From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V10 #9 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 Monday, March 26 2001 Volume 10 : Number 009 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: F-22 vs. JSF Re: those SR-71 files Re: those SR-71 files Re: F-22 vs. JSF Re: those SR-71 files Re: those SR-71 files Re: those SR-71 files RE: F-22 vs. JSF Off Topic?!: Phantom Works? Re: those SR-71 files SR-71 Reunion *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 17:21:18 +0800 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: F-22 vs. JSF The JSF flight demonstrators are not prototypes. They are stressed to only 3 gs and do not represent a real-world aircraft. Consequently, there is no way to tell what the aircraft will do other than adopt the brochure. That follows for any of the specification for stealth as well. There is a world of difference between the readings of a pole model that is as slick as a wore-down glacier and a real-world aircraft that has rivets, flaps, openings, etc. As a point of fact, I spoke with a pilot who has picked up the B-2 at 100 miles. Jim Stevenson On 3/22/01 2:03 PM, "Joshua Schneider" wrote: > I am wondering if any one out there has any stats as far as what the JSF is > supposed to be able to do, especially in the area of high alpha flight. I > have had a few friends try to convice of the superiority of the JSF... I > realize that right now the JSF fighters are only technology demonstrators, > but I am hoping that someone can produce some numbers or even expert advice > for me. My friends branch of service will remain secret. Thanks in advance > for the info! > Very Respectfully, > C4C Joshua Schneider > > Jsrhino@hotmail.com > C04Joshua.Schneider@usafa.af.mil > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Mar 101 07:28:58 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: those SR-71 files On 3/3/01 9:03PM, in message <3AA1CC98.7FA23CB0@worldnet.att.net>, "Albert H. Dobyns" wrote: > Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > > > > Albert H. Dobyns wondered: > > > > >betnal@ns.net wrote: > > > > >>AAAAARRRRGGGHHH! Fumblefingers strikes Again! > > > > >Anyone can fumble fingers but I can't figure out why the dates on your > > >messages appear in the inbox with a date of 12/31/69!!! > > > > That's because Art's email program (Quarterdeck Message Center -- or some > > other program down the line) is putting a corrupted "Date:" field in the > > header, using the following format: > > > > >Date: Fri, 02 Mar 101 22:23:37 GMT > > > > using "101" instead of "2001" as Year. Looks like a "Y2K bug" to me. > > I had a hunch it might be a Y2K quirk, but .... Interstingly enough, hard to tell which programs see that date incorrectly. I am forced to use Outlook at work and it sees the date correctly. I also know Netscape mail sees it correctly. Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Mar 101 07:29:51 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: those SR-71 files On 3/4/01 8:43AM, in message , David Allison wrote: > Hello, > > Dec 31 1969 is the UNIX new year. Any machines running UNIX will > revert to that date if their clock is reset. > > - D - > > David Allison > webmaster@habu.org AHHHHH-HAAAAA! You may have solved it. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Mar 101 07:40:07 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F-22 vs. JSF On 3/25/01 1:21AM, in message , "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > The JSF flight demonstrators are not prototypes. They are stressed to only 3 > gs and do not represent a real-world aircraft. Consequently, there is no way > to tell what the aircraft will do other than adopt the brochure. That > follows for any of the specification for stealth as well. > > There is a world of difference between the readings of a pole model that is > as slick as a wore-down glacier and a real-world aircraft that has rivets, > flaps, openings, etc. As a point of fact, I spoke with a pilot who has > picked up the B-2 at 100 miles. > > Jim Stevenson Jim, was that an F-14 pilot by any chance? It's known that in daylight the F-14's TCS can track a B-2 visually in excess of 40 nm. It's also been repeatedly alleged that the F-14's radar (in search mode), because of the way it operates(it is an "older", but very powerful transmitter) detected B-2s on multiple occasions during the Kosovo fiasco. Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 04:55:32 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: those SR-71 files Art wrote: >>>Date: Fri, 02 Mar 101 22:23:37 GMT >>using "101" instead of "2001" as Year. Looks like a "Y2K bug" to me. >Interstingly enough, hard to tell which programs see that date incorrectly. >I am forced to use Outlook at work and it sees the date correctly. I also >know Netscape mail sees it correctly. There are probably several programs out there that are fault-tolerant enough to deal with such malformed date headers, but the three-digit year format is 'illegal' and 'incorrect' according to RFC-822 and RFC-1123. I guess those programs just ignore the leading, third digit, and treat the year as a two-digit year, with "01" becoming "2001". The program that created and sent the email is still 'at fault', and the correct header for the above date should (according to RFC-1123) be: >>>Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 22:23:37 GMT or preferable: >>>Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 22:23:37 +0000 (UT) Not that anyone really cares... :) - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: GPahl@wazoo.com 1517 Michigan Avenue or: Andreas@Aerospace-History.net Alamogordo, NM 88310 Web Site: http://www.wazoo.com/~gpahl/ Tel: (505) 434-6276 or: http://www.Aerospace-History.net - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 07:22:43 -0600 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: those SR-71 files > The program that created and sent the email is still 'at fault', and the > correct header for the above date should (according to RFC-1123) be: > > >>>Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 22:23:37 GMT > > or preferable: > > >>>Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 22:23:37 +0000 (UT) > > Not that anyone really cares... :) (I care, I care passionately!) Or one could follow ISO 8601 and write it 2001-02-02 22:23:37+00:00. Probably it wouldn't hurt to add "Fri" at the end, though that that's not in the standard. See http://www.uic.edu/year2000/datefmt.html http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 13:17:30 -0500 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: Re: those SR-71 files 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_01C0B621.0B6AA1CC Content-Type: text/plain Are you picking on email headers again? Greg W BTW: Are you receiving this with HTML in it? Or straight text? Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl 03/26/01 04:55 AM Please respond to skunk-works To: Skunk Works List @SMTP@BlytheExchange cc: Subject: Re: those SR-71 files Art wrote: >>>Date: Fri, 02 Mar 101 22:23:37 GMT >>using "101" instead of "2001" as Year. Looks like a "Y2K bug" to me. >Interstingly enough, hard to tell which programs see that date incorrectly. >I am forced to use Outlook at work and it sees the date correctly. I also >know Netscape mail sees it correctly. There are probably several programs out there that are fault-tolerant enough to deal with such malformed date headers, but the three-digit year format is 'illegal' and 'incorrect' according to RFC-822 and RFC-1123. I guess those programs just ignore the leading, third digit, and treat the year as a two-digit year, with "01" becoming "2001". The program that created and sent the email is still 'at fault', and the correct header for the above date should (according to RFC-1123) be: >>>Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 22:23:37 GMT or preferable: >>>Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 22:23:37 +0000 (UT) Not that anyone really cares... :) -- Andreas --- - --- Andreas Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: GPahl@wazoo.com 1517 Michigan Avenue or: Andreas@Aerospace-History.net Alamogordo, NM 88310 Web Site: http://www.wazoo.com/~gpahl/ Tel: (505) 434-6276 or: http://www.Aerospace-History.net --- - --- - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0B621.0B6AA1CC Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: those SR-71 files

