From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #66 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, August 31 2000 Volume 09 : Number 066 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #65 RE: Turned on the Stealth RE: skunk-works-digest V9 #65 Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #65 Re: Turned on the Stealth Tailgate Party in Rachel, NV(10-28-00) Duxford Re: Duxford Re: Turned on the Stealth Re: Turned on the Stealth RE: Duxford Slicing Through the Air,SR-71 RE: Turned on the Stealth RE: Turned on the Stealth RE: Turned on the Stealth RE: Duxford RE: Duxford Re: Turned on the Stealth Panther Piss Re: Panther Piss Re: Panther Piss Re: Panther Piss *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 09:33:37 -0700 From: "T.Toth" Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 Lee Markland wrote: > Interesting statement. So much for the "stealthy construction". And > apparently the same goes for the YF-22, which obviously does not have a > "stealthy" construction either. Apparently stealth is based on electronics > and an EM field . Of course, in some extreme cases you're almost right. If the wavelength is much bigger than the dimensions of the target (say an OTH -Over the Horizon radar- which works in the HF frequency range 5-28MHz) The effect of shaping is much reduced, and there are little (if no) RAM that work in this frequency range that could be applied to aircraft. Which explains why OTH are effective at detecting stealth aircraft (of course in addition to this they are bi-static radars, which further reduces the effect of shapping). Timothy ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 14:32:54 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 At 11:48 PM 8/26/00 -0700, you wrote: >> >> In the particular case of the B-2, yaw is normally controlled by splitting >> the >> control surfaces open, which raises the signature quite a bit. In stealth >> mode, >> yaw is controlled by differential engine thrust, and you hope you don't have >> to turn very much. > differential engine thrust = PCA (propulsion controlled aircraft) I just wonder if this control is an extension of the NASA testing of PCA done after the 1989 DC-10 Iowa crash. NASA tested engine flight control using an F-15 and MD-11. There are several NASA reports and papers documenting the process. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 14:51:24 -0700 From: Lee Markland Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #65 At 01:51 AM 8/27/00 -0500, >Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:43:53 -0400 >From: "Frank Markus" >Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 > >If stealth were purely -- or even predominantly -- electromagnetic, I doubt >that anyone would have been able to justify the bizarre shape of the F117A. Very simple Frank. Old Technology. More than one way to skin a cat, cook eggs, get from point A to point B and more than one way to load and fire a projectile out of a metal barrel. > >I take the expression "turned on the stealth" to mean that the lights were >killed, radar reflecting protuberances removed and the anti-contrail fuel >additive turned on. If there was active radar, no doubt it was shut down >and radio transmissions limited to those sent upwards to satellites. You will of course take it anyway that you need, the way that it fits within your recall of reality as regards possibilities, physics or what is or is not possible. Me thinks there is more to the story than many are able or willing to comprehend. The March 1992, Aviation Week and Space Technology Magazine touched on the stealth aspects of the B-2, and it seems to have something to do with ionized gases, and perhaps there is more to it than that, given that a two man crew is supposed to have flow round trip for 31 hours. Max, safe crew duty day is 18 hours and that is with an extension over the standard 12 hour crew duty day (which actually starts about 2 hours prior to take off). >Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 23:47:24 +0100 >From: "Gavin Payne" >Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 > >I have to agree. The phrases 'stealth mode on', 'going stealthy' are used >by British crews when they're going into combat. It just means that they >switch off as many active systems as possible etc. > >If you interpret it as meaning switch on the force field etc then you've >just been watching star trek too much! Real funny (also another technique (logical fallacy) to dissemble an argument or suggestion (ad ridiculum). Well perhaps the writers of Aviation Week and Space Technology Magazine were watching too much Star Trek when they wrote their report. BTW, I assume that you (and others) on this list don't have the need to know access to DARPA and the latest technology, and given that would be somewhat primitive in your assessments as regards capability. Now given that a few on this list did have access and need to know then their purpose on a list such as this, would be to obfuscate and denigrate, thus assuring that new technology was kept under wraps. Lee ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 21:51:53 -0700 From: patrick Subject: RE: Turned on the Stealth At 08/26/2000 -0400, Frank Markus wrote: >If stealth were purely -- or even predominantly -- electromagnetic, I doubt >that anyone would have been able to justify the bizarre shape of the F117A. > >I take the expression "turned on the stealth" to mean that the lights were >killed, radar reflecting protuberances removed and the anti-contrail fuel >additive turned on. Anyone care to comment on this "anti-contrail" fuel