From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #622 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 15 February 1996 Volume 05 : Number 622 In this issue: Re: Broken Arrow "The Movie" Re: Killing Scuds in the Gulf (mildly long) Re: Killing Scuds in the Gulf (mildly long) Re: Broken Arrow "The Movie" Domestic trinkets in the mail re: (Fwd) F-16 Bumper Stickers Re: Ben Rich's book out in paper Re: Coming soon, new tech. actually worked. Thursday WINGS... Re: Thursday WINGS... Re: BROKEN ARROW definitions Re: Coming soon, new tech. actually worked. Re: BROKEN ARROW definitions Re: SW/NASA? Re: Coming soon, new tech. actually worked. Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #620 Re: WINGS 1) Air spikes, 2) Adapative aircraft 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: Mary Shafer Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 15:54:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Broken Arrow "The Movie" No, but I have noticed that helicopter blade slap doesn't sound right. Francis Ford Coppola thinks so, too; those Hueys at the beginning of "Apocalypse Now" are synthesized. 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 Wed, 14 Feb 1996, Brett Davidson wrote: > > > On Tue, 13 Feb 1996, BaDge wrote: > > > Also what's realistic on screen may bear little relationship to what a real > > explosion looks like in real life. What they're looking for is the correct > > 'impresson' or 'expectation' that the audience requires to believe the > > resultant effect. > > Do you notice that on the screen, small arms tend to produce the deep > sound of heavy artillery instead of their real firecracker sound? > --Brett > > ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 16:48:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Killing Scuds in the Gulf (mildly long) Sure you're not thinking of JSTARS? It's the one that tracks ground traffic; AWACS loses it in the ground clutter and the speed cutoff. That's how it worked in Desert Storm, at any rate. 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 Wed, 14 Feb 1996, Paul Mangan wrote: > > Art says: > > and/or cover a very large area, we could afford to have large strike > > packages in the air (I know we did that sometimes with AWACS > > searches, but AWACS could only see what happened after launch), > > ready to react. > > According to written resources (and we know them not > to be always accurate) the AWACS can see on the ground > activity also. Vehicle and troop movement was tracked > and when vehicle movement looked suspicious, it was > investigated. -Paul > > > > > > Now add in a stealth strike aircraft, and the launcher wouldn't even > > have warning that the strike was on the way... > > > > > > > > Art > > ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 15:10:00  Subject: Re: Killing Scuds in the Gulf (mildly long) To Wei-Jen and Charles. If you're asking about the RA-5C losses, they occurred primarily because the N. Vietnamese knew they were going to be coming and were waiting. The RA-5 itself was an extremely high performance a/c that could simply run away from fighters. A similar phenomena occurred during the Gulf War. When Tornadoes were left to their own devices and attacked at low level by themselves, they suffered little or no losses on their strikes. They were in and out before the Iraqis even knew they were there. However when the were "assisted" by other Coalition aircraft in a joint attack, there losses went way up. The reason was that the Iraqis still didn't know the Tornadoes were inbound, but they could see the other aircraft approaching at higher altitudes. They'd start firing everything into the air and the Tornadoes would run into a wall of lead. Given the low altitude and relatively high speed they were at, they're wasn't any time for evasion or recovery. The B-2 and F-117 are not slow, wallowing aircraft. The thing is, if you've only got a few of them of them, why would you ever fly one during the day when a portion of the stealth that you paid a whole bunch of money for is negated? The F-117's value is in its stealth. If you're willing to give part of that up, you'd be better served to use other aircraft which have better range/payload and more sensors. There's only going to be 20 operational B-2s. Good as it may be, the loss of any one of them means a major decrease in capability. So, even though they're hard to find during the day (and hard to get a missile lock on even if you do locate one), you probably aren't going to want to give up the cloak of night. It's worth noting that plans for the employment of the A-12 and A/FX fully envisioned day use. Similarly, any stealthy or high speed recon/identification platform we come up with will have to be survivable in day operation. Old Business I'm too lazy to send another message about: Wei-Jen: A while back I think you asked about the RCS of a number of aircraft. I believe you mentioned that the RCS of the B-1B was 1/100th of the B-52. I happened to come across some stuff that indicates that although that was what was predicted, the actual results were that it had a RCS of 1/10th that of the B-52, and that was from the frontal aspect only. It also seems, according to an article by a Retired Col. Everest Ricconi who used to be on the Air Staff at the Pentagon and an the Flight Dynamics Laboratory in Ohio, that from aspects other than the front the signatures are essentially comparable. I don't know how valid these assertations are, but they are kinda depressing because one of the explanations for the acceptance of decrease in tactical capability and certain performance areas of the B-1B relative to the B-1A was that its greater relative stealthiness compensated for that. Art Hanley Once again, do not make the mistake of believing that whatever I droned on about above has anything to do with I am authorized to drone on about. ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 13:12:08 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: Re: Broken Arrow "The Movie" On Wed, 14 Feb 1996, Mary Shafer wrote: > No, but I have noticed that helicopter blade slap doesn't sound right. > Francis Ford Coppola thinks so, too; those Hueys at the beginning of > "Apocalypse Now" are synthesized. > > Regards, > Mary My partner works as a film tracklayer and editor and has told me that some of her colleagues get pretty cynical about gunshot sound effects- often in the first draft (or whatever the jargon is) before they have the "correct" sound synthesised, they put in klaxons, buzzes, whizzes, raspberries, roosters crowing, bells, quacks.... 8-) --Brett ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 18:43:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Domestic trinkets in the mail This is a longish message. Skip it if you're not US or didn't order trinkets. Non-US folks will get their own message fairly soon. I've sent out 176 pins, 58 patches, 44 keyrings, and 9 charms. OK, here's the mailing schedule that I've accomplished: Not from Skunk Works (I made the offer in a couple of other places first): 7 Feb: Knotts, Martinson, J. Jackson, Arthur, Warren, Simpson, Priestley 8 Feb: T. Johnson, M. Jackson, Schneider, Anderson, Hart, Wilson, Jones 9 Feb: D. Johnson, Edwards, Martinez, Wan Lee, Petrov, Ochs, Ball From Skunk Works: 12 Feb: Ran out of stamps 13 Feb: Bailey, Christianson, Heinrich, Herndon, Hoel, Hoza, Mallory, Smith, Thomson, Yeung, Kay, Kelley, Miller, Zguris 14 Feb: Estenson, Petrisko, Ewing, Molyneux, Boyle, Waller, Tullman, Morrison Ran out of certification slips--Bray will go out tomorrow. Most of these are postmarked on the next day, I think. I rarely got there before the pickup time. People getting charms will notice that the font is different. If this bothers you, e-mail and I'll send ones that match the others. If you've changed your mind, mark the package "Return to sender" and I'll refund what you paid me, less the postage and mailer costs, right away. I can understand that some of these were intended for certain events and my tardiness may have made them unwanted, so I'll be glad to refund. If anyone isn't happy with their particular certification slips, let me know and I'll send a better one. These are just signed en masse and cut appart and some of them are a little ragged. If you're going to frame them or something, I'll send a better one right away. I need to hear from Ron Scheweikert, George Kasica, Mike Bishop, Joe Lovece, Graham Sims, and the person that sent the 18 karet gold chain and charm (this must be accompanied by the inscription on the charm as authentication). I have your items, but I need to check on a variety of things--mostly I have questions about addresses. If your name isn't mentioned somewhere above and you mailed funds or a trinket, e-mail me imediately. I have some envelopes I can't decipher and they're probably yours. Include your address to help me out. 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.... ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 17:30:12  Subject: re: (Fwd) F-16 Bumper Stickers Just saw Steve's post. Here's two more: Used in the Gulf War: F/A-18-- One pilot, one bomb, one hour. Used by Army and Marine Grunts: B-52: 100% accurate-- Every bomb dropped hits the ground Art Hanley In compliance with the Full Employment For Lawyers Act, I must state that the Above does not represent my employer's Views, only mine ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 23:43:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Ben Rich's book out in paper This paperback edition should have a special relevance to the members of this list, because it incorporates the changes of the "perceived errors", we suggested to Ben Rich's son, Michael Rich, some time ago, in this forum. I think that should be reason enough to get this edition too, even if you have the original one. :) The book should be available in all (good) bookstores: Title: Skunk Works Sub title: A Personal Memoir of My Years at Lockheed Author: Ben R. Rich & Leo Janos Publisher: Little, Brown and Company, Boston, New York, Toronto, London Year: 1994, 1996 ISBN: 0-316-74300-3 - -- 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: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 23:21:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Coming soon, new tech. actually worked. George Allegrezza wrote: >Chuck Smith scribed: >>You will all soon be hearing that an airborne missile was >>destroyed by a laser late last week. I`ll be