From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #618 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Monday, 12 February 1996 Volume 05 : Number 618 In this issue: Re: New Bosnia Air Action of 2/9/96 Re: JSTARS, F-15Es and the Gulf Gulf War AA Kills Patent and secrecy Re: Patent and secrecy RE: Patents Re: Patent and secrecy re: Air Force of 2025 This just in for Sunday Re: SW/NASA? Re:AF 2025 / News about Groom Lake Re:AF 2025 / News about Groom Lake re: Patent and secrecy Re: SW/NASA? XP-80A "Gray Ghost" Patents Re: Patent and secrecy Re: XP-80A "Gray Ghost" Patents;EM protection for AC 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: BaDge Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 18:11:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: New Bosnia Air Action of 2/9/96 On Fri, 9 Feb 1996 Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com wrote: > Our Friday humor patrol has been slacking off a bit lately. The > following isn't much, but it is kind of cute, from Joyce Murdoch in > Washington, D.C. > > CLINTON DEPLOYS VOWELS TO BOSNIA -- > Cities of Sjlbvdnzv, Grzny to Be First Recipients Gawd, don'tcha just hate it when those moron self-appointed stand-up comedy wannabes post this off-topic cr*p on a good list like this. Or is it self-appointed wannabe stand-up moron comics? I forget. ;-) Anyway, I loved the line about 'vowel movement', hehe. regards, ________ BaDge ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 00:28:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: JSTARS, F-15Es and the Gulf Robin said: >These are just minor discrepancies, really -- precise models of aircraft, >parent units, basing, etc. As something of an aficionado of obscure >details, I do want to say that certainly my intent in posting them is not to >detract from your son's achievement or to discredit you in any way. >Sometimes the enthusiastic presentation of research sounds like an attack -- >when, in fact, it is simply one's excitement at finally finding a use for >some otherwise-useless details stashed in a notebook somewhere! :) Well said, thats what I meant! Source (2) in my previous post (which I regard as less reliable) says the name of the pilot was Henemann, and the two post war kills were on February 20 and 22, each one SU-22, aircraft and pilot unknown (besides other obvious inaccuracies in this book). Source (1) spells his name as Hehemann, in several locations through-out the book, and has the March 20 kill as an SU-22, by Capt. John T. Doneski, in F-15C-37-MC, serial '84-0014', also 53rd TFS, also with AIM-9M. For March 22 there are two kills listed, the first by Dietz, an SU-22 using an AIM-9M, flying F-15C-37-MC, serial '84-0010', and the second a 'maneuver kill' of the accompanying Pilatus PC-9. The pilot bailed out, even though he was not shot at. This kill is credited to Hehemann, flying F-15C-37-MC, serial '84-0015'. The reason for the post-war shot downs was the fact, that the ceasefire conditions included a flight-ban for Iraqi fixed wing aircraft. None of my sources give call signs, though, and I would appreciate a list, if it would be available. :) - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@raptor.csc.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.umcc.umich.edu/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ From: "Robin J. Lee" Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 00:03:15 -0800 Subject: Gulf War AA Kills At 12:28 AM 2/10/96 -0500, Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: >Source (2) in my previous post (which I regard as less reliable) says the >name of the pilot was Henemann, and the two post war kills were on February >20 and 22, each one SU-22, aircraft and pilot unknown (besides other obvious >inaccuracies in this book). > >Source (1) spells his name as Hehemann, in several locations through-out the >book, and has the March 20 kill as an SU-22, by Capt. John T. Doneski, in >F-15C-37-MC, serial '84-0014', also 53rd TFS, also with AIM-9M. I believe that "Hehemann" is indeed correct, upon checking with Table 206 ("Coalition Air to Air Kill Matrix"), in Volume V of the Gulf War Air Power Survey (GWAPS). I initially relied upon Kinzey's book ("Source (2)") for much of the base information, and I think that it was that "Henemann" combined with a bad photocopy which produced "Heinemann." :) Incidentally, Hehemann was a 1st Lieutenant, USAF, at the time. Kinzey's "The Fury of Desert Storm" was an interesting one, since it was released so soon after the conflict, but it does indeed contain some glaring errors. The air-to-air kill table was particularly hard to reconcile with later studies. >For March 22 there are two kills listed, the first by Dietz, an SU-22 using >an AIM-9M, flying F-15C-37-MC, serial '84-0010', and the second a 'maneuver >kill' of the accompanying Pilatus PC-9. The pilot bailed out, even