From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #634 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 13 March 1996 Volume 05 : Number 634 In this issue: High Pilots Aero Club of Texas leigh lights Interesting observation Re: Aero Club of Texas Re: Interesting observation Re: Aero Club of Texas Leigh Light Re: Interesting observation Alien Trickery Exposed! Re: Interesting observation Nevada Test site documentary last night Cargo Planes... Re: Nevada Test site documentary last night re: Cargo Planes... Micro UAV Interesting Observation--Another thought Don't Forget.... SR71 Presentation 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: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 08:47:45 PST Subject: High Pilots keller writes: > TransColorado commuter plane at Durango in '87, if you follow these > things closely enough and recall, in which the captain's cocaine habit > was implicated as a contributing factor. Yes, you read that right. > *Cocaine habit*. The autopsy on the captain, who was one of the > fatalities, revealed cocaine metabolites in his system indicative of > cocaine use within the previous 12-18 hours prior to the accident. Let me get this straight. Are you implying that we avaitors would use illegal drugs?! Never! In fact, we abhor the use of alchohol! Who ever heard of a drunk pilot!? Me, smoke cigars? Drink beer? At an airport? C`mon.... Chuck 8-) ------------------------------ From: habu@why.net (habu) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 11:40:21 -0600 Subject: Aero Club of Texas Fellow Skunks, I'm rejoining the list after a brief sabattical, and wanted to pass on the following... Jay Miller and I have been friends for over a decade, and our weekly slide shows in his living room have now taken the form of monthly meetings in public facilities with guest speakers. We've also 'organized' under the name 'Aero Club of Texas'. Last night's guest was Robert J. (Bob) Gilliland, former Lockheed test pilot for the F-104 program and the A-12/YF-12/SR-71 program(s). Mr. Gilliland was the first pilot to fly the A-12, the YF-12 and the SR-71. If memory serves correct, he was the first to fly ten different SR airframes. Lots of interesting stories, anecdotes and quotes from his conversations with Kelley Johnson made up the bulk of the presentation. Previous guest speakers have included Bart Kelley (Bell X-1 fame), James Cole (National Aeronautic Association), Major Dale Shell (DC-X & X-33), Bob Pandis (Northrop B-2), Alexander Velovich (MiG Design Bureau), several other SR pilots, and many others I can't readily recall. Future scheduled speakers include Dr. Paul Stapp (Mr. Rocket Sled), Jeana Yeager (Rutan Voyager), and Hoot Gipson (NASA Shuttle Astronaut). I'll try to pass on topics of interest from these meetings to the list. Greg Fieser (since I'm self employed, the above views do represent those of my employer...) ------------------------------ From: Dave Pierson: I am the NRA Date: Fri, 8 Mar 96 13:39:49 EST Subject: leigh lights From: US4RMC::"aem@aemann.demon.co.uk" "adrian mann" 7-MAR-1996 03:59:33.14 To: skunk-works@gaia.ucs.orst.edu CC: Subj: Searchlights jburtens@athena.bournemouth.ac.uk wrote: >Yep it was British. The RAF fitted high-powered lamps on the nose and >leading edge of their U-Boat hunters (Sunderland flying boats etc). During >an attack one of the crew would control the brightness of the lamps so that >the aircraft would blend in with the sky. It appears that the US copied the >idea for their sub hunters in the Pacific, but I've got little info on that. Well, my Dad flew for RAF Coastal Command in WWII, in LIberators, Mitchels, Catalinas et al., and the search light was called a Leigh Light. I think it was used to spot U-boats, to help with depth-charging, rather than for dazzling, although this may have been a side-effect. It worked - his crew sank 2 U-boats using it! As far as I know, it was never used with any kind of control other than on/off. It did put out a quite staggering amount of candle power though! He also used the microwave radar, as he was a radio op/navigator/gunner to detect snorkels on the surface, but he didn't say much else - sorry! But it did exist and was used operationally. Adrian Mann Adrian Mann, Birmingham, England % ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ====== % Received: from mail11.digital.com by us4rmc.pko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA12411; Thu, 7 Mar 96 03:51:51 -050 % Received: from mail.ORST.EDU by mail11.digital.com (5.65v3.2/1.0/WV) id AA12045; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 03:41:01 -050 % Received: (from daemon@localhost) by mail.orst.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id XAA08931 for skunk-works-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 23:55:49 -0800 (PST) % Received: from gaia.ucs.orst.edu (root@gaia.UCS.ORST.EDU [128.193.4.2]) by mail.orst.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA08926 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 23:55:41 -0800 (PST) % Received: from relay-2.mail.demon.net (disperse.demon.co.uk [158.152.1.77]) by gaia.ucs.orst.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA10323 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 1996 00:34:50 -0800 (PST) % Received: from post.demon.co.uk ([158.152.1.72]) by relay-2.mail.demon.net id ab21307; 7 Mar 96 8:34 GM % Received: from aemann.demon.co.uk ([158.152.90.228]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net id aa22725; 7 Mar 96 8:26 GM % X-Sender: (Unverified) % Mime-Version: 1.0 % Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" % Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 09:23:57 +0000 % To: skunk-works@gaia.ucs.orst.edu % From: adrian mann % Subject: Searchlights % Message-Id: <826187187.22725.0@aemann.demon.co.uk> % Sender: owner-skunk-works@mail.orst.edu % Precedence: bulk ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Fri, 8 Mar 96 13:23:52  Subject: Interesting observation In the new issue of World Airpower Journal, Bill Gunston writes an article about the B-1 and is many trials and tribulations. In one paragraph he mentions as an aside that in addition to the Have Blue prototypes for the F-117, there was also a Tacit Blue program. This was flown in the late 1970s and was a quarter scale version of a bomber, based on their flying wing designs. Now, given what the size and shape of this aircraft would have to be, is it possible that observations of this aircraft gave rise to stories of the supposed Northrop "TR-3A". Conversely, could there have been in fact a "TR-3A" developed under this program and now the cover story is that it was a quarter scale bomber technology development aircraft? Art Hanley My employers disavow any knowledge of my actions. This message may self-destruct at a moment's notice. ------------------------------ From: blackbird@telis.org (Jon Price (PJ)) Date: Sat, 09 Mar 1996 04:59:13 GMT Subject: Re: Aero Club of Texas On Fri, 8 Mar 1996 11:40:21 -0600, you wrote: >>Fellow Skunks, >> >>I'm rejoining the list after a brief sabattical, and wanted to pass on the >>following... - -------------------------------------snip--------------------------------------- >>Last night's guest was Robert J. (Bob) Gilliland, former Lockheed test pilot >>for the >>F-104 program and the A-12/YF-12/SR-71 program(s). Mr. Gilliland was the first >>pilot to fly the A-12, the YF-12 and the SR-71. If memory serves correct, >>he was >>the first to fly ten different SR airframes. Lots of interesting stories, >>anecdotes and >>quotes from his conversations with Kelley Johnson made up the bulk of the >>presentation. - ---------------------------------------------snip------------------------------------- Hi All, Have to take exception to a part of the above. Bob Gilliland did make the first flight in the SR-71, but not in the A-12 and/or the YF-12. Those first flights were made by Lou Schalk (A-12) and Jim Eastham (YF-12) Bob is a really great speaker with lots of good tales to tell. I guess that these monthly meetings are at least one good reason to live in Texas! 8-) I do hope that someone is video taping these talks. It would also be nice if something could be worked out where those not residing in Texas might have a chance to view these tapes. (VideoAerofax??) >> Greg Fieser >> >> (since I'm self employed, the above views do represent those of my >>employer...) >> >> PJ **Proud member of the Tailhook Assn.** **If only Naval Aviators flew SR-71's** **I'd be happy. OK 3 wire Blackbird!** *************************************** I'm not known to be Politically Correct. ------------------------------ From: David Windle Date: Sat, 09 Mar 1996 15:20:04 Subject: Re: Interesting observation Art wrote : >In the new issue of World Airpower Journal, Bill Gunston writes an article >about the B-1 and is many trials and tribulations. In one paragraph he >mentions as an aside that in addition to the Have Blue prototypes for the >F-117, there was also a Tacit Blue program. This was flown in the late 1970s >and was a quarter scale version of a bomber, based on their flying wing >designs. Now, given what the size and shape of this aircraft would have to >be, is it possible that observations of this aircraft gave rise to stories of >the supposed Northrop "TR-3A". Conversely, could there have been in fact a >"TR-3A" developed under this program and now the cover story is that it was a >quarter scale bomber technology development aircraft? Very interesting post..Steve Douglass videoed a mini B-2 during Roving Sands in May 1993 near Groom..sadly his camcorder's batteries were low and the image isn't too sharp. Whilst there's a school of thought that TR-3A came about through a mishearing of the Tier 3 UAV...that still doesn't explain how Northrop became associated with a Skunk Works programe...or how the 'A' got into the act.Seems like real X-planes (as opposed to paper planes) seem to have become a lot scarcer over the last few years...perhaps advanced R & D is now conducted away from public view and media scrutiny. I'd be interested to hear Chuck's views on the stability of a small flying wing and what roles such an a/c would be best suited to. Also how successful data extrapolation from data obtained from a 1/4 scale flying wing would be in terms of flight characteristics of the full scale a/c. D ------------------------------ From: habu@why.net (habu) Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 11:07:42 -0600 Subject: Re: Aero Club of Texas >Have to take exception to a part of the above. Bob Gilliland did make >the first flight in the SR-71, but not in the A-12 and/or the YF-12. I stand corrected. I arrived a bit late for the meeting, and wasn't taking notes. Didn't mean to mislead anyone... > I do hope that someone is video taping these talks. It would also be nice > if something could be worked out where those not residing in Texas might > have a chance to view these tapes. (VideoAerofax??) > I may not have taken notes, but I did observe an individual with a (rather expensive looking) video camera taping the entire event. I will find out who that person was and how to obtain copies (if available...) For those who can't wait for the movie :) , I'll recount a couple of Bob's long tall Texas tales (from memory again...). (1) When asked about the SR's refueling characteristics, Bob mentioned that the beginning of a fuel transfer wasn't too bad, but as the SR filled up, the pilot was forced to increase AOA and throttle to maintain position. On several occasions this involved going into reheat on one engine, and with the resulting asymmetric thrust induced yaw, Bob would stay in position by sideslipping behind the tanker while still on the boom. This made the boomer (and others, I'm sure) rather nervous, and they voiced their objections with Lockheed management. Bob did some checking, and found that while the KC-135s could safely cruise/refuel at ~Mach 0.89, they chose to fly at ~Mach 0.84 to provide a margin of acceleration to pull away from a dangerous situation. Envision, if you will, just how fast a fully laden KC-135E can accelerate from 0.84 to 0.89 and you begin to see the adsurdity of their arguement... (Mach numbers are from memory, actuals may be a bit different) (2) Bob also stated that the SR was not a very maneuverable airplane - not because it was a real pig in the air or anything, but because of structural limitations (Bob mentioned a max +2G rating imposed by Kelley). While it's a well known fact the SR was designed to fly *fast*, what's often not mentioned is that the SR was designed to fly fast *and* straight. Thus the +2G limit. Bob told how he would pop up the rear-facing periscope and kick the stick (to provide a step input in pitch) and watch the airframe wiggle like a rope behind him.... These may be tall tales, but they were entertaining, nonetheless!!! I'll follow up on the videotape thing, promise. Greg Fieser (since I'm self employed, the above views DO represent those of my employer...) ------------------------------ From: Dave Pierson: I am the NRA Date: Sun, 10 Mar 96 12:20:12 EST Subject: Leigh Light In Penance for my last little mispost ('puters allow onbe to make bigger mistakes, faster....) >>Yep it was British. The RAF fitted high-powered lamps on the nose and >>leading edge of their U-Boat hunters (Sunderland flying boats etc). During >>an attack one of the crew would control the brightness of the lamps so that >>the aircraft would blend in with the sky. It appears that the US copied the >>idea for their sub hunters in the Pacific, but I've got little info on that. This mixes two concepts. (which i don't believe were operationally mixed.) Yahudi is/waas background matching. Leigh Lights were targetting aids. >Well, my Dad flew for RAF Coastal Command in WWII, in LIberators, Mitchels, >Catalinas et al., and the search light was called a Leigh Light. I think it >was used to spot U-boats, to help with depth-charging, rather than for >dazzling, although this may have been a side-effect. It worked - his crew >sank 2 U-boats using it! Matches what i found. Devices of War by has a chapter devoted to it. Leigh Lights were not particularly secret, once operational. Yahudi was not much discussed. As near as i can make out, the issue was that the early ASW radar (ASV Air to Surface Vessel?) could tell the op that there was summat out there, but in the dark, with a sea running a bit of mist or rain, the pilot could not neccessarily FIND the target, even on the surface. This was 1st gen radar, and needed a dedicated op, who would be yelling left, kick left, no back right... we're past it go around without wome way of targetting. (It is perhaps relavant that one of the strong points of the Norden & other US bombsights was that the bombardier ended up flying the a/c during the run in....) Wing Cdr(?) Leigh mated a standard naval 24' searchlight (carbon arc, in all probability) with a set of controls handled by the radar op to point the beam. The pilot flew down the beam... Leigh had flown combat in seaplanes in WWI, getting shot into the Med. >As far as I know, it was never used with any kind of control other than >on/off. Some were moutned so they could be varied in angle angle, two axis. The initial installation used the 'chinn' (? Underside, anway) turret of the Lancaster a/c, displacing the gun. >It did put out a quite staggering amount of candle power though! Yup. Initial installation used a purpose built 'apu' described only as 'a Ford V 8'. Later switched to batteries (light was not on that much.) Not the sort of animal that just 'plugged into the cigarette lighter." >He also used the microwave radar, as he was a radio op/navigator/gunner