GoogleEarth aircraft at Palmdale

[gatt]

34d 37'08" 118 05'03 What the hell is that?


Around the time I this photo was probably taken I was at the Blackbird Park
(you'll see 2 SR-71s and a U2) and they wouldn't let us near the airport
'cause, as we found out at Edwards the next day, they'd just rolled out the
X-32 at Palmdale and were flying it to Edwards the next morning. (Saw it
there. This isn't it. You can use the Blackbirds and the B2 for
perspective of the mystery aircraft, which is a white triangle.)

If you poke around with GoogleEarth you'll also see an F-117 and a B-2 at
Palmdale.

For more fun, find Area51. The main runway is X'ed out, but they have
runway grids built out across Groom Lake. Strange this is that the L and R
parallel runways touch each other, but there are similar at Edwards. (And
an awesome compass rose in the lakebed) Scan west-southwest of Groom Lake
and you'll see a pretty awesome crater field.

There are two more Blackbirds (pause for reverence) parked at the north end
of the Edwards tarmac in the NASA section. One of those birds is now at
McMinnville under the right wing of the Spruce Goose. There are a couple of
other odd aircraft on the tarmac just north of them. At the little airstrip
to the south there's a collection of planes outside including an A-10 and a
C-47 (must be a museum or collection) but on the flight line itself there
are three B-1s.



-c

[Jay Beckman]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> 34d 37'08" 118 05'03 What the hell is that?
>
>

Possibly an F-16XL in Edwards colors?

The XL was the model with the "cranked arrow" planform.

Looks like this:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q13225AEC

Jay B

[Airyx]

The cranked wing makes it look like an F-16XL.

[Jason]

> 34d 37'08" 118 05'03 What the hell is that?
>

I agree with Jay, I think its the F-16XL. First thing that came to mind
when I saw the shape.

[Airyx]

I've got another one at Patuxent Naval Air Station (which used to be
all blurred out, but isn't now).

At 38"17"19 N 76"25"20 W is what appears to be a Global Hawk.

There are also a bunch of T-38's at the NW corner of the base, and a
bunch of Harriers and Hornets at the SE corner.

[gatt]

"Jason" > wrote in message
...
>> 34d 37'08" 118 05'03 What the hell is that?
>>
>
> I agree with Jay, I think its the F-16XL. First thing that came to mind
> when I saw the shape.

Impressive! It's a different angle, but they're similar enough.

The AF should have made plywood cutouts of super sci-fi airplanes and flying
saucers and put 'em on the tarmac to screw with GoogleEarth geeks...

-c

[Bill Shatzer]

gatt wrote:

> 34d 37'08" 118 05'03 What the hell is that?


F-35, I should think.

Photo's a little blurry but it seems to have the straight trailing edges
to the wing like the F-35 rather than the tapered forward trailing edge
like the F-22

One or the other, in any case.

Peace and justice,

[The Visitor]

gatt wrote:

> The AF should have made plywood cutouts of super sci-fi airplanes and flying
> saucers and put 'em on the tarmac to screw with GoogleEarth geeks...

Now that would be halarious!!!

[[email protected]]

I'm bettin' it's Boeing's JSF entry...

[Skywise]

"gatt" > wrote in news:_0VYf.4983$kg.4416
@news02.roc.ny:

>
> 34d 37'08" 118 05'03 What the hell is that?
>
>
> Around the time I this photo was probably taken I was at the Blackbird Park
> (you'll see 2 SR-71s and a U2) and they wouldn't let us near the airport
<Snipola>

Speaking of U2's....twice in the past weeks when I've been out on my
balcony in north Orange County CA, watching the planes go by high up
and making vapor trails, I've seen white U2. I wonder if it's the same
one.

I've been toying around with my telescope and digital camera to get
pics of aircraft at altitude. Unfortunately, the attemps at the U2 have
not been in the best of focus.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[JohnH]

The Visitor wrote:
> gatt wrote:
>
>> The AF should have made plywood cutouts of super sci-fi airplanes
>> and flying saucers and put 'em on the tarmac to screw with
>> GoogleEarth geeks...
>
> Now that would be halarious!!!