additive? thanks, patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 09:58:05 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V9 #65 Blimey, I was only having a laugh! > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com > [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Lee Markland > Sent: 27 August 2000 22:51 > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #65 > > > At 01:51 AM 8/27/00 -0500, > >Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:43:53 -0400 > >From: "Frank Markus" > >Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 > > > >If stealth were purely -- or even predominantly -- > electromagnetic, I doubt > >that anyone would have been able to justify the bizarre > shape of the F117A. > > Very simple Frank. Old Technology. More than one way to skin > a cat, cook > eggs, get from point A to point B and more than one way to > load and fire a > projectile out of a metal barrel. > > > > > >I take the expression "turned on the stealth" to mean that > the lights were > >killed, radar reflecting protuberances removed and the > anti-contrail fuel > >additive turned on. If there was active radar, no doubt it > was shut down > >and radio transmissions limited to those sent upwards to satellites. > > > You will of course take it anyway that you need, the way that it fits > within your recall of reality as regards > possibilities, physics or what is or is not possible. > > Me thinks there is more to the story than many are able or willing to > comprehend. > > The March 1992, Aviation Week and Space Technology Magazine > touched on the > stealth aspects of the B-2, and it seems to have something to do with > ionized gases, and perhaps there is more to it than that, > given that a two > man crew is supposed to have flow round trip for 31 hours. > Max, safe crew > duty day is 18 hours and that is with an extension over the > standard 12 > hour crew duty day (which actually starts about 2 hours prior > to take off). > > > >Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 23:47:24 +0100 > >From: "Gavin Payne" > >Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V9 #64 > > > >I have to agree. The phrases 'stealth mode on', 'going > stealthy' are used > >by British crews when they're going into combat. It just > means that they > >switch off as many active systems as possible etc. > > > >If you interpret it as meaning switch on the force field etc > then you've > >just been watching star trek too much! > > Real funny (also another technique (logical fallacy) to dissemble an > argument or suggestion (ad ridiculum). > > Well perhaps the writers of Aviation Week and Space > Technology Magazine > were watching too much Star Trek when they wrote their report. > > BTW, I assume that you (and others) on this list don't have > the need to > know access to DARPA and the latest technology, and given > that would be > somewhat primitive in your assessments as regards capability. > > Now given that a few on this list did have access and need to > know then > their purpose on a list such as this, would be to obfuscate > and denigrate, > thus assuring that new technology was kept under wraps. > > Lee > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 10:07:52 -0600 From: Brad Hitch Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #65 Lee Markland wrote: > > > > >I take the expression "turned on the stealth" to mean that the lights were > >killed, radar reflecting protuberances removed and the anti-contrail fuel > >additive turned on. If there was active radar, no doubt it was shut down > >and radio transmissions limited to those sent upwards to satellites. > > You will of course take it anyway that you need, the way that it fits > within your recall of reality as regards > possibilities, physics or what is or is not possible. > > Me thinks there is more to the story than many are able or willing to > comprehend. > Occam's razor says that the simplest explanation is the horse to bet on. It's not ALWAYS right but it works 90% of the time. Also, as Sagan used to say, "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" - the onus is upon the person making the claims, not the critic of them. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 15:58:57 -0500 From: "Albert H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: Turned on the Stealth patrick wrote: > > At 08/26/2000 -0400, Frank Markus wrote: > >If stealth were purely -- or even predominantly -- electromagnetic, I doubt > >that anyone would have been able to justify the bizarre shape of the F117A. > > > >I take the expression "turned on the stealth" to mean that the lights were > >killed, radar reflecting protuberances removed and the anti-contrail fuel > >additive turned on. > > Anyone care to comment on this "anti-contrail" fuel additive? > > thanks, > patrick cullumber I forget which book I read this in but I think a fuel additive containing Cesium was used to reduce the formation of contrails. Does anyone remember seeing this in one of the many books on the SR-71 or U-2? Al ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 21:34:15 -0700 (PDT) From: CFA3@webtv.net (C.F.A.3) Subject: Tailgate Party in Rachel, NV(10-28-00) At one point or another, I have had a conversation with you about Military Air Craft, Nellis Range and/or Groom Lake. This will be a one time e/mail. So... On Saturday, Oct. 28th, the AREA 51 RESEARCH CENTER in Rachel, NV., in conjuction with the GROOM LAKE AUDUBON SOCIETY*, will be hosting a little get together. We're calling it, for lack of a better name: THE AREA 51 / RED FLAG -- FAN APPRECIATION DAY--WEENIE ROAST/BBQ/TAILGATE PARTY & B.S. SESSION. Don Emory and I have talked about