From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #673 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Tuesday, 2 July 1996 Volume 05 : Number 673 In this issue: Turn rate for high speed aircraft. Turn rate for high speed aircraft. SR 71 as a target Turn Rate For High Speed Aircraft Just a test Swedish stealth ships SR in comparison to ATF LOCKHEED SHUFFLES, SKUNK WORKS ABSORBS WORKERS Re: SR in comparