powered AMRAAMs have been considered, all past, current, and future production plans for the missile will have the fuselage moldline of the original missile (albeit with an increasing proportion of its length dedicated to propellant). What those promoting this Gulf War BVRAAM nonsense have failed to explain to my satisfaction is how (and why) it happened. Riddle me this, Batman: If it was so difficult to get the hardware and software problems overcome so the normal AMRAAM could be rushed to the Gulf, why was it so easy to field this 'secret' version? Also, if the secret version was so superior, why have we built about 7,000 of the 'inferior' version to date? I have some beautiful beachfront property in Florida I'd like to sell to the 'true believers' of this ignorance-fed fantasy! I think there probably were some 'non-standard' missiles used during the Gulf War, but the 'true believers' are looking at the wrong part of the horse--they should be looking at the 'less aromatic' end... ; - ) Jim Rotramel   ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 01:58:51 -0800 (PST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: propulsion system On Fri, 18 Feb 2000, Timothy Toth wrote: > Could the B-2 be using this same revolutionary propulsion system? :-) > Anyone have an idea how pedaling on a bike could help the shuttle? It is very high possibility of the bike wheel use as a control device... In fact, a lot of satellite use momentum wheel as Attitude Control device. It is not a good way to use in airplane since it is flying in a gravity field enviromental. May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I Trek. Therefore I Am" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 11:26:57 -0800 From: Lee Markland Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #14 >Endeavour Gets Go Ahead for Full Mission By Brad Liston CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. >(Reuters) - After days of uncertainty, NASA told the astronauts aboard the space >shuttle Endeavour on Thursday that they have enough fuel to complete their >ambitious Earth-mapping mission. Early in the 11-day mission a tiny thruster at the >end of the 197-foot (60-meter) mast malfunctioned. The thruster was in the right >spot to keep the mast configuration steady with just a whisper of gas. When it >failed, the shuttle had to use its control jets, with 24 pounds of thrust, to >accomplish the same job. That began eating up critical fuel supplies. >At one point, ground controllers were amused to learn that astronaut Gerhard >Thiele's workout on an exercise bike actually helped hold the shuttle in the right >position. Mission commander Kevin Kregel and pilot Dom Gorie took their turns on >the bike Wednesday... > >Could the B-2 be using this same revolutionary propulsion system? :-) >Anyone have an idea how pedaling on a bike could help the shuttle? A manually operated gyroscope. Consider the difficulty of staying balanced on a stationary bike, and the ease of a moving bike and consider there is no friction in space, although astronauts and the shuttle are still under the influence of Earth's gravitational field (despite the free fall sensation of orbit, a 1000 lb object at an altitude of 200 miles still weighs, relative to Earth about 900 lbs. (Gravity is responsible for weight and gravity falls off - diminishes by the square of the distance thus a 200 mile orbit is 1.0504.. Earth Radii, square that and you get 1.10334026588. Divide the Earth's gravitational rate of acceleration (32.2 ft per second ^2)by 1.10334026588 and you get a rate of acceleration at 200 miles of 29.18410665843 ft per second ^2 which is about 0.9063387161005, thus a 10,000 lb object would still weigh 9063.338... lbs. However absenting any friction, it seems that a mere internal flywheel (an exercise bike) would suffice to keep the craft stablized. Lee ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 15:09:23 -0600 From: Overkill Subject: Stealth Blimp Propulsion? Lockheed has several Lighter-than-air vehicle patents but one of special interest may be the following: http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US04850551__ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 18:15:59 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Re: FWD (SW/FT) Re(27.22): B2 and YF22 electrogravitics "Terry W. Colvin" wrote on: Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 21:05:24 -0700 >>>Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 17:42:45 -0000 >>>From: "David" >>>Subject: Re: FWD (SW/FT) Re: B2 and YF22 electrogravitics >>> >>>Stealth doesn't have Jack to do with materials or design >>>(just look at the YF22 and B2). >> >>I'm looking, but evidently fail to see. I'm assuming the >>above is a joke. Please tell me it's a joke :) >If you wish, but there is OBVIOUSLY nothing in the DESIGN >of either craft, that would account for RADAR invisibility, >flat surfaces. The idea that a radar-stealthy aircraft has to have a lot of flat surfaces (as the F-117) is an erroneous assumption. There are lots of different techniques for passive stealth, the flat reflectors is only one of them (the principle being that you direct the radar beam away from the detecting antenna). Different methods combining radar absorbing materials (RAM) and selective reflection can be combined in a single airframe (the distinctive notched trailing edge of the B2 is a selectively reflective structure, its curved fuselage uses RAM, and so on). The sharp leading edges of the SR-71 Blackbird were a potential source of radar glint. They were covered with triangular wedges, like the foam wedges in an anechoic chamber but working at radio rather than sound frequencies, to absorb radar signals. A large number of stealth tricks were done on the SR-71, from the inward cant of the tailfins to the use of radio-absorbing iron oxide paint from 3M which was made from a waste product from its production of magnetic tape. Ninety-degree corners direct a sensing beam straight back to its source, so are highly reflective. You avoid this by making any corners on your aircraft meet at angles other than ninety degrees (F-117), or blend them into smooth transitions without any sharp angles at all (B-2). It's simply two design approaches to the same problem. There are a great number of RAM techniques. Smooth curves dissipate radio energy. Non-conductive materials are poor radiators, multi-layer coatings like A-1 netting and Salisbury Screens trap and dissipate radar energy. Most of these methods work in limited radar frequencies. One method uses a semi- reflective outer skin and a strongly-reflective backup skin spaced a quarter of a wavelength back which reflects two copies of the scanning signal 180 degrees apart, cancelling them out. Combining this with a smoothly-curved shape makes the aircraft have a very low radar cross-section (RCS). This is before you even start to do any active radar spoofing. Radar spoofing and jamming began about five minutes after radar was invented, and interest in RAM techniques followed about eight minutes after that. Radar detection and spoofing technologies have developed hand-in-hand since. Robin ("Design me a millimetric radar so I can find my car keys") Hill, BAE SYSTEMS, Brough, East Yorkshire. - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > 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: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 21:34:03 -0800 From: Timothy Toth Subject: Re: BVRAAM, or is it BSRAAM? Jim Rotramel wrote: > I've been watching all the speculation about a ramjet-powered AMRAAM having been used in Desert Storm for the last couple of months. What a >load of BS! Here are the facts: > 2) Heaven and earth were moved to get AIM-120s to the Gulf in time for the war. The 33rd TFW flew with the AIM-120A during the latter stages of >the conflict in February 1991. However, by the time it arrived in theater, Saddam's air force was either in Iran or smoldering ruins in their shelters (thanks to the >unheralded work of the F-111Fs). No kills were scored by AMRAAMs because none were fired. Normal fleet introduction of the missile didn't begin until >September 1991. The first AMRAAM kill was scored by a family model Lawn Dart in December 1992. > 5) Although ramjet powered AMRAAMs have been considered, all past, current, and future production plans for the missile will have the fuselage moldline of the > original missile (albeit with an increasing proportion of its length dedicated to propellant). > What those promoting this Gulf War BVRAAM nonsense have failed to explain to my satisfaction is how (and why) it happened. Riddle me this, Batman: If it was > so difficult to get the hardware and software problems overcome so the normal AMRAAM could be rushed to the Gulf, why was it so easy to field this 'secret' > version? Also, if the secret version was so superior, why have we built about 7,000 of the 'inferior' version to date? > I think there probably were some 'non-standard' missiles used during the Gulf War, but the 'true believers' are looking at the wrong part of the horse--they should > be looking at the 'less aromatic' end... ; - ) > Jim Rotramel Is this BSRAAM version part of the non-lethal weapons program? :-) What's this Lawn dart family?!? Why buy 7000 AMRAAMs... Well I think the people who decide what to buy , not to buy (or phase out, like the F-111F) have proved that they don't always do what's the most sensible. So the conclusion would be that this 'secret/advanced' version of AMRAAM used in the Gulf is probably an AMRAAM with the +5" rocket motor, with maybe some software and hardware changes (the reprogrammable guidance unit of the - -B version?). Certainly not as exciting for us who are not using the things, but much more realistic. Jim 1 -Batman 0 Timothy ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 12:09:05 -0500 From: "Tim Cropper" Subject: Re: On achieving optical invisibility This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01BF7B9B.483D7DC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I was just wondering if any of you all could help me get in = touch with any USAF fighter pilots either by letter, email, or = telephone. I'm writing a fictional piece about a combat pilot during = wartime and really could use some firsthand remarks from any fighter = pilots. Or if you don't have anyone specific in mind, I would = appreciate suggestions about which government/military agency to contact = instead. Thanks! - ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01BF7B9B.483D7DC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
    I was = just=20 wondering if any of you all could help me get in touch with any USAF = fighter=20 pilots either by letter, email, or telephone.  I'm writing a = fictional=20 piece about a combat pilot during wartime and really could use some=20 firsthand remarks from any fighter pilots.  Or if you don't = have anyone=20 specific in mind, I would appreciate suggestions about which=20 government/military agency to contact instead. =20 Thanks!
- ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01BF7B9B.483D7DC0-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 09:22:56 -0800 From: Timothy Toth Subject: Active stealth marketed One active stealth system that is almost certainly in operation today functions by shifting the Frequency of the 'received signal'.A British company (ESL-elettronica systems Ltd) is currently marketing this product, as can be seen by it's ad. on http://www.elettronica.co.uk/elt-uk/active.htm Of course they don't say much, but from what I can derive from the pictures (of purposly degraded quality?) this system would be as effective as the most efficient RAMs (with the added fact of course that you can use RAM and this active system together). The average mean RCS reduction seems to be - -5dB (approx 70% absorbtion) and the average main RCS reduction is in the order of -20dB (99% absorbtion), although I don't know to which frequencies this applies to. The second picture seems to be relating to frequencies varying from 4-5Ghz which would indicate that just like RAM the effectivness is dependent on the frequency. Some claim that the B-2 uses a similar system http://www.flightjournal.com/stealth4.html. I had read elswhere that a system capable of shifting the IR frequencies to frequencies better absorbed by the athmosphere was also either in use or being tested. Could this system work for the IR frequencies as well? Timothy ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 11:38:39 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD (SW/FT) Stealth Blimps [[was Re(11.11): invisible Radar? #2]] >So to detect 'stealth' planes you look for a fast moving 'black' space on your radar and then shoot at it. This was also a problem with the Sea Shadow. >(Hint: try not to do what Saddam Hussein did and buy loads of command and control gear off the French, 'cos at the first >sign of a shooting war they tell the allies how to find and destroy all the communications equipment). Well Sadam got his money back when the French warned him of the incoming B-52's. (recalled about 1/2 before attack) >In any event, stealth aircraft designers are going to have to find some new tricks now, because radars are getting clever >enough to spot turbulence trails behind fast-moving aircraft. Well Stealth is not just a matter of making the aircraft harder to see. It acts as a force multiplier in the sense that jamming becomes much more effective, it makes them harder to track/attack etc... However one has to admit that it's not going to be as effective as it once was. >Stealth Zeppelins, anybody?? There are very persistant rumours of a stealth Blimp. "Terry W. Colvin" wrote: > > >However one thing puzzles me; how did they manage to make the radar > antenna stealthy? > > The F-117 radar is covered with a screen that acts like a very > directional Faraday cage, so that you have to be > looking directly into the antenna aperture to "see" the radar antenna. > The screen acts as a radio-wave labyrinth and > the radome appears to be fitted with a cover coated with radar- > disruptive material. Basically, the radar is only used sparingly and > covered up when not in use. > The signal emitted by the F-117's own radar must also do some kind of > out-and-back path with the emitting element being > duplexed as a receiving element so that the returning signal can be > detected out of transmissions from off-axis emitters > The radar transmission scheduling is also arranged so that there is very > little active transmission over time, making it > difficult to locate even if another sensing antenna does manage to detect > any signals. I haven't been able to find out > how much of a field of view the radar has, but it can't be very wide. > Presumably it would only be used for weapons ranging > with a relatively narrow field of view, which means that targets would > have to be located by another radar system and passed to the F-117 via > command and control links. > When in civilian airspace the F-117 is fitted with a number of truncated, > radar-reflecting pyramids to make it more visible > on commercial radars. Each reflector is a little over six inches across > and is over a hundred times more radar reflective than the rest of the > aircraft. > Robin Hill, BAE SYSTEMS, Brough, East Yorkshire. Euh? I wasn't talking about the F-117 then. Do we have to assume that your making a mistake when you say that the -117 has a radar, is a supposition of yours, is this a deicated BDA/reconnaissance version of the -117 (there are rumours that a few extra -117s where produced) or should we forget about the whole thing and just delete this message? Timothy - ---------- In a message dated 2/19/00 2:43:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, owner-forteana-digest@primenet.com writes: << blimp would stand out at any altitude due to the heat capacity of the lifting gas. >> This statement leave me completely confused ! Are you trying to say Helium can't assume ambient temperature ? We use Fiberglass ladders with the edges 45 degrees out of where you'd expect a corner to be, for use out side the skin of our stealhty Destroyers. It works quite well and would be about half as strong as a steel ladder, I see no reason a Zepplin couldn't hve a fibrebased frame although it woud probably be carbon filiment material. Puca - ---------- Stealth Blimp Propulsion? Lockheed has several Lighter-than-air vehicle patents but one of special interest may be the following: < http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US04850551__ > - ---------- Robin Hill wrote:(Snip) > (Hint: try not to do what Saddam Hussein did and buy loads of > command and control gear off the French, 'cos at the first sign > of a shooting war they tell the allies how to find and destroy > all the communications equipment). Also, don't live near telecom > centres like telephone and microwave exchanges, as they're going > to be very high on an opposing army's hit list. What about all these mobile telephone relay towers that are spreading like a rash across all the railway land and publicly owned buildings? Come wartime, do they get taken over for military purposes? And speaking of communications eye-sores, next time you are in York have a look at the roof of Great Eastern House (the main railway offices just inside the city walls). What is a beautifull listed building has an ugly great 'kin huge radio mast on the roof sprouting dishes like fungi. 'How did they get away with that?' I hear you all ask. The answer my friends is 'we need it there to ensure the safe running of the railway'. > In any event, stealth aircraft designers are going to have to > find some new tricks now, because radars are getting clever > enough to spot turbulence trails behind fast-moving aircraft. > > Stealth Zeppelins, anybody?? Hows the development of vacuum dirigibles coming along? Has materials technology caught up with Science Fiction yet? - -- Gav - ---------- David wrote: | | > | > | >Stealth doesn't have Jack to do with materials or design (just look at | > the | > | >YF22 and B2). | > | > I'm looking, but evidently fail to see. I'm assuming the above is a joke. | > Please tell me it's a joke :) | | Well, if the above statement is totally real, that means I wasted | a lot of money on books, research papers and conferences, etc. which are | all useless... "Just look at YF-22 and B-2", I can say that shape have to | do a lot with stealth (in fact shape is usually around 80% factor of | reducing RCS) Well, until he can proof the Romulan cloaking device really | is here, I will not really trust that statement. Exactly :) Never let it be said that this list is narrow minded about advanced technology, but isn't the notion of drag / sig. reduction using charged surfaces and some form of super-secret propulsion getting fused together here ? Back in the 50s, there really was a research effort into electrogravitic propulsion - many of the prime contractors were involved. One reference for those interested is: >Gravity Research Group >Aviation Studies (International) Limited >Special Weapons Study Unit >29-31 Cheval Place, Knightsbridge >London, S.W.7. England >Report GRG-013/56 February 1956. >AF Wright Aeronautical Laboratories >Wright-Patterson Air Force Base >Technical Library >Dayton, Ohio 45433 >TL 565 A9 >Bar Code: 3 1401 00034 5879 Whether anything came of this work, or who the GRG were is anyone's guess - but the notion that the B-2 or F-22 uses it, is just too silly for words. EG is still a field (no pun intended) which attracts serious study, but I'm not aware of any major testing of hardware - even sub-scale demonstrators. D - ---------- When you can't find what should be there, you look for what is NOT there. Actually with the advances in radar it should become quite simple to track "stealth" aircraft. Just use doppler radar to track the eddies and air turbulence generated by the aircraft. Betcha it's already being done...tracking the "footprint", not the aircraft. My point being, until the Klingons give us their cloaking technology, there is always something that can be detected. Invisible, transparent aircraft don't yet exist. No matter what moves; it leaves a trail of it's own spoor. "Mitch" - - Gav Rote: >So to detect 'stealth' planes you look for a fast moving 'black' space on >your radar and then shoot at it. Exactly right, according to a workmate who used to work on radar software in the RAF. Radar screens usually display a fair bit of "clutter" or noise, except when the radar beam is absorbed (eg. by RAM), which leaves a big black "wedge" shape on the screen. The near point of the wedge is your aircraft. Rob no black triangle jokes please - ---------- - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > 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) ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #15 ******************************** 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