to >detect snorkels on the surface, but he didn't say much else - sorry! But it >did exist and was used operationally. My reference says 16%, more or less, of U Boat kills involved a/c using Leigh Light. It was fitted to many sorts of large birds, later in a pod under one wing. regards dwp ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 13:42:16 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: Re: Interesting observation On Sat, 9 Mar 1996, David Windle wrote: > the image isn't too sharp. Whilst there's a school of thought that TR-3A > came about through a mishearing of the Tier 3 UAV...that still doesn't AFAIK, the "TR-3A" designation was entirely conjectural, based on the precedent of the TR-1 and the assumption that the aircraft performed a similar role -no more than that, no leaked codenames, no items in budget lists etc. The similarity to "Tier III" is likely to be coincidence. - --Brett ------------------------------ From: "Art Hanley" Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 17:16:01 +0700 Subject: Alien Trickery Exposed! We had some fun last week with the show about the Discovery Channel's show on satellites that I thought was on Monday Night, but was pointed out by some that it really was tonight, Sunday (Hosted! By! William! Shatner!). -----Now It Can Be Revealed------ While checking that fabulous tome of superb knowledge, insightful inquiry and endless analysis of Jennifer Aniston's hair, TV Guide, the TRUTH was discovered. Tonight a two hour show, from 9-11, "Eyes in the Sky", which is probably the one Hosted! By! William! Shatner! (with scenery chewing intact). Tomorrow though, at 10PM also on Discovery, "Spies Above". This, no doubt is the one that the aliens didn't want us to see, so they laid a false trail tonight. You want Proof that Aliens fear what might be disclosed? This show is narrated by Gillian "explain to me again just what this thing called humor is" Anderson of... the X-Files Art ------------------------------ From: David Windle Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:14:59 Subject: Re: Interesting observation I should have said of course that Steve Douglass videoed the mini B-2 during Roving Sands AND it was also seen near Groom. Thanks to Earl for pointing out my mistake. D ------------------------------ From: Jeff H Clark Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 16:47:15 536913400 Subject: Nevada Test site documentary last night With all the talk about Eyes in the Sky on Sunday, I wish I had paid more attention to the tv guide. I was flipping around after 11pm on Sunday, and at about 11:30 came upon a show called Archeology on TLC. Well, the subject of this episode was the Nevada Test Site. Apparently there is (or was, I don't have an idea of when this was filmed) an effort to preserve some of the structures used in nuclear testing out there. The first place I saw was an above-ground explosion site called Skokie (maybe Smokie) which was weed covered and heavility littered with a lot of rusted steel parts, all mangled and bent. It's supposed to be the last above-ground site left in post-blast state. Then they showed a few different buildings from the tests which produced the 'cool' films of houses getting blasted away by heat and shockwaves. There was a bit about how they put mannikins in some of the houses and then later exhibited them in a Las Vegas department store, where they eventually disappeared. Then there was a segment on the town of Mercury, then a segment on a nuclear reactor test site which was shut down in 1973 and left in pristine condition (ie notebokks left opne and all test equipment still in place. No reactor though). Then the last piece was on the Japanese houses built to find blast effects in Hiroshima/Nagasaki. A "radio-style" tower was built, the tallest government structure ever, which a reactor was hauled up & down to irradiate at different angles. Overall, the quality was great, and it was narrated by John Rhys-Davies, the guy now in Sliders and in the Indiana Jones movies. Hopefully it will be on again soon. Jeff Clark jclark@freenet.scri.fsu.edu - -- ------------------------------ From: Corey Lawson Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 17:15:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cargo Planes... Sure, the C-17 has its place as a high-capacity cargo mover able to land in tight places. But does the Air Force really need to spend the $$$ on the C-17 to replace their cargo movers for the day-to-day cargo transportation business? I think this is the point. If it's cheaper to maintain and operate a fleet of civilian aircraft for most of the cargo-hauling needs of the Air Force, then it makes sense for me if the Air Force did buy a fleet of C-17s but used them for cargo delivery into less-than-secure airfields, and used civilian aircraft for just about everything else. Keep the C-5's around for the heavy-lift/large object capability that can't really be done with a 747, too. I think that's the point the General was trying to make... - -------------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Corey Lawson + Daddy lets me drive slowly around the UW Bothell Computer Facilities + driveway on Tuesdays... but only on Tuesdays