though he >was not shot at. This kill is credited to Hehemann, flying F-15C-37-MC, >serial '84-0015'. My mistake; it was indeed a PC-9 on 22 Mar and not an Su-22. >None of my sources give call signs, though, and I would appreciate a list, if >it would be available. :) For the most part, callsigns used by F-15C squadrons were based on oil-related names, with some exceptions. Navy callsigns were not given in the GWAPS, but I have inserted the tactical callsigns of their parent squadron for that particular aircraft. Whether or not this was the callsign used by the controlling agency at the time (mostly USAF AWACS) is unclear to me. I have lightly put the question before, but received no answer -- this has implications for the conduct of joint air operations, obviously. At any rate, I believe that the AWACS callsigns may have been different from the Navy tacticals, since the F-14A+ lost from VF-103 bore the callsign "SLATE xx" -- the "correct" Navy tactical for that unit would have been "CLUBLEAF xxx". 1. 1/17 F-15C/Tate: QUAKER 11 2. 1/17 F-15C/Graeter: CITGO 65 3. 1/17 F-15C/Kelk: PENNZOIL 63 4. 1/17 F-15C/McGill: ZEREX 71 5. 1/17 F/A-18C/Fox: SUNLINER 401 (USN) 6. 1/17 F/A-18C/Mongillo: SUNLINER 410 (USN) 7. 1/17 EF-111A/Denton/Brandon: ? 8. 1/19 F-15C/Tollini: CITGO 21 9. 1/19 F-15C/Pitts: CITGO 22 10. 1/19 F-15C/Rodriguez: CHEVRON 25 11. 1/19 F-15C/Underhill: CHEVRON 26 12. 1/19 F-15C/Prather: RAMBO 03 13. 1/19 F-15C/Svenden: RAMBO 04 14. 1/24 F-15C/Shamrani: ? (RSAF) 15. 1/26 F-15C/Shiavi: CITGO 26 16. 1/26 F-15C/Rodriguez: CITGO 27 17. 1/27 F-15C/Denny: OPEC 01 18. 1/27 F-15C/Powell: OPEC 02 19. 1/29 F-15C/Rose: CHEVRON 17 20. 1/29 F-15C/Watrous: BITE 04 21. 2/02 F-15C/Masters: RIFLE 01 22. 2/06 F-15C/Dietz: ZEREX 53 23. 2/06 F-15C/Hehemann: ZEREX 54 24. 2/06 A-10A/Swain: SAVAGE 01 25. 2/07 F-14A/Broce/McElraft WICHITA 103 (USN) 26. 2/07 F-15C/Murphy CHEVRON 21 27. 2/07 F-15C/Parsons CHEVRON 22 28. 2/07 F-15C/May KILLER 03 29. 2/11 F-15C/McKenzie PISTOL 01 30. 2/11 F-15C/Dengy PISTOL 02 31. 2/14 F-15E/Bennett/Bakke ? 32. 2/15 A-10A/Sheehy SPRINGFIELD 27 33. 3/20 F-15C/Doneski AMOCO 34 34. 3/22 F-15C/Dietz ZEREX 21 35. 3/22 F-15C/Hehemann ZEREX 22 Sorry if this is too far off-charter. ____________________________________________________________________________ Robin J. Lee amraam@netcom.com Vulture's Row World Wide Web Page URL: http://webcom.com/~amraam/ ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 06:01:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Patent and secrecy I just wonder if any Skunk Works Engineer is allow to patent some secret components? Does they have a special type of patents? Or the black world have their own agreement... Just a idea to discuss... I will appreciate your answer as always... May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: "Joe Pialet" Date: Sat, 10 Feb 96 10:34:05 +0000 Subject: Re: Patent and secrecy > > I just wonder if any Skunk Works Engineer is allow to patent some >secret components? > Does they have a special type of patents? Or the black world have >their own agreement... > Just a idea to discuss... I will appreciate your answer as always... > Su Wei-Jen > E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu > > The Defense Department monitors U.S. patent applications for possible application to national defense or national security. They can place a temporary hold on an application while they evaluate it further or they can block any further patent action. I have seen them put temporary holds on things as simple as improved pour point depressants for motor oils that would allow easier operation under arctic conditions. I believe that somebody (Fermi ?) eventually got a patent on the nuclear reactor so they are not always blocked forever. Since they could not enforce any patent they would get without making it public i doubt if their is an advantage of a patent over a "trade" secret. ------------------------------ From: JOHN SZALAY Date: Sat, 10 Feb 96 11:38:57 EST Subject: RE: Patents > From:"jwp@lubrizol.com" > "Wei-Jen Su" Subj: Re: Patent and secrecy > > > I just wonder if any Skunk Works Engineer is allow to patent some > secret components? > Does they have a special type of patents? Or the black world have > their own agreement... > Just a idea to discuss... I will appreciate your answer as always... I work in a design engineering/development operation, similar to Skunk works (different product) and when we were all accepted for employement here, we all had to agree to and sign non-disclosure agreement AND a patent agreement, in which all patents submitted are to be reviewed by the legal dept, even personal patents unrelated to ones work. Legal has to sign off on ALL patents.. But allpatents are submited in the inventors name, but the company holds the rights to company related work ( If I remember the legal gooble-t-goop from the last review correctly) I would expect Lockheed to have the same type of agreements. John Szalay jpszalay@tacl.dnet.ge.com ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 14:50:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Patent and secrecy So if I understand Joe correctly, you don't even have to be on contract, or working for the gov't. They can hold up your patent anytime, and take it for themselves as a Nat. Def. app.?? Gee, that's really nice of them. Do they pay you anything for it? I'm getting confused. regards, ________ BaDge ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Sat, 10 Feb 96 16:24:06  Subject: re: Air Force of 2025 Not to take on the main thrust of Eric's message, which poses a very valid arguement, but just for clarification: JAST, which is now JSF (maybe), is the Air Force's MRF (Ain't in grand how acronyms can be used to avod clarity?). Art Hanley These views are only my own and do not represent my employer's (Whew! Stayed out of jail again!) ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 18:53:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: This just in for Sunday Probably a repeat, but TLC's stuff is usually pretty interesting, and I believe I caught a snippet of some cool stuff about the satellite photos and it looks decent, if a bit dated. =============== Sun Feb-11 1800 EST ================ Frontiers [TLC 6-7pm ] [ Science] "New Solar System: An Epic Adventure". Satellite photos and radar; origins of the galaxy; Apollo astronauts; planets in the solar system. ======================<>============================== regards, ________ BaDge ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:14:19 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: Re: SW/NASA? On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, Byron Weber wrote: > > Roaming a bookstore I came across a title something like, "One Of A > Kind;" all about experimental planes. The majority seem to have > been built for NASA. Question: Has the Lockheed-Martin Skunk Works > done any projects for NASA? > > Byron > The Linear Aerospike Reuseable Launch Vehicle proposed by Lockmart is a Skunk Works design. Starfighters have been used as chase planes, and there are SR-71s being used which you can ask our esteemed Ms Shafer about. - --Brett ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 13:27:38 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: Re:AF 2025 / News about Groom Lake The report mentioned in AW&ST is "New World Vistas: Air and Space Power for the 21st Century" It was produced by the USAF Scientific Advisory Board, http://web.fie.com/htdoc/fed/afr/sab/edu/menu/any/sabindex.htm There is a summary volume of the report that runs to 220-odd kilobytes or 63 pages. Either select it on the menu above or go straight to http://web.fie.com/htdoc/fed/afr/sab/any/text/any/vistas.htm I haven't had time to read it thoroughly yet, but I noted reference to a classified section containing matter on nonlethal weapons for urban-terrorism type situations and"4.4 Special Operations" mentions the present development of VTOL aircraft for Special Forces missions- this is probably the V-22 Osprey?... or possibly an unguarded/inadvertant reference to "Senior Trend"? Well, it's fun to speculate a little. I'm afraid that I haven't got time to summarise it all, except to note that the major points of hypersonics, UCAVs and directed-energy weapons are the major technological emphasis. Lip service is paid to economics, but it really does propose the development and procurement of a whole new arsenal with the money coming out of thin air, apparently. I can see these things being the "silver bullets" of 2025, but production development and integration on a grand scale...? Anyway, very interesting and worth comparing to the recent "Spacecast 2020" study which introduced Black Horse. That can be found through the Black Horse Home Page http://www-im.lcs.mit.edu/homedirs/magnus/www/bh/black-horse.html or directly: http://www.au.af.mil/Spacecast/Spacecast.html That is pretty patchy in terms of format and what you can get, but there are scenario papaers in addition to technical studies that should be read. Happy hunting --Brett ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 16:22:33 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: Re:AF 2025 / News about Groom Lake ERRATUM FROM A PEDANTIC TWIT On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Brett Davidson wrote: > blah blah blah blah blah blah > type situations and"4.4 Special Operations" mentions the present > development of VTOL aircraft for Special Forces missions- this is probably > the V-22 Osprey?... or possibly an unguarded/inadvertant reference to > "Senior Trend"? Well, it's fun to speculate a little. "Senior CITIZEN"! ------------------------------ From: TRADER@cup.portal.com Date: Sun, 11 Feb 96 18:39:55 PST Subject: re: Patent and secrecy In an earlier message, Wei-Jen Su wrote: > I just wonder if any Skunk Works Engineer is allow to patent some > secret components? Even though the Cold War has been over since 1989, the U.S. government still has laws on the books that allow for Patent Secrecy Orders, for - -any- invention. The pertinent sections of federal law that allow the government to seize anybody's invention, if they think it is a threat to "national security" are: * Title 35, United States Code, sections 181-188 (35 U.S.C. 181-188) * Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations section 5 (37 C.F.R. 5) There are several problems that these laws create. First, although there are procedures for compensating the inventor, such as 37 C.F.R. 5.7, there is no real way of knowing the value of an invention. If an invention is arbitrarily seized, it is hard to see how the 5th Amendment rule "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" can be accurately followed. A patent covers a person's intellectual property and therefore is subject to the 5th Amendment. Second, there are no laws to prevent a foreign company from following similar research steps, creating the invention independently, and selling the invention in the U.S., even though the original U.S. inventor is prohibited by law from selling their invention. Third, there is no way of knowing how much business American industry loses when a secrecy order is invoked, especially if a new technology can not be exported. There was an article about this problem in the June 20, 1992 issue of "New Scientist" magazine if you want to see another perspective on this. I suppose we shouldn't expect sensible secrecy policies from a government that claims in court that files relating to the illegal FBI investigation of John Lennon's anti Vietnam War activities in the 1960s still can't be released because the FBI claims that release would seriously damage "national security". Paul McGinnis / TRADER@cup.portal.com / PaulMcG@aol.com http://www.portal.com/~trader/secrecy.html "If you want to be cynical about it, one could say that America gets the government it deserves." ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 23:03:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: SW/NASA? Notice who's mentioned in the credits--most of the stuff about the more obscure NASA aircraft was lifted directly from my paper on in-flight simulation at Dryden. The first author, Markman, is a very good friend of mine, by the way. (This book is also available through the Dryden Gift Shop, if anyone wants the cheapest source that I know of--no tax and inexpensive shipping.) No, the Skunkworks hasn't done much with us, except support aircraft that they built when we flew them. Jetstar, F-104, YF-12, SR-71. U-2s and ER-2s up at Ames. The LASRE is the closest we've come to a joint program that I know of. We're currently support LMSW in the Darkstar (which has been out on the ramp doing something with at least power on the plane recently), but we've rarely worked _with_ them, in a really joint project. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, Byron Weber wrote: > > Roaming a bookstore I came across a title something like, "One Of A > Kind;" all about experimental planes. The majority seem to have > been built for NASA. Question: Has the Lockheed-Martin Skunk Works > done any projects for NASA? > > Byron > ------------------------------ From: Xelex@aol.com Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 02:55:27 -0500 Subject: XP-80A "Gray Ghost" As many of you will recall, the first product of the Lockheed Skunk Works was the XP-80, nicknamed "Lulubelle." It was soon followed by two advanced prototypes designated XP-80A. The first was known as the "Gray Ghost" on account of its pait scheme. The second, and unpainted, XP-80A was called the "Silver Ghost." The "Gray Ghost" (44-83021) took to the air for the first time on 10 June 1944 with Tony Levier at the controls. He landed 35 minutes later with a heavy aft C.G., one jammed flap, and 325-degree hot air blowing into the cockpit. These problems were mostly ironed out during the "Gray Ghost's" short flight test career. On 20 March 1945, Levier took the aircraft up for a short test flight to study "duct rumble." After leveling off from a dive, one of the turbine wheels broke apart, severing the tail assembly. Levier fought to extricate himself from the tumbling aircraft. He managed to bail out, and avoid being struck by the tailless jet as it plummeted towards the earth. Levier deployed his parachute, but suffered severe back injuries on landing. The accident was traced to defects in the turbine wheel, caused by impurities in the metal. On 2 February 1996, Peter Merlin and Tony Moore, The X-Hunters (see AIR&SPACE Magazine March 1995), located the crash site of the "Gray Ghost." They told Levier that they were