          Are you picking on email  headers = again?  <grin>

          Greg W

          BTW:  Are you receiving this with = HTML in it?  Or straight text?






        Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl = <schnars@ais.org>

        03/26/01 04:55 AM
        Please respond to skunk-works
                =        =20

        To:     Skunk Works List = <skunk-works@netwrx1.com>@SMTP@BlytheExchange
        cc:    
        Subject:        = Re: those SR-71 files  

          Art wrote:

          >>>Date: Fri, 02 Mar 101 = 22:23:37 GMT

          >>using "101" instead = of "2001" as Year. Looks like a "Y2K bug" to = me.

          >Interstingly enough, hard to tell = which programs see that date incorrectly.
          >I am forced to use Outlook at = work and it sees the date correctly. I also
          >know Netscape mail sees it = correctly.

          There are probably several programs = out there that are fault-tolerant enough
          to deal with such malformed date = headers, but the three-digit year format is
          'illegal' and 'incorrect' according = to RFC-822 and RFC-1123. I guess those
          programs just ignore the leading, = third digit, and treat the year as a
          two-digit year, with "01" = becoming "2001".

          The program that created and sent the = email is still 'at fault', and the
          correct header for the above date = should (according to RFC-1123) be:

          >>>Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 = 22:23:37 GMT

          or preferable:

          >>>Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 = 22:23:37 +0000 (UT)

          Not that anyone really cares... = :)

          -- Andreas

          ---         =             =             =             =             =             =   ---
            Andreas = Gehrs-Pahl          &n= bsp;   E-Mail: GPahl@wazoo.com
            1517 Michigan = Avenue           =      or: Andreas@Aerospace-History.net
            Alamogordo, NM = 88310          Web = Site: http://www.wazoo.com/~gpahl/
            Tel: (505) = 434-6276          &nbs= p;      or: http://www.Aerospace-History.net
          ---         =             =             =             =             =             =   ---




- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0B621.0B6AA1CC-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 10:50:25 -0800 From: "T. Toth" Subject: RE: F-22 vs. JSF True that we are not talking about 'real' aircraft yet. However requirements give an indication of what to expect. And both contenders admit that they are not making the most of their design because of costs (stealth for eg.). This means that the JSF has a potential of developement on par with the F-16 (from a cheap day fighter to a very capable multi-purpose aircraft). I don't think an aircraft is not stealthy because it has been detected further than expected by most of us in some instances. In real life stealth means overall you'll have more chances of surviving and accomplishing your mission, and you'll degrade the enemy's defensive capabilities. After all following this logic there would be no point in an ECM gear because the enemy can detect you with an IR or TV tracker and IR guided missiles.In stealth just like in other fields the aim is to test, try and learn what potential problems could be, and either try to solve them technically or tactically, this has to include new threats and counter-measures developped by the enemy. As stealth technology becomes more mature, I think we can expect the 'real stealthiness' of a design to be closer to the requirements, after all that's what these long developpement times are for. I hope the pilot you talked to, who said he'd picked up a B-2 at 100 miles was American :-) Was he an E-2C pilot (Awacs using UHF frequency)? Or could the B-2 have been using radar reflectors? If not let's hope that this problem has been solved by one of those upgrades. I Think the APG-71 radar of the F-14's would have a search range of approx 50-55km against a B-2 (maybe around 40km for the older AWG-9). It is a powerfull radar indeed! Fortunatly for the B-2s they are able to detect those radar emissions long before the F-14 would come so close. Of course there is that TCS which (unless the B-2 has some sort of visual signature reduction )should give a better range in good conditions and would give no warning to the B-2, which is why they prefer flying at night I guess. Timothy >The JSF flight demonstrators are not prototypes. They are stressed to only 3 >gs and do not represent a real-world aircraft. Consequently, there is no way >to tell what the aircraft will do other than adopt the brochure. That >follows for any of the specification for stealth as well. >There is a world of difference between the readings of a pole model that is >as slick as a wore-down glacier and a real-world aircraft that has rivets, >flaps, openings, etc. As a point of fact, I spoke with a pilot who has >picked up the B-2 at 100 miles. >Jim Stevenson > Jim, was that an F-14 pilot by any chance? It's known that in daylight the >F-14's TCS can track a B-2 visually in excess of 40 nm. It's also been >repeatedly alleged that the F-14's radar (in search mode), because of the way >it operates(it is an "older", but very powerful transmitter) detected B-2s on >multiple occasions during the Kosovo fiasco. >Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 13:56:28 EST From: SecretJet@aol.com Subject: Off Topic?!: Phantom Works? Greetings! Would anyone know of a 'logo' for Boeing's 'Phantom Works'? Obviously the Skunk is far better known, and we've seen a website URL for BPW, but no logo... http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/phantom/phantom.htm Any ideas?! - --------------- Regards, Bill Turner, 'Admin'. http://www.secretjet.net Black-Triangle E-Group HQ. Near London Heathrow, UK. AIM:Secretjet2 ICQ: 29271956 http://members.aol.com/BlackTriangles/index.html - ----------------------------------------------------------------- No Door is Closed - To an Open Mind! - ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 16:58:30 -0800 From: "JayeEvans" Subject: Re: those SR-71 files This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0B615.FC4C4840 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: those SR-71 filesUNSUBSCRIBE. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Weigold, Greg=20 To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com=20 Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 10:17 AM Subject: Re: those SR-71 files Are you picking on email headers again? =20 Greg W=20 BTW: Are you receiving this with HTML in it? Or straight = text?=20 Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl =20 03/26/01 04:55 AM=20 Please respond to skunk-works=20 =20 To: Skunk Works List = @SMTP@BlytheExchange=20 cc: =20 Subject: Re: those SR-71 files =20 Art wrote:=20 >>>Date: Fri, 02 Mar 101 22:23:37 GMT=20 >>using "101" instead of "2001" as Year. Looks like a "Y2K = bug" to me.=20 >Interstingly enough, hard to tell which programs see that = date incorrectly.=20 >I am forced to use Outlook at work and it sees the date = correctly. I also=20 >know Netscape mail sees it correctly.=20 There are probably several programs out there that are = fault-tolerant enough=20 to deal with such malformed date headers, but the three-digit = year format is=20 'illegal' and 'incorrect' according to RFC-822 and RFC-1123. I = guess those=20 programs just ignore the leading, third digit, and treat the = year as a=20 two-digit year, with "01" becoming "2001".=20 The program that created and sent the email is still 'at = fault', and the=20 correct header for the above date should (according to = RFC-1123) be:=20 >>>Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 22:23:37 GMT=20 or preferable:=20 >>>Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 22:23:37 +0000 (UT)=20 Not that anyone really cares... :)=20 -- Andreas=20 --- = ---=20 Andreas Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: GPahl@wazoo.com=20 1517 Michigan Avenue or: = Andreas@Aerospace-History.net=20 Alamogordo, NM 88310 Web Site: = http://www.wazoo.com/~gpahl/=20 Tel: (505) 434-6276 or: = http://www.Aerospace-History.net=20 --- = ---=20 - ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0B615.FC4C4840 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: those SR-71 files
UNSUBSCRIBE.
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Weigold,=20 Greg
To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 = 10:17=20 AM
Subject: Re: those SR-71 = files

