From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #152 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Friday, 9 September 1994 Volume 05 : Number 152 In this issue: flares flares x16 and ec47 Re: flares avro slares, ec-47 IR flares Re: x16 and ec47 Re: x16 and ec47 X-16 Re: IR flares Re: flares Re: IR flares Ben Rich's New Book Wizard wars & air power in the 21st century Part 1 Re: x16 and ec47 See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: I am the NRA Date: Tue, 6 Sep 94 17:18:35 EDT Subject: flares >Does anybody know of Infra Red flares All flares emit infrared, as they are combustion driven. Some flares are "tuned" (actually, burn cool) to maximize IR and minimize visual. I ASSume a pur IR (not visible) could be done. >which glow deep RED for aprox 20 seconds. Not hard to do. >I saw some in use at Salisbury Plain recently and they seemed to hang up there >quite well. Sounds like parachute flares. >I also saw some other strange lights whilst I was up there. Can anybody >explain a light which comes on and then fires a light straight back down at >the ground? One can do that with pyrotechnics, a rocket fired "down charge" would look like beam. Or a suspended (expendable?) laser. Why? THAT is another question. Perhaps to train ground forces in what to do when being laser designated..... regards dwp ------------------------------ From: rh@craycos.com (Robert Herndon) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 94 16:55:19 MDT Subject: flares What are described sound like something I saw last year. I was flying (private plane) just East of Ft. Carson, CO (over I-25 between Colorado Springs and Pueblo). The restricted area to the west of I-25 was hot, and it was night. There was something shooting red colored objects that burned for perhaps 20 seconds. I don't think it was tracer; it was bright red, and didn't seem to be going particularly straight from whatever was shooting it. The red things were being fired at perhaps 1-2 per second (it was regular, though), and the path seemed to vary several degrees between red things. I asked someone about it afterwards, and one person suggested that it might be 'sunburst', which I was given to believe was some sort of chaff-like infrared diversionary. I'd love to see a description of whatever it was. /r ------------------------------ From: mangan@Kodak.COM (Paul Mangan) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 94 07:43:02 EDT Subject: x16 and ec47 I recently was looking at a chart that showed an airplane that had a shape like an U2. I was called an x16 and supposedly was designed to do Mach 5 and a ciling of 250,000. Does anyone have some truth/facts around this plane? Its sounds like an un-stealthy Aurora. ALSO, I have a friend/acquaintance that says he flew an EC-47 in Viet-Nam. He wondered if I might have a picture of one in any of my books or from the Wings Of Eagles Air Show. When I checked I could only find the RB-47e and the RB-47h which were used around 67-74. Does anyone have some truth/facts about an EC-47? I don`t know who made the X-16 so it may not fit "skunky" and I realize that EC-47 stuff is not "skunky", but I also realize that there seems to be a little more intelligence in this group. (No pun intended).......(well maybe a little pun :) ) I recently attended the Wings of Eagles air show at Batavia New York and was pleased to see the F117, F15, F14, B52, C5, a Strato-Cruiser and a large variety of WWII aircraft. I just wanted to mention that they did a great fly-by of a Bear Cat, Hell Cat, Tiger Cat, and a TOM CAT. Really unique. ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 06:01:23 -0700 Subject: Re: flares rh@craycos.com (Robert Herndon) says... > The restricted area to the west of I-25 was hot, >and it was night. There was something shooting red colored objects that >burned for perhaps 20 seconds. I don't think it was tracer; it was bright >red, and didn't seem to be going particularly straight from whatever was >shooting it. The red things were being fired at perhaps 1-2 per second >(it was regular, though), and the path seemed to vary several degrees >between red things. Doesn't sound like too big of a mystery, that is pretty much a perfect description of an aircraft dispensing Infra-red countermeasures flares. They can be programmed to release individually at timed intervals, or in bursts of varying