searching for it. He remembered it well: "That's the airplane that tried to kill me !" Merlin and Moore recovered some of the remaining debris for the Air Force Flight Test Center Museum at Edwards AFB. Most of the remaining debris was burned, but there were recognizable fragments of internal structure, electric batteries, and instrument panel fragments. Some components had part numbers and inspection stamps. Many hours of research went into locating the site. The X-Hunters have located many crash sites of experimental aircraft (N-9M-1, X-1A, X-2, X-15, etc.) for the AFFTC Museum. "It's great to be able to touch a piece of history," says Moore. ------------------------------ From: seb@tadpole.co.uk (Steven Barber) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 09:34:46 GMT Subject: Patents Speaking of things like this, how about the case of the engineer who invented some of the key concepts behind the HOTOL aerospace plane (a single stage to orbit design for British Aerospace, using an engine that went from airbreathing to rocket mode in flight)? The Ministry of Defence ruled it a national secret (I forget the exact terminology) so neither he nor BAe could use it in commercial designs but refused to release any funds for military development. The last interview I saw with the engineer, he was surprisingly unbitter (if there is such a word). Steve These are purely my thought and have nothing to do with my employer ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 6:23:53 EST Subject: Re: Patent and secrecy > > So if I understand Joe correctly, you don't even have to be on contract, > or working for the gov't. They can hold up your patent anytime, and take > it for themselves as a Nat. Def. app.?? > > Gee, that's really nice of them. Do they pay you anything for it? I'm > getting confused. Welcome to America. - -- A hundred years from now, it will not matter what kind of house I live in, how much is in my bank account, or what kind of car I drive, but the world may be a different place because I was important in the life of a child. Douglas J. Tiffany dougt@u011.oh.vp.com Varco-Pruden Buildings Van Wert, Ohio ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 06:59:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: XP-80A "Gray Ghost" On Mon, 12 Feb 1996 Xelex@aol.com wrote: > On 2 February 1996, Peter Merlin and Tony Moore, The X-Hunters (see AIR&SPACE > Magazine March 1995), located the crash site of the "Gray Ghost." They told Hey Skunkers... a crazy idea... how about become a Skunk-Hunters. Let's find the two "Have Blue" prototype (HB 1001 and HB 1002) that was crashed andburied it deep beneath a remote spot in the desert of Nevada... hehe, of course, you can not use a metal detector trying to find the Stealth aircraft... May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 03:53:49 PST Subject: Patents;EM protection for AC Patents. Secrecy and patents are the two opposite ends of the spectrum. A patent says "I will allow anyone to use this as long as they pay me." Thus, if Eastman Kodak developed a new imaging technology they could 1) not patent it and have the entire market but be at the mercy of a competitor who could duplicate it. 2) Patent it, have less market share but a "piece of the action" of the competitors. I would think national security issues would favor the former. Also, some patents never "take." The Wright bothers patented the "aeroplane." EM Bursts. Not the big problem people think. Faraday had it all figured out long ago. Aircraft are struck by lightning all the time, and suffer no ill affects. Thats a pretty big EM burst! Well, let me back up. Metal airplanes laugh in the face of EM. Wood or composte explode. One technique used today for composites is to have a matrix of very fine copper wire within the part. This acts as a shield against EM. As long as the "holes" are less than 1/2 the wavelength you want to guard against in width (just like your microwave oven door) you are EM protected. My missile friends tell me they use this technique on Patroits. The missles move pretty fast, and when going through clouds which can be ice crystals, they get charged up pretty good. They use the copper wire technique to `wick off" the charge, since this is an up-down link guidence system. (Interstingly, the copper wire matrix technology is used in Maserati windshields to make an invisible defroster. I`ve seen one and you can just barely make them out if you get real close and stare. Nifty!) The biggest threat to micro electronics is ESD. Considering the static charge on the Rockwell Orbiters as they descend, or Apollo 13, that hit a Mach number of 25 on re-entry(!!), one can calmly state that a modern aircraft is ESD protected. Chuck ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #618 ********************************* 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).