Here's CIA traing HQ mockups of AF1 and Marine1

http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=39.041112~-76.844572&style=o&lvl=2&scene=826067

more at

http://www.birdseyetourist.com/


--
__________________________________________________ _______________
Too much time on your hands? Waste it here!
www.crazydatingstories.com
www.crazykidstories.com
www.crazywarstories.com

[Baxter]

I saw one google photo that showed a levitating SUV - the shadow indicated
it was at least 8' off the ground.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"The Visitor" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> gatt wrote:
>
> > The AF should have made plywood cutouts of super sci-fi airplanes and
flying
> > saucers and put 'em on the tarmac to screw with GoogleEarth geeks...
>
> Now that would be halarious!!!
>

[Jay Honeck]

> There are two more Blackbirds (pause for reverence) parked at the north end
> of the Edwards tarmac in the NASA section. One of those birds is now at
> McMinnville under the right wing of the Spruce Goose.

Speaking of Blackbirds, did you know that two of them are unaccounted
for? The Roadrunners (a fraternity of former Blackbird pilots,
crewmembers, workers, etc.) have done an excellent job of listing where
each SR-71 ever built has ended up -- and come up two short.

Rumor has it that they're still flying...but no one knows, for sure.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Marco Leon]

Another shot:

http://local.live.com/?v=2&sp=aN.34.638233_-118.098629_Boeing%20JSF_


> wrote in message
ups.com...
> I'm bettin' it's Boeing's JSF entry...
>
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Tank Fixer]

In article . com>,
on 6 Apr 2006 06:00:44 -0700,
Jay Honeck attempted to say .....

>
> Rumor has it that they're still flying...but no one knows, for sure.
>

Shhhh...

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[UffDa!]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > There are two more Blackbirds (pause for reverence) parked at the north end
> > of the Edwards tarmac in the NASA section. One of those birds is now at
> > McMinnville under the right wing of the Spruce Goose.
>
> Speaking of Blackbirds, did you know that two of them are unaccounted
> for? The Roadrunners (a fraternity of former Blackbird pilots,
> crewmembers, workers, etc.) have done an excellent job of listing where
> each SR-71 ever built has ended up -- and come up two short.
>
> Rumor has it that they're still flying...but no one knows, for sure.

Given that we have no equivalent replacement I would expect them to be
used.

[Bill Shatzer]

UffDa! wrote:

> Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>There are two more Blackbirds (pause for reverence) parked at the north end
>>>of the Edwards tarmac in the NASA section. One of those birds is now at
>>>McMinnville under the right wing of the Spruce Goose.

>>Speaking of Blackbirds, did you know that two of them are unaccounted
>>for? The Roadrunners (a fraternity of former Blackbird pilots,
>>crewmembers, workers, etc.) have done an excellent job of listing where
>>each SR-71 ever built has ended up -- and come up two short.

>>Rumor has it that they're still flying...but no one knows, for sure.

> Given that we have no equivalent replacement I would expect them to be
> used.

Of course there's an equivalent replacement - they're orbiting several
hundreds of kilometers up and go by names like KH-12, Improved Chrystal,
Indigo, LaCrosse, Vega, and likely a half a dozen other names still
classified.

The SR-71 was retired because there's no need for its capabilities any
longer. Everything the SR-71 could do can now be done cheaper and better
(and more safely) by satellites.

Peace and justice,

[UffDa!]

Bill Shatzer wrote:
> UffDa! wrote:
>
> > Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> >>>There are two more Blackbirds (pause for reverence) parked at the north end
> >>>of the Edwards tarmac in the NASA section. One of those birds is now at
> >>>McMinnville under the right wing of the Spruce Goose.
>
> >>Speaking of Blackbirds, did you know that two of them are unaccounted
> >>for? The Roadrunners (a fraternity of former Blackbird pilots,
> >>crewmembers, workers, etc.) have done an excellent job of listing where
> >>each SR-71 ever built has ended up -- and come up two short.
>
> >>Rumor has it that they're still flying...but no one knows, for sure.
>
> > Given that we have no equivalent replacement I would expect them to be
> > used.
>
> Of course there's an equivalent replacement - they're orbiting several
> hundreds of kilometers up and go by names like KH-12, Improved Chrystal,
> Indigo, LaCrosse, Vega, and likely a half a dozen other names still
> classified.