numbers. ------------------------------ From: I am the NRA Date: Wed, 7 Sep 94 10:56:19 EDT Subject: avro [i think it was avro, or a canadian subsidiary...] >It's no secret that Canadair, in the 50s, was working on a "flying >saucer" type aircraft. _Wings_ (on the Discovery Channel, not the comedy >series...) had a show where they talked about it in some detail, as I >recall from memory. Apparantly the military, in typical fashion, so >choked it down with modifications etc. that it really didn't meet design >specs (although it did fly, just not well). Like, not well at all. And the military equipment was never added. Neve carried armament or anything. My impression was that it was a fundamentally bad idea. All sorts of claims were made by the developers, none of which it came close to meeting. >I think it had really crappy fuel usage as well. yup. >Someone will definitely have real info on this. I wish i could recall if i had seen an article, or just that same Wings Ep. >Size was about 10 feet in diameter with a big ducted fan right in the middle >to provide the lifting power. AND the propulsion. I think t was turbojet prime mover. All the airflows involved in lift and propulsion got to turn lots of corners (== friction and eddy loss) and be ducted every whichaway ( ==friction loss again....) It always seemed to me like the Piasecki(?) "flying jeep" hover car, with less passenger & freight room. And the flying jeep never worked (well) either... regards dwp ------------------------------ From: I am the NRA Date: Wed, 7 Sep 94 11:06:18 EDT Subject: slares, ec-47 >What are described sound like something I saw last year. I was flying >(private plane) just East of Ft. Carson, CO (over I-25 between Colorado >Springs and Pueblo). The restricted area to the west of I-25 was hot, >and it was night. There was something shooting red colored objects that >burned for perhaps 20 seconds. >I asked someone about it afterwards, and one person suggested that it >might be 'sunburst', Bing. Little bell goes off in my fogged brain. The later/better flares for decoying IR seekers were "tuned" to match the temperature of the exhaust of the engine. The oroginal flares were different, i think hotter, and the seeker heads could be filtered to make them prefer the "real" engine temperature profile/signature. So the flare folk counterd the counter by colling the flares. More important yet with all aspect seekers that may try to look onto a relatively cool, tho still above ambient airframe, heated by the air friction. >which I was given to believe was some sort of chaff-like Wellllll, at the risk of being pedantic, chaff is strips of Al or whathaveyou foil or strand to fool radar. "Sunbursts" are IR decoys to fool IR seeker heads. Both are decoys, but against different systems, and implemented differently. regards dwp ------------------------------ From: rh@craycos.com (Robert Herndon) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 94 13:21:12 MDT Subject: IR flares Would there be any reason for using these things from the ground? When I saw these things, I could not see the source (in real life, I don't think military types would want to be illuminating their activities, either), but it was either stationary and on the ground, or possibly a helicopter either in very low hover or on the ground. It was not moving, so far as I could tell. Ft. Carson, where I saw these things, is an army base specializing in desert warfare. They do have a fair number of helicopters, but they have a lot more tanks and artillery. My impression at the time was that this stuff was being fired from some sort of artillery. Are there air-to-ground or ground-to-ground IR seekers that ground artillery might want to decoy? In their dispensing from an aircraft, I would have expected IR decoys to be fired in small-to-modest numbers, followed by evasive maneuvers. Whether evasive maneuvers would be going on during firing, I have little idea. What I saw, however, went on for some time, at least 20 seconds, and I think several minutes. I believe it also stopped and started a few times, always from the same location. (Sorry, it's been a while.) /r ------------------------------ From: megazone@world.std.com (MegaZone) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 23:44:43 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: x16 and ec47 Once upon a time Paul Mangan shaped the electrons to