csl@u.washington.edu + -the Rainman 206.685.5209 + - -------------------------------+--------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 01:12:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Nevada Test site documentary last night By the way, I recently heard that the local people in the area 51 has name one of their route over the area the "ET route". Perharps the goverment disagree in put that name because there will be a center of atraction for alien hunters... The local people didn't care... Maybe Paul McGinnis can confirm the story... May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Tue, 12 Mar 96 10:06:34  Subject: re: Cargo Planes... IMHO, I believe Cory Lawson has his finger on it. Just for the record, the 747 can lift more than a C-5, carry it farther, faster and burn less fuel. It probably also requires less maintenance. On the other hand, it can not carry "outsize" cargo, because it carries cargo on two decks and the shape of the main deck will not permit it. It also can't self load/unload (as the C-5 and C-17 can), nor can it manuever and park on the ramp as the C-17 can (for that matter, neither can the C-5). That's really the tradeoff between the commercial-derived and purpose-built military transports. How much of the latter capabilities do we really need and how much are we willing and able to pay (in both money and loss of other capabilities) to get it? This is a question that is going to be asked a lot on military procurements for both hardware and software in the upcoming years. JAST (or JSF), for example, is planned to use more commercial off-the-shelf stuff than is traditional for military aircraft designs. 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: DaveK511@aol.com Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 22:20:03 -0500 Subject: Micro UAV Did anyone else catch a segment of the PBS show "Newshour with Jim Lehrer" that had an interview with the outgoing Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Adm. Owens. In his discussion of new technologies he talked about and showed models of the Predator UAV and a guided artillery shell. Then the interviewer asks what that little model is. The Joint Chief Chairman states that this is no model, this is the real thing. He called it a Micro UAV. It was about 3"(yes inches) long with a delta wing and a sizeable vertical stabilizer on the bottom of the vehicle(which was gripped for launching). He said it was hand launched by a soldier in a foxhole, it was electric powered with a thin pusher prop, had a duration of 1 hour, a tiny video camera was housed in a small fairing under the nose, it would cruise at aprox. 100'(Ft.). The UAV was controlled by the soldier using a IBM Thinkpad and a 5" dish antenna. The body gave the appearance of being molded in one piece around something substantial like a specially shaped circuit board. There appeared to be a small rod (aprox 1/16" dia.) sticking about 3/16" out of one side of the nose which seemed to be able to slide L-R, which could be some form of "drag" steering. There did not seem to be any lines indicating traditional control surfaces. Stealth by size. Forgive me if I have rattled on here. This is probably old news, which I seem to have missed in AW&ST. Must be working to hard. But I just about fell out of my chair as its capabilities were being described. Does anyone know who the mfg. is. Enjoy Dave ------------------------------ From: "Art Hanley" Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 23:25:22 +0700 Subject: Interesting Observation--Another thought Here's a far out thought: This didn't even occur to me until I read the post about the filming of the "mini-B-2" near Groom Lake (was that the same film that shown on "Unsolved Mysteries" some time back?) in 1993. The Tacit Blue supposedly flew in the late '70s. I wonder if it would still be flying in the 1990s if it was just a research aircraft. On the other hand, it is said that the Grumman-Northrop proposal for the ATA (which went on to become the GD-MDD A-12) resembled a smaller, tandem seat B-2. I wonder if they built a few of them after all.... As usual, I have absolutely no basis for the above speculation. Art ------------------------------ From: dougt@u011.oh.vp.com (Doug Tiffany) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 96 10:34:06 EST Subject: Don't Forget.... Tonight at 10:00 Eastern on the Discovery Channel, "Spy Watch" will be about the SR-71. - -- 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: "Lawrence A. Plummer" Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 13:48:21 EST Subject: SR71 Presentation I am hosting a reception for Mr. Tom Allison, NASM curator and former SR71 driver in Falls Church, Virginia on April 1st. The evening includes open bar and buffet and features Tom's EXCLUSIVE home videos of the SR71. The cost is $35/person or $60/couple. It is a fundraiser for the MEA, sponsors of the Manssas (Virginia) Airshow and the Manassas Aviation Explorers Post. respond to burke6@aol.com or lplummer@usaep.org or by phone at 202/264-1581. Thanks, Larry Plummer ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #634 ********************************* 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).