Similiar, not equivalent.

> The SR-71 was retired because there's no need for its capabilities any
> longer. Everything the SR-71 could do can now be done cheaper and better
> (and more safely) by satellites.

The Predator does provide another similar function currently. It
covers most of the gaps left by satellites.

[Richard Lamb]

Bill Shatzer wrote:

> UffDa! wrote:
>
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>
>>>> There are two more Blackbirds (pause for reverence) parked at the
>>>> north end
>>>> of the Edwards tarmac in the NASA section. One of those birds is
>>>> now at
>>>> McMinnville under the right wing of the Spruce Goose.
>
>
>>> Speaking of Blackbirds, did you know that two of them are unaccounted
>>> for? The Roadrunners (a fraternity of former Blackbird pilots,
>>> crewmembers, workers, etc.) have done an excellent job of listing where
>>> each SR-71 ever built has ended up -- and come up two short.
>
>
>>> Rumor has it that they're still flying...but no one knows, for sure.
>
>
>> Given that we have no equivalent replacement I would expect them to be
>> used.
>
>
> Of course there's an equivalent replacement - they're orbiting several
> hundreds of kilometers up and go by names like KH-12, Improved Chrystal,
> Indigo, LaCrosse, Vega, and likely a half a dozen other names still
> classified.
>
> The SR-71 was retired because there's no need for its capabilities any
> longer. Everything the SR-71 could do can now be done cheaper and better
> (and more safely) by satellites.
>
> Peace and justice,
>

Balderdash.
It was retired on pure economic reasons.

The satellites may give good picture, but what you want is a picture
while the other guy has his pants down.

A satellite is as predictable in its path as the stars in the heavens.

Satellites generally don't carry enough fuel for the huge delta-V's
required to work the bird on an irregular schedule.

That's the one thing the Blackbirds could do that nothing else could.

Suddenly.
Arrive.
And then be long gone...

Smile, you're on candid camera!

[Big John]

Jay

Did you ever ask your 'friend' if a 71 was lost when the bird blew up
after launch from the Cape?

My source swears it happened but?????????? Supposdly the Oxy was
burned out of air causing engine to flame out and could not be
restarted............

Strange things happen but if I were a betting man I'd put some money
on this not happening.

Big John
````````````````````````````````````````````


On 6 Apr 2006 06:00:44 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>> There are two more Blackbirds (pause for reverence) parked at the north end
>> of the Edwards tarmac in the NASA section. One of those birds is now at
>> McMinnville under the right wing of the Spruce Goose.
>
>Speaking of Blackbirds, did you know that two of them are unaccounted
>for? The Roadrunners (a fraternity of former Blackbird pilots,
>crewmembers, workers, etc.) have done an excellent job of listing where
>each SR-71 ever built has ended up -- and come up two short.
>
>Rumor has it that they're still flying...but no one knows, for sure.

[Bill Shatzer]

Richard Lamb wrote:

> Bill Shatzer wrote:

-snip-

>>> Given that we have no equivalent replacement I would expect them to be
>>> used.

>> Of course there's an equivalent replacement - they're orbiting several
>> hundreds of kilometers up and go by names like KH-12, Improved
>> Chrystal, Indigo, LaCrosse, Vega, and likely a half a dozen other
>> names still classified.

>> The SR-71 was retired because there's no need for its capabilities any
>> longer. Everything the SR-71 could do can now be done cheaper and
>> better (and more safely) by satellites.

> Balderdash.
> It was retired on pure economic reasons.

Like I mentioned - "can now be done cheaper".

> The satellites may give good picture, but what you want is a picture
> while the other guy has his pants down.

We ain't gonna be flying spy missions over the Soviet Union. For one
thing, the Soviet Union no longer exists.

For the rest of the world, the U-2Rs and U-2Ss and the Global Hawk UAVs
are perfectly adequate to catch folks with their pants down at much less
cost and considerably less risk.

And they're gonna be phasing the U-2s out starting this year.
As soon as adequate numbers of the UAVs and RPVs are in service, the
U-2s will not needed any more either.

> A satellite is as predictable in its path as the stars in the heavens.

> Satellites generally don't carry enough fuel for the huge delta-V's
> required to work the bird on an irregular schedule.

> That's the one thing the Blackbirds could do that nothing else could.

Mach 3 and 80,000 feet is no longer required. The satellites and
UAVs/RPVs are more than adequate.

Peace and justice,

[Yosemite Sam]

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 21:53:42 -0700, Bill Shatzer
> wrote:

>Peace and justice,

War and oppression,

[gatt]

"Bill Shatzer" > wrote in message
...

> Mach 3 and 80,000 feet is no longer required. The satellites and UAVs/RPVs
> are more than adequate.

Theoretically a UAV/RPV could fly within those parameters if it was built to
do so, and you wouldn't have to muck with the weight and duration issues of
human life support. Altitude isn't necessary but the speed at which an
aircraft can get to a target must have tactical value.

I can't imagine that such an aircraft isn't being developed already.

-c

[Bill Shatzer]

gatt wrote:

> "Bill Shatzer" > wrote in message
> ...

>>Mach 3 and 80,000 feet is no longer required. The satellites and UAVs/RPVs
>>are more than adequate.

> Theoretically a UAV/RPV could fly within those parameters if it was built to
> do so, and you wouldn't have to muck with the weight and duration issues of
> human life support. Altitude isn't necessary but the speed at which an
> aircraft can get to a target must have tactical value.

Whatever "tactical value" might be confered by the SR-71's speed was
negated by the time required to prepare it for operations - nearly 24
hours if I recall correctly.

Those things weren't sitting on the runway on 15-minute alert.

If you're trying to do reconnaissance of time-sensitive targets, better
a Mach 0.8 vehicle which can be launched with an hour's notice rather
than a Mach 3.0 vehicle which takes a full day to prepare for launch.

> I can't imagine that such an aircraft isn't being developed already.

Well, perhaps newer technology can do better with the launch time
problem but there really doesn't seem any need at all for Mach 3.0 and
lots of reasons to avoid the costs and engineering pitfalls associated
with designing such a thing.

And -if- such thing is being developed, it's gonna be a subsonic UAV
similar to DarkStar rather than a manned Mach 3.0 aircraft like the SR-71.

Peace and justice,

[Jose]

> If you're trying to do reconnaissance of time-sensitive targets, better a Mach 0.8 vehicle which can be launched with an hour's notice rather than a Mach 3.0 vehicle which takes a full day to prepare for launch.

....unless it's always ready for launch. Your tax dollars at work.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Peter Stickney]

Jose wrote:

>> If you're trying to do reconnaissance of time-sensitive targets,
>> better a Mach 0.8 vehicle which can be launched with an hour's
>> notice rather than a Mach 3.0 vehicle which takes a full day to
>> prepare for launch.
>
> ...unless it's always ready for launch. Your tax dollars at work.

That's Bill's point. (And one of th things that scuttled the YF-12
Interceptor Blackbird) It's not a matter of topping up the fuel
tanks, cocking the airplane, and hooking up the start carts.
You've got to deal with stuff like keeping the TEB (Tri-Ethyl Borane -
spontaneously combusts in air, required to light off the low
volatility fuel in the engines & afterburners, and Really Nasty
Stuff) under control, and the hydraulic fluid heated (It ranges from
being a powder to something agin to Jello at normal temperatures)
Not to mention having the crew pre-breathed, suited up (Space Suits)
and ready.

Oh, yeah - you've also got to get the tankers to their rendeavous
points. The Blackbird may do its thing at Mach 3, but the tankers
get there a Mach 0.85, just like anybody else.

--
Pete Stickney
Java Man knew nothing about coffee.