say... >I recently was looking at a chart that showed an airplane that >had a shape like an U2. I was called an x16 and supposedly was >designed to do Mach 5 and a ciling of 250,000. Um, I don't know where you got those numbers, but they are completely wrong. The X-16, as I recall, was a Beoing high altitude recon proposal. It was completely subsonic and would have operated around the same altitude as the U-2. >my books or from the Wings Of Eagles Air Show. When I checked >I could only find the RB-47e and the RB-47h which were used around >67-74. Does anyone have some truth/facts about an EC-47? The C-47 was the military version of the DC-3 by Douglas. The B-47 was a medium jet bomber by Boeing. The EC-47 sounds like an Elint version of the C-47. - -- megazone@wpi.wpi.edu megazone@world.std.com megazone@hotblack.gweep.net "I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity. Use your mind, think!" Moderator: anime fanfic archive, 130.215.24.1 /anime; rec.arts.anime.stories Geek Code 2.1: GTW/H d-- H+>++ s++:++ !g p? au+ a23 w+@ v+@>++ C++(++++) UU+>UL++++ P+ L>++ 3 E N+++ K+++ W-- M-- V-- -po+ Y+>++ t+@ 5@ j@ R@ G' tv@ b++(+++) D+>++ B--- e++ u** h- f+ r++ n+(----) y+(*) ------------------------------ From: zoz@cs.adelaide.edu.au (Reanimator) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 14:15:15 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: x16 and ec47 |> Once upon a time Paul Mangan shaped the electrons to say... |> >I recently was looking at a chart that showed an airplane that |> >had a shape like an U2. I was called an x16 and supposedly was |> >designed to do Mach 5 and a ciling of 250,000. |> |> Um, I don't know where you got those numbers, but they are completely |> wrong. |> |> The X-16, as I recall, was a Beoing high altitude recon proposal. It |> was completely subsonic and would have operated around the same |> altitude as the U-2. Almost correct. My records show Bell, not Boeing: Bell X16 Designed to be a high altitude, long range recon. aircraft. Never built, having lost out to the Lockheed U2. Thanks Duane :) - -- ______ _____________ ______________________ ______ /\####/\ / / / / /\####/\ / \##/ \ /_______ / / _ ______ / / \##/ \ /____\/____\ / / / / \ \ / / /____\/____\ \####/\####/ / /____\ \_/ / / /_______ \####/\####/ \##/ \##/ / / / / \##/ \##/ \/____\/ /_____________________/ /____________/ \/____\/ zoz@cs.adelaide.edu.au http://www.cs.adelaide.edu.au/~zoz/ If you see a blind man, run up and kick him. Why should you be kinder than God? -- Old Iranian Proverb ------------------------------ From: Illya Kuryakin Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 22:36:51 -0700 Subject: X-16 That was Bell, not Boeing. Drat... all my references are still packed from the move we made from WA to TX... otherwist I'd rattle all the particulars off from Jay Miller's X-Planes book. Twin engined bird, though. Pretty ugly and had a wider wing than the U-2. Would have been a great deal larger than the U-2 though. Heavier, too. Rick kuryakin@halycon.com ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 05:32:18 -0700 Subject: Re: IR flares rh@craycos.com (Robert Herndon) says... >Would there be any reason for using these things from the ground? Probably not what we were talking about. Flares fired from the ground are typically of the illumination variety. >When I saw these things, I could not see the source (in real life, >I don't think military types would want to be illuminating their >activities, either), but it was either stationary and on the ground, >or possibly a helicopter either in very low hover or on the ground. Army helicopters can also carry countermeasure flares, although many of them are equipped with the "beacon" type IRCM emitter. >In their dispensing from an aircraft, I would have expected IR decoys >to be fired in small-to-modest numbers, followed by evasive maneuvers. I'd say with a missile heading for my backside, "small-to-modest" numbers would be about the farthest thing from my mind. :-) Anyway, here is one example, the AN/ALE-39 dispenser. It is used on aircraft such as the F-14, A-6, and others. Bursts can be set to dispense in quantities of 2,3,4,6,8, or 10 flares each, and in intervals of 2,4,6,8, or 10 seconds between each burst. ------------------------------ From: "Clarence Dent" Date: 8 Sep 1994 07:09:53 -0800 Subject: Re: flares Subject:RE>>flares Dean Adams wrote: >rh@craycos.com (Robert Herndon) says... >> The restricted area to the west of I-25 was hot, >>and it was night. There was something shooting red colored objects that >>burned for perhaps 20 seconds. I don't think it was tracer; it was >>bright > >red, and didn't seem to be going particularly straight from whatever was >>shooting it. The red things were being fired at perhaps 1-2 per second >>(it was regular, though), and the path seemed to vary several degrees >>between red things. >Doesn't sound like too big of a mystery, that is pretty much >a perfect description of an aircraft dispensing Infra-red >countermeasures flares. They can be programmed to release >individually at timed intervals, or in bursts of varying numbers. I think it safe to say: Look at this week's issue of Aviation Leak and you'll see the "burst" pattern coming from the new C-17. I'm not sure, but if I had to do that in combat because of an unfooled missile track, my pants would probably not look too different from that, only brown. It's a case of "If this doesn't work, my goose is cooked!" kind of reaction... - -cd ------------------------------ From: "Clarence Dent" Date: 8 Sep 1994 07:18:52 -0800 Subject: Re: IR flares Subject:RE>IR flares - -------------------------------------- >From: Robert Herndon >Would there be any reason for using these things from the ground? >When I saw these things, I could not see the source (in real life, >I don't think military types would want to be illuminating their >activities, either), but it was either stationary and on the ground, >or possibly a helicopter either in very low hover or on the ground. >It was not moving, so far as I could tell. Ft. Carson, where I >saw these things, is an army base specializing in desert warfare. >They do have a fair number of helicopters, but they have a lot more >tanks and artillery. My impression at the time was that this stuff >was being fired from some sort of artillery. Are there air-to-ground >or ground-to-ground IR seekers that ground artillery might want to >decoy? >In their dispensing from an aircraft, I would have expected IR decoys >to be fired in small-to-modest numbers, followed by evasive maneuvers. >Whether evasive maneuvers would be going on during firing, I have >little idea. What I saw, however, went on for some time, at least >20 seconds, and I think several minutes. I believe it also stopped >and started a few times, always from the same location. (Sorry, it's >been a while.) >/r It sounds to me like the Army was just shooting flares from artillery (but you would see big flashes from the guns? Mortars?) to test burn duration, or area lighting intensities. Maybe a certain pattern provides more luminosity and they're searching for that pattern. Maybe they were calibrating their own IR/thermal sighting equipment on their tanks or shoulder launched SAMs... - -cd ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 10:37:13 -0700 Subject: Ben Rich's New Book I just received a prepublication copy of Ben's book to read from a friend. The book opens with an epic movie type opening - a HAVE BLUE challenging a USMC HAWK Missile Battery! Nice story! I think the story also has an unintended lesson for those who track Black Programs! You'll see what I mean :) So far, in a skim of the book, in each area of known Skunk Works history that I looked up, there was significant new information! Therefore, I think the book will appeal to a WIDE range of aviation enthusiasts, from those interested in the more traditional, to those interested in the unidentified. In fact, I hope you've been paying attention over the past several years, because Ben shows that he's definitely been paying attention! Anyway, the cover of the copy I have asks reviewers to not publish reviews until a specific date, so I will not post anything on skunk-works till then. The book is due out in about a month, according to the cover of the copy I have. I've heard of rumors of excerpts, reviews, and interviews that will appear in different media - so start to watch for them. Publication details per my review copy are: publication date of: 10/4/94 Title: "Skunk Works - A Personal Memoir Of My Years At Lockheed" Authors: Ben R. Rich with Leo Janos Publisher: Little Brown Co. Boston, MA ISBN: 0-316-74330-5 Larry ------------------------------ From: WHITEMAN%IPFWVM@UICVM.UIC.EDU Date: Thu, 08 Sep 94 13:55:30 