inviting a bunch of the "like minded" out for a "gathering", for over a year. Both of us get all kinds of requests like this. So, here it is. RED FLAG will be in full swing during the week, so there is a chance that some of us will be there, anyways. For those that do, we can talk about camping together. (We'll talk.) Don will be contacting Nellis, to let them know, too. It might be nice to have visitors from the excercise. (We'll cook 'em a hot dog, or something.) Bring photos, scrap books, tall tales, ...whatever. NO BULL HORNS OR SOAP BOXES ALLOWED! Go to www.area51researchcenter.com for updates. Tell a friend (not the enemies of) Contact me if need be. Best to you all C3(Imperial Leader of GLAS) http://community.webtv.net/CFA3/GroomLakeAudubon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:10:43 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Duxford May be old news, But. According to the newsletter for the Duxford UK air museum . They have announced in the Summer 2000 adition that SR-71 tail number 962 which is currently stored at Palmdale, has been allocated to Duxford. The aircraft is disassembled and shipped to England. and they hope to have it on display sometime in Sept . (hopefully for thier airshow Sept 9-10) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 23:36:07 -0500 From: "Albert H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: Duxford John Szalay wrote: > > May be old news, But. > According to the newsletter for the Duxford UK air museum . > They have announced in the Summer 2000 adition that SR-71 tail number 962 > which is currently stored at Palmdale, has been allocated to Duxford. > The aircraft is disassembled and shipped to England. and they hope to have > it on display sometime in Sept . (hopefully for thier airshow Sept 9-10) That's the first I've read about an SR being sent to a museum outside the US. Lucky guys!! Al ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 19:52:34 +0800 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Turned on the Stealth In an interview I had with Ben Rich, he called the additive "Panther Piss." Jim Stevenson on 8/29/00 4:58 AM, Albert H. Dobyns at ahdobyns@worldnet.att.net wrote: > patrick wrote: >> >> At 08/26/2000 -0400, Frank Markus wrote: >>> If stealth were purely -- or even predominantly -- electromagnetic, I doubt >>> that anyone would have been able to justify the bizarre shape of the F117A. >>> >>> I take the expression "turned on the stealth" to mean that the lights were >>> killed, radar reflecting protuberances removed and the anti-contrail fuel >>> additive turned on. >> >> Anyone care to comment on this "anti-contrail" fuel additive? >> >> thanks, >> patrick cullumber > > I forget which book I read this in but I think a fuel > additive containing Cesium was used to reduce the > formation of contrails. Does anyone remember seeing > this in one of the many books on the SR-71 or U-2? > Al > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 06:48:10 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Turned on the Stealth Was this in reference to the SR-71 or U-2? The reason I belabor the point is I have never found any evidence this ability was incorporated in the F-117. patrick cullumber At 08/30/2000 +0800, you wrote: >In an interview I had with Ben Rich, he called the additive "Panther Piss." > >Jim Stevenson > >on 8/29/00 4:58 AM, Albert H. Dobyns at ahdobyns@worldnet.att.net wrote: > > > patrick wrote: > >> > >> At 08/26/2000 -0400, Frank Markus wrote: > >>> If stealth were purely -- or even predominantly -- electromagnetic, I > doubt > >>> that anyone would have been able to justify the bizarre shape of the > F117A. > >>> > >>> I take the expression "turned on the stealth" to mean that the lights > were > >>> killed, radar reflecting protuberances removed and the anti-contrail fuel > >>> additive turned on. > >> > >> Anyone care to comment on this "anti-contrail" fuel additive? > >> > >> thanks, > >> patrick cullumber > > > > I forget which book I read this in but I think a fuel > > additive containing Cesium was used to reduce the > > formation of contrails. Does anyone remember seeing > > this in one of the many books on the SR-71 or U-2? > > Al > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 18:48:03 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: RE: Duxford I also read a long time ago that Duxford were going to get an SR-71 (no 962) as a token of thanks for using Mildenhall etc. The last I heard though there was no timescale for its arrival. Its good news then that its planned to be here for Sept. I assume it'll be flying in? Gavin > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com > [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Albert H. Dobyns > Sent: 30 August 2000 05:36 > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: Re: Duxford > > > John Szalay wrote: > > > > May be old news, But. > > According to the newsletter for the Duxford UK air museum . > > They have announced in the Summer 2000 adition that SR-71 > tail number 962 > > which is currently stored at Palmdale, has been allocated > to Duxford. > > The aircraft is disassembled and shipped to England. and > they hope to have > > it on display sometime in Sept . (hopefully for thier > airshow Sept 9-10) > > > That's the first I've read about an SR being sent to a > museum outside the US. Lucky guys!! > Al > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 18:27:21 GMT From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Slicing Through the Air,SR-71 Subject: From wayne - Slicing Through the Air,SR-71 Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:11:45 -0700 wayne has sent you a free greeting card! You may pick it up at the following address: http://cards.webshots.com/30809978747 Click on the link above to view your postcard. You can also view your card by visiting http://cards.webshots.com/pickup.html and entering your postcard number. Your personal postcard number is: 30809978747 Thanks! ps. wayne also suggests you try out the Webshots Desktop software to display thousands of incredible photos on your desktop wallpaper and screen saver. It's fun, easy, and FREE. You can download it for FREE from: http://www.webshots.com/go?direct _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 17:03:42 -0400 From: "Frank Markus" Subject: RE: Turned on the Stealth Just to confuse things a bit more, the initial discussion was about the B-2. And early message in the thread suggested that the phrase "turned on the stealth" showed that stealth was an electromagnetic system that could be turned on and off. I replied as quoted below. I do not recall whether both the U-2 and the SR-71 used the anti-contrail additive but I recall that at least one did (probably both.) The F-117A did not have the same anti-contrail requirement -- or had it to a lesser degree -- as it flew at night and relied on its shape and RAM coating to prevent its being acquired. While contrails are visible at night, they are far less so than during the day -- and I imagine that it can be argued that a nighttime contrail is unlikely to be noticed if the low observable features of the stealth aircraft work as designed. As for the B-2, it is a more recent (and vastly larger) aircraft than the F-117A. Not much was spared in that design. If an anti-contrail additive was available, it was probably have been incorporated. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of patrick Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 9:48 AM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: Turned on the Stealth Was this in reference to the SR-71 or U-2? The reason I belabor the point is I have never found any evidence this ability was incorporated in the F-117. patrick cullumber At 08/30/2000 +0800, you wrote: >In an interview I had with Ben Rich, he called the additive "Panther Piss." > >Jim Stevenson > >on 8/29/00 4:58 AM, Albert H. Dobyns at ahdobyns@worldnet.att.net wrote: > > > patrick wrote: > >> > >> At 08/26/2000 -0400, Frank Markus wrote: > >>> If stealth were purely -- or even predominantly -- electromagnetic, I > doubt > >>> that anyone would have been able to justify the bizarre shape of the > F117A. > >>> > >>> I take the expression "turned on the stealth" to mean that the lights > were > >>> killed, radar reflecting protuberances removed and the anti-contrail fuel > >>> additive turned on. > >> > >> Anyone care to comment on this "anti-contrail" fuel additive? > >> > >> thanks, > >> patrick cullumber > > > > I forget which book I read this in but I think a fuel > > additive containing Cesium was used to reduce the > > formation of contrails. Does anyone remember seeing > > this in one of the many books on the SR-71 or U-2? > > Al > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 14:20:36 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: RE: Turned on the Stealth >As for the B-2, it is a more recent (and vastly larger) aircraft than the >F-117A. Not much was spared in that design. If an anti-contrail additive >was available, it was probably have been incorporated. > There was an AvWeek article on the B-2's (fairly corrosive) anti-contrail additive and the "Contrail Warning Light" LIDAR system that was being evaluated for the B-2. Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Have you exported RSA today? print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Subject: RE: Turned on the Stealth I remember reading an article about the RAF's Buccaneers in the Gulf where they mentioned contrails. Apparently all they did there was knock the throttle a little bit. I think this may have had something to do with the dodgy old engines rather than anything else though!! > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com > [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Dan Zinngrabe > Sent: 30 August 2000 22:21 > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: RE: Turned on the Stealth > > > > >As for the B-2, it is a more recent (and vastly larger) > aircraft than the > >F-117A. Not much was spared in that design. If an > anti-contrail additive > >was available, it was probably have been incorporated. > > > > There was an AvWeek article on the B-2's (fairly corrosive) > anti-contrail additive and the "Contrail Warning Light" LIDAR system > that was being evaluated for the B-2. > > Dan > > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > Have you exported RSA today? > print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo > "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> > )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 ]dsJxp"|dc` > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 17:52:27 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: RE: Duxford At 06:48 PM 8/30/00 +0100, you wrote: >I also read a long time ago that Duxford were going to get an SR-71 (no 962) >as a token of thanks for using Mildenhall etc. The last I heard though >there was no timescale for its arrival. Its good news then that its planned >to be here for Sept. I assume it'll be flying in? > NO It will be disassembled and flown by/as freight. > >Gavin > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com >> [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Albert H. Dobyns >> Sent: 30 August 2000 05:36 >> To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com >> Subject: Re: Duxford >> >> >> John Szalay wrote: >> > >> > May be old news, But. >> > According to the newsletter for the Duxford UK air museum . >> > They have announced in the Summer 2000 adition that SR-71 >> tail number 962 >> > which is currently stored at Palmdale, has been allocated >> to Duxford. >> > The aircraft is disassembled and shipped to England. and >> they hope to have >> > it on display sometime in Sept . (hopefully for thier >> airshow Sept 9-10) >> >> >> That's the first I've read about an SR being sent to a >> museum outside the US. Lucky guys!! >> Al >> >> > > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 21:55:26 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: RE: Duxford At 06:48 PM 8/30/00 +0100, you wrote: >I also read a long time ago that Duxford were going to get an SR-71 (no 962) >as a token of thanks for using Mildenhall etc. The last I heard though >there was no timescale for its arrival. Its good news then that its planned >to be here for Sept. I assume it'll be flying in? > One thing I did,nt mention, the article stated that the aircraft had been already stripped of all parts that are needed for possible reactivation of reserve aircraft, such as seats, life support ETC: ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 22:44:19 -0500 From: "Albert H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: Turned on the Stealth "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > > In an interview I had with Ben Rich, he called the additive "Panther Piss." > > Jim Stevenson > > on 8/29/00 4:58 AM, Albert H. Dobyns at ahdobyns@worldnet.att.net wrote: > > > patrick wrote: > >> > >> At 08/26/2000 -0400, Frank Markus wrote: > >>> If stealth were purely -- or even predominantly -- electromagnetic, I doubt > >>> that anyone would have been able to justify the bizarre shape of the F117A. > >>> > >>> I take the expression "turned on the stealth" to mean that the lights were > >>> killed, radar reflecting protuberances removed and the anti-contrail fuel > >>> additive turned on. > >> > >> Anyone care to comment on this "anti-contrail" fuel additive? > >> > >> thanks, > >> patrick cullumber > > > > I forget which book I read this in but I think a fuel > > additive containing Cesium was used to reduce the > > formation of contrails. Does anyone remember seeing > > this in one of the many books on the SR-71 or U-2? > > Al > > > > You've written a few/several/many? books on military aircraft I think. I have the Aero book on the F-15 Eagle and the F-14. I also have one about the F-16 but I think that was written by someone else. Just wanted to let you know that I enjoyed your books. Got anything new coming out?? Al I think Ben Rich must have been a really colorful personality!! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 20:00:49 +0800 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Panther Piss Patrick I was interviewing Rich about stealth and made the comment that they thought that the SR-71 would be stealthy but it turned out that it could be seen about 200 miles away because it ionized the air. Rich replied, "that was until we added Panther Piss." Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:47:19 -0700 From: "T.Toth" Subject: Re: Panther Piss So this would be an anti-contrail system AND a way of dealing with ionized air? I wonder why the name "panther piss"? I heard the anti-contrail system is supposed to 'break up' the drops of water to make them smaller does this sound correct to you? Timothy "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > Patrick > > I was interviewing Rich about stealth and made the comment that they thought > that the SR-71 would be stealthy but it turned out that it could be seen > about 200 miles away because it ionized the air. Rich replied, "that was > until we added Panther Piss." > > Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 06:45:46 +0800 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Panther Piss I don't know but you could contact the Skunk Works or Jay Miller. on 9/1/00 3:47 AM, T.Toth at ttoth@primus.ca wrote: > So this would be an anti-contrail system AND a way of dealing with ionized > air? > I wonder why the name "panther piss"? > I heard the anti-contrail system is supposed to 'break up' the drops of water > to > make them smaller does this sound correct to you? > Timothy > > "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > >> Patrick >> >> I was interviewing Rich about stealth and made the comment that they thought >> that the SR-71 would be stealthy but it turned out that it could be seen >> about 200 miles away because it ionized the air. Rich replied, "that was >> until we added Panther Piss." >> >> Jim Stevenson > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 20:20:31 EDT From: JNiessen@aol.com Subject: Re: Panther Piss Hey guys, You might track down a copy of my book on the B-2 and find the answer to your "PP" in there. I don't have a copy handy, otherwise I'd provide the data on acid injection/contrail formation, myself. Additionally, are you all aware of the environmental menace that has appeared out of nowhere in the atmosphere (in concert with the operational debut of the B-2)? There was a piece in several of the local newspapers about a mysterious chemical combo that has only recently been discovered...and that remains unexplained. There are serious concerns about its impact on the environment. It's much more insidious than ozone. Cheers, Jay Miller ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #66 ******************************** 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