          Are you picking on email  = headers=20 again?  <grin>

          Greg W

          BTW:  Are you receiving = this with HTML=20 in it?  Or straight text?=20






        Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl <schnars@ais.org>=20

        03/26/01 04:55 AM
        Please respond to skunk-works=20
               =20        

        To:     Skunk Works=20 List <skunk-works@netwrx1.com>@S= MTP@BlytheExchange=20
        cc:    =20
        Subject:        = Re: those SR-71 files  

          Art wrote:

          >>>Date: Fri, 02 Mar = 101 22:23:37=20 GMT

          >>using "101" instead of = "2001" as=20 Year. Looks like a "Y2K bug" to me.

          >Interstingly enough, hard = to tell which=20 programs see that date incorrectly.
          >I am forced to use Outlook at work and it sees = the date=20 correctly. I also
          >know Netscape=20 mail sees it correctly.

          There are probably several = programs out=20 there that are fault-tolerant enough
          to deal with such malformed date headers, but the = three-digit=20 year format is
          'illegal' and=20 'incorrect' according to RFC-822 and RFC-1123. I guess = those=20
          programs just ignore the = leading, third=20 digit, and treat the year as a
          two-digit year, with "01" becoming "2001". =

          The program that created and = sent the email=20 is still 'at fault', and the
          correct header for the above date should (according = to=20 RFC-1123) be:

          >>>Date: Fri, 02 Mar = 2001 22:23:37=20 GMT

          or preferable:

          >>>Date: Fri, 02 Mar = 2001 22:23:37=20 +0000 (UT)

          Not that anyone really cares... = :)=20

          -- Andreas

          ---          &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;           =20 ---
            Andreas=20 = Gehrs-Pahl          &nb= sp;  =20 E-Mail: GPahl@wazoo.com
            1517=20 Michigan=20 = Avenue           &= nbsp;   =20 or: Andreas@Aerospace-History.net
            Alamogordo, NM=20 88310          = Web=20 Site: http://www.wazoo.com/~gpahl/ =
            Tel: (505)=20 = 434-6276           = ;     =20 or: http://www.Aerospace-History.net =
          ---          &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;           =20 --- =




- ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C0B615.FC4C4840-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 21:22:11 -0500 From: "Martin Hurst" Subject: SR-71 Reunion According to the Leland R. Haynes (Msgt USAF, Ret)'s website, http://www.wvi.com/~lelandh/srreco~1.htm the Blackbird Reunion - 2001, is coming up: - ------------------------------------------------- For those personnel that are members of the Blackbird Association, the Reunion will be held on June 08-10, 2001 at the Nugget Hotel in Reno, Nevada. The emphasis this year will be on the SR-71. Plan to attend. - ------------------------------------------------- Is anyone planning to go to it, or has gone to these in the past? Sounds like a great opportunity to meet and listen to those special individuals, as they get on in years. - -Martin ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V10 #9 ******************************** 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