EST Subject: Wizard wars & air power in the 21st century Part 1 The new Air International arrived last night, Sept 1994. On page 142 is an interesting article by David Baker containing information that may be of interest to this group: With the increasing effectiveness of air defense systems, Strategic Defense Initiative studies in the US have shown that the only practical way in which aircraft may safely penetrate future defenses, is through a quantum leap in their operational speed and altitude. Dr. David Baker provides an insight into classified programmes aimed at increasing the survivability and effectiveness of future military aircraft, including the Northrop TR-3 currently in service, and details of vehicles incorporating exotic propulsion systems, capable of speeds exceeding Mach 15. Some history starting with Have Blue to Senior Trend and Senior Ice is given. The PDWE is explored as is a few comments on aero-diamonds and aero spikes He also explores the arena of 'unstealthy survival' by discussing defense penetration by Mach 10-20 aircraft with decoys and a Mach 1 aircraft. Part 2, next month will detail survival strategies and the TR-3A. Sam ------------------------------ From: Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 13:00:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: x16 and ec47 From: Andreas Gehrs-Pahl On Wed, 7 Sep 1994, Paul Mangan wrote: >I recently was looking at a chart that showed an airplane that >had a shape like an U2. I was called an x16 and supposedly was >designed to do Mach 5 and a ciling of 250,000. >Does anyone have some truth/facts around this plane? Its sounds >like an un-stealthy Aurora. The Bell X-16 (Model 67) was designed under Project BALD EAGLE (MX-2147) to the same specification as the U-2. Bell actually won the competition against Fairchild (M-195) and Martin (Model 294), and received an Air Force contract for 28 X-16 aircraft [USAF serials 56-0552 - 56-0579]. The aircraft looked a lot like an U-2 with slightly swept wings and two under wing mounted engines. The X-16 project was cancelled in favor of the U-2 and the wooden mock-up and all (uncompleted) aircraft were scrapped. Martin build 20 RB-57D (the first 6 as Model 294, AF serials 53-3977 - 53-3982 under Project BLACK KNIGHT, the next 7 as Model 744, AF serials 53-3970 - 53-3976, the single RB-57D-1, AF serial 53-3963 as Model 796, and the remaining 6 also as Model 796, but designated RB-57D-2, AF serials 53-3964 - 53-3969) as an interim solution, of which 4 later were converted into RB-57F with new serials. Specifications for Bell X-16 (proposed): Wingspan: 114' 10" Length: 60' 10.3" Height: 16' 6.9" Wing area: 1,100 sq' Empty weight: 23,330 lbs. Gross weight: 36,200 lbs. Accomodation: 1 pilot Max. altitude: 72,000' Range: 3,300 miles (unrefueled, but was inflight refuelable) Mission radius: 1,500 miles (covering a path 50 miles wide and 795 miles long) Max. speed: 550 mph (high subsonic at 70,000' over target) Engines: two Pratt & Whitney J57-P-37A rated at 10,000 lbs. static thrust at sea level (earlier proposals were J57-P-19 and J57-P-31) Fuel: 1,860 gals. (12,080 lbs.) Equipment load: 389 lbs. (including two KA-1 or K-38 12" focal length search cameras and two KA-1 or K-38 36" focal length target analysis cameras) Sources: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Books: 1) The X-Planes - X-1 to X-31 - ------ by Jay Miller published by Aerofax, Inc. / Orion Books, 1988 ISBN 0-517-56749-0 2) Lockheed U-2 - AeroGraph 3 by Jay Miller published by Aerofax, Inc. / Midland Counties Public., 1983 ISBN 0-942548-04-3 (Softcover) ISBN 0-942548-05-1 (Hardcover) 3) United States Military Aircraft since 1909 by Gordon Swanborough, Peter M. Bowers published by Putnam, 1989 ISBN 0-85177-816-X 4) U.S. Military Aircraft Designations and Serials since 1909 compiled by John M. Andrade published by Midland Counties Publications, 1979 ISBN-0-904597-21-0, Softcover ISBN 0-904597-22-9, Hardcover >ALSO, I have a friend/acquaintance that says he flew an EC-47 in >Viet-Nam. He wondered if I might have a picture of one in any of >my books or from the Wings Of Eagles Air Show. When I checked >I could only find the RB-47e and the RB-47h which were used around >67-74. Does anyone have some truth/facts about an EC-47? There were actually quite a few C-47s active during Vietnam. C-47A/B/D transports were flown by the USAF, Vietnamese Air Force (VNAF), Royal Laotian Air Force, Royal Thai Air Force and others. Special Purpose C-47s, like AC-47D gunships, EC-47D/N/P/Q ECM/ELINT aircraft and RC-47A/D photo-reconnaissance aircraft were flown by the USAF and many were later given to VNAF, after they had been replaced by more modern aircraft in the US inventory. The following 'Special Purpose' C-47 versions (of the more or less 'skunky' type) built were: Original Redesignated Remarks, Description, Design. 1948 or 1962 History, etc. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- AC-47A to EC-47A ==> 1+ ex C-47A-DL, converted to Electronics Calibration aircraft, used by Airways and Air Communication Service RC-47A ==> ? ex C-47A, converted to Photographic Survey aircraft WC-47A ==> 1+ ex C-47A-DL, converted to Weather Reconnaissance aircraft AC-47B to EC-47C ==> 11+ ex C-47B-DK, converted to Electronics Calibration aircraft, used by Airways and Air Communication Service AC-47D to EC-47D ==> 26 ex C-47D-DK, converted by Hayes to Electronics Calibration' aircraft, used by Airways and Air Communication Service EC-47D ==> ? ex C-47D, converted to ECM / ELINT aircraft, with R-1830-90D engines FC-47D to AC-47D ==> 25+ ex C-47D-DK, converted to Gunships, 18 were later given to VNAF RC-47D ==> ? ex C-47D, converted to Photo Reconnaissance / ELINT aircraft, with R-1830-90C, -90D or -92 engines, some were later given to VNAF R4D-5Q to EC-47H ==> 4+ ex R4D-5, ex C-47A-DL, converted to ECM aircraft, with R-1830-90C, -90D or -92 engines R4D-6Q to EC-47J ==> ? ex R4D-6, ex C-47B-DL, converted to ECM aircraft, with R-1830-90C, -90D or -92 engines EC-47M ==> designation reserved for ECM conversions of USN C-47s EC-47N ==> ? ex C-47A, converted to ECM / ELINT aircraft, with R-1830-90D or -92 engines, some were later given to VNAF EC-47P ==> ? ex C-47D, converted to ECM / ELINT aircraft, with R-1830-90D or -92 engines, some were later given to VNAF EC-47Q ==> ? ex C-47A & C-47D, converted to ECM / ELINT aircraft, reengined with R-2000-4 engines, some were later given to VNAF Some of the USAF units which used EC-47s during the Vietnam conflict were: - - 14th SOW "Antique Wing", 5th SOS with tailcode 'EO'; - - 14th SOW "Antique Wing", 9th SOS with tailcode 'ER'; - - 432nd TEWS with tailcode 'AN'; - - 360th TEWS with tailcode '??' (maybe 'AJ' ?). You can find pictures of EC-47s in source 1), 2), and 4). They look mainly like ordinary C-47s, maybe with some slightly longer noses and more antennas attached, and most were camouflaged. Source 5) has Vol. 2 (1967 - 1970) and probably Vol. 3 (1971 - 1975 ?), but I don't have them. Both might have pictures though. Another source would be the Discovery Channel "Wings" episode about the DC-3 and C-47 (which actually was repeated just yesterday -- couldn't tape it though, maybe next time!), which has, at the end, a few minutes about the EC-47 flying missions in Vietnam, showing even the inside of one (tailcode "AJ 331", version and rest of serial unknown to me.) Sources: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Books: 1) United States Military Aircraft since 1909 - ------ by Gordon Swanborough, Peter M. Bowers published by Putnam, 1989 ISBN 0-85177-816-X 2) United States Navy Aircraft since 1911 by Gordon Swanborough, Peter M. Bowers published by Putnam, 1990 ISBN 0-85177-838-0 3) U.S. Military Aircraft Designations and Serials since 1909 compiled by John M. Andrade published by Midland Counties Publications, 1979 ISBN-0-904597-21-0, Softcover ISBN 0-904597-22-9, Hardcover 4) Gunships - A Pictorial History of Spooky by Larry Davis Squadron Signals Publication - 6032 ISBN 0-89747-123-7 5) Air War over Southeast Asia - A Pictorial Record - Vol.1 1962-1966 by Lou Drendel Squadron Signals Publication - 6034 ISBN 0-89747-134-2 - --Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl Absolute Software 313 West Court St. #305 schnars@umcc.ais.org Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 - --- --- ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #152 ********************************* To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@mail.orst.edu". 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 skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@mail.orst.edu 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 anonymous FTP from mail.orst.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).