damned, it works! >TRW did this around 1980-81, smoking a TOW with a chemical laser at San Juan >Capistrano. The old USAF C-135 airborne laser laboratory accomplished the >same feat as well, around the same time, knocking down a Sidewinder. The >Army CO2 land-mobile prototype laser shot down a drone helicopter in 1979 at >the Redstone Arsenal. >What's different about this op? And Chuck answered: >Yep, your right but those were contrived demonstrations ala >Sgt. York. This is a real, producable mobile system that >you can buy today if you have the dust. I think the >mid-east countries are placing the first orders. I am not sure of that operational part, though. Here is a news flash, which was also reported in Flight International, but not by AW&ST yet: Jerusalem, Friday, February 9, 1996 (Reuter): A new joint U.S.-Israeli weapon system that uses laser beams to intercept and destroy short-range missiles was tested in the United States recently, Israeli officials said Friday. They said the U.S. Army and the Israeli Defense Ministry developed the technology together in a project dubbed Nautilus and tested it in New Mexico recently. Israeli defense ministry media adviser Avi Benayahu told Reuters: "The Israeli defense establishment is glad about the success of the Nautilus project in the United States and says this is an impressive technological achievement." But Benayahu stressed the project was in initial stages and "a long way" from completion. Israeli newspapers said the technology would be effective against Katyusha rockets, a favored weapon of guerrillas fighting Israel in south Lebanon. Benayahu refused to give details of the test. Israel's Yedioth Ahronoth daily newspaper said in the test the laser system succeeded in hitting an unarmed Katyusha missile. - -- 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: BaDge Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 23:13:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: Thursday WINGS... A bit of the old a bit of the new, all fairly interesting looking. ------------------------------------- Broken Arrow: HBO First Look [HBO 21:30-2200] John Travolta and Christian Slater star in the thriller. CC, Stereo. Wings [DISC 1800-1900] "The Catalina PBY". The light, sea-based Catalina PBY attacks German U-boats and flies mercy missions. This Century [TLC 2000-2100] "Nightfighters". Black pilots struggle to overcome segregation and racism in the military. ---------------------<>------------------ I might add, that for the, uh, er, more 'mature' members of the list, they may remember the Catalina PBY as one helluva ship, operating in several theatres during WWII. There's no doubt some wild tales the folks that served aboard one of these could tell would make some way cool stories. As you may know one of them was credited with a 'kill' on a japanese sub, in almost comical circumstances. (it took about 5 planes of several types to finally get them to surrender, but the PBY made the first hit and did the biggest damage, since it kept the sub from submerging). My dad was a tail gunner in one of the variants of this baby, and it's just the neatest aircraft. So even though it's not too skunky, I figure youse guys'd like to know what's playing anyhow. regards, ________ BaDge ------------------------------ From: freeman@netcom.com (Jay Reynolds Freeman) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 23:46:53 -0800 Subject: Re: Thursday WINGS... The Catalina was not skunky, but I think I have read that it did participate in at least one very covert operation somewhat before the US got into World War II. I believe I have read that American PBYs, with insignia painted out and flown by US Navy personnel, participated in the search for the German battleship Bismark; this was long before the US got into the war. -- Jay Freeman ------------------------------ From: Xelex@aol.com Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 02:18:23 -0500 Subject: Re: BROKEN ARROW definitions Michael Masterson asked about the definition of "Broken Arrow". Here is a comprehensive explanation of terms. There are several terms that identify and describe the various types of nuclear weapons/radiological accidents and their relative severity: NUCFLASH : Nuclear weapon system accident that could create the risk of war. This is the most severe form of nuclear accident. An event resulting in an accidental, unauthorized, or unexplained nuclear detonation; or the accidental or unauthorized launch of a nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable missile by U.S. forces or U.S.-supported allied forces; unauthorized flight or deviation from an approved flight plan by a nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable aircraft of U.S. or U.S.-supported allied forces that could be perceived as a hostile act. BROKEN ARROW : Nuclear weapon accident. An unexpected event (without risk of war)involving nuclear weapons or components that results in a nuclear detonation or non-nuclear detonation or burning of a nuclear weapon; radioactive contamination; seizure, theft, or loss of a nuclear weapon or component; jettison of a nuclear weapon or component; or an actual or perceived public hazard from a nuclear weapon, warhead, or component. PINNACLE/FADED GIANT : Serious radiological accident. A nuclear reactor system accident or radiological accident that poses a serious hazard to life, health, or property. BEELINE/FADED GIANT : Significant radiological incident. Nuclear reactor system incident or radiological incident that poses a hazard to life, health, or property. BENT SPEAR : Significant nuclear weapon incident. An unexpected event involving nuclear weapons or components (not in the accident category) that results in any of the following: - - damage occurs requiring major repair or replacement. - - a nuclear weapon or associated equipment is struck by lightning, or is suspected to have been struck. - - a nuclear weapon has been partially or fully armed (known or suspected). - - an incident occurs that could result in adverse publicity. - - there is a attempted or actual penetration or unexpected degredation of the security of nuclear weapon storage sites, activities, or logistics movements. - - there is an actual or implied threat to seize a nuclear weapon or to attack or inflict damage on a nuclear weapons storage site, nuclear weapons, or nuclear weapons security forces. DULL SWORD : Minor nuclear weapon incident. An unexpected event involving nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons systems (not reportable as a nuclear accident or significant incident) that results in any of the following: - - damage to the warhead section or warhead that the operating organization (Army, Navy, Air Force) is authorized to repair or malfunctions of associated equipment that could damage the warhead or warhead section. - - damage, loss, or destruction of a nuclear-type training weapon. - - unauthorized acts that degrade the safety, security, or reliability of a nuclear weapon or trainer unless reportable as accidents or significant incidents. - - the failure to unlock or lock or other inoperable condition of a permissive action link (PAL) when installed or attached to a nuclear weapon. - - a nuclear-capable missile system accident in flight that does not meet the NUCFLASH definition while it is being transported or stored. - - any other condition considered reportable by a commander or custodian. I the first half century of the nuclear age, there were well over a thousand accidents or incidents involving U.S. nuclear weapons. During this period, weapons have been struck by lightning, exposed to extreme temperature changes, immersed in water, engulfed by fire, dropped thousands of feet, and subjected to all kinds of mechanical shock. In all of these events, there has never been a nuclear yield. There have been a number of incidents involving radioactive contamination, and damage from conventional high-explosives contained in the weapons. Peter W. Merlin Aerospace Archeology Field Research Team THE X-HUNTERS ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 06:00:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Coming soon, new tech. actually worked. >laser destroyed missle... Does anyone know the approx. mega/giga-watts needed to power up such a puppy that it could take out something in flight? Or is it going for some sensitive part of the guidance, etc.? regards, ________ BaDge ------------------------------ From: BaDge Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 05:37:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: BROKEN ARROW definitions Boy, they come outta the woodwork from time to time, eh? Great post. One thing I was wondering about... Where did I get the impression that Faded Giant was called where there was merely an airspace incursion? Fawcett/Clear Intent? I wouldn't be surprised if he was reaching, because that was the first place I heard that term and Peter's glossary looks pretty firm. regards, ________ BaDge ------------------------------ From: albert.dobyns@mwbbs.com (ALBERT DOBYNS) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 96 01:49:00 -0500 Subject: Re: SW/NASA? > Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 18:47:26 > Subject: Re: SW/NASA? > From: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) BW> >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 > > > Thank you BW> The definitive answer came from the esteemed Mr. Miller, "...none > dedicated.." The operative word being "dedicated." The > referenced projects are adapted from other dedicated projects. BW> Byron I seem to have just discovered a discussion well after it began. So would someone (or more) give me a run-down on the topic? Byron, which Mr. Miller are you referring to? And is "...none dedicated.." part of some text in a book or something posted here? I feel like I'm in the dark because I must have missed some previous notes. If text is being quoted from a book, please tell me the title. The page number would be useful also. Thanks in advance. - -Al- - --- þ SLMR 2.1a þ "Life is short-- Eat dessert first!" ------------------------------ From: (Jay Waller) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 96 9:48:31 EST Subject: Re: Coming soon, new tech. actually worked. From the report in Flight International that Andreas posted: >>Israeli newspapers said the technology would be effective against Katyusha rockets, a favored weapon of guerrillas fighting Israel in south Lebanon. Benayahu refused to give details of the test. Israel's Yedioth Ahronoth daily newspaper said in the test the laser system succeeded in hitting an unarmed Katyusha missile. Aren't the Katyushas relatively small and fired in volleys from a mobile platform (truck) ? Looks to me like you would need a battery of these systems to defend against such a threat and have to rapidly cycle between targets. I know its just in the design phase, but I wonder how difficult its going to be to go from a single kill to a whole barrage of rockets. Just wondering. Regards, Jay ------------------------------ From: Bill Paisley Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 10:16:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #620 >From: "Steve Caldwell" >Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 14:23:41 GMT+7 >Subject: (Fwd) F-16 Bumper Stickers > >Hello, > Here's some proposed F-16 bumper sticker ideas that promote the >most postive attributes of the F-16 fighter. :^) Enjoy. > >Steve Caldwell >caldwels@det5wg57.barksdale.af.mil > Steve: You could take those same bumper stickers, change the aircraft to F-18, and they'd apply almost verbatim. I love the one ..."We've spent so much money on it already we can't afford to admit we're wrong!" Bill Paisley - Former Tomcat Rio Extrordinaire :) - ------------------------------------------------- A proud U-NET customer someone@somewhere.u-net.com - ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Tom Petrisko <0007191437@mcimail.com> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 96 11:29 EST Subject: Re: WINGS I do not know about most of you, but I do not get to see WINGS as I leave work at 6 pm EST. So I called Discovery Channel at 800-813-7409 and asked them about changing it to a later time. He said that if they get enough calls about the time that it would definitely be considered by the programming executive. So call them if you want the time slot changed. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Petrisko | " Please leave your ego at the door" | | Sign on the front door at the recording | studio for the "We are the World" | recording session. ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Thu, 15 Feb 96 16:52:45 MET Subject: 1) Air spikes, 2) Adapative aircraft Though the info reposted below comes from infamous lists, I think that most skunk-works subscribers will tolerate it, since it has obvious links with the charter. In fact, subject 1) was already discussed last May: in an AWST article it was stated that "Leik Myrabo and other Russian researchers at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, propose air spikes generated by microwaves, [...] ". BTW, I tried to scan the New Scientist website in "tourist" mode and could not get any additional info. I have to wait for the arrival of the paper issue in my lab. J. Pharabod ._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._. From: mdembinski@delphi.com (Mike Dembinski) Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.area51,alt.paranet.ufo Subject: Hypersonic flying saucers driven by microwaves Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 15:23:53 +0000 Organization: mdembinski This week's New Scientist (UK) magazine publishes an intriguing article 'Rider on the Shock Wave' about a form of propulsion that can drive craft at Mach 25. 'The idea is to carve a path through the air by focusing a microwave in front of the craft. At the focal point, the concentration of energy is high enough to rip electrons from molecules in the air to form a plasma. These electrons smash into other molecules stripping off still more electrons. This results in a chain reaction known a inverse bremsstahlung and unleashes and explosive force'. Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) acceleration, the article says, 'is being seriously studied in many countries including the US [Area 51?], Russia and Britain'. Using an 'air spike' created by microwave power reflected onto a point ahead of the craft by way of a parabolic antenna, the craft will (in theory) be able to leave and enter the atmosphere. It is saucer-shaped. New Scientist is a serious and respectable magazine. Its website is at http://www.newscientist.com where I guess you'll be able to find about this, the cover story this week (17 Feb issue). Two weeks ago, the New Scientist ran an article about aircraft that can change shape - control surfaces that flex (no need for ailerons, elevators or rudders). 'Muscle-wire and piezoelectric actuators that expand and contract'. The article concludes: 'Even with these developments, full-sized aircraft that change shape in mid-air are unlikely to fly this century. Or are they? Some conspiracy theorist suggest that adaptive aircraft may already have been secretely developed in the US under "black" aeropaace programmes like those that propduced stealth fighters and bombers. Who know what else could be flying overhead?' The article is by the head of materials science and engineering at Cranfield University (an establishment with historic links with the RAF). Keep watching the skies, Mike ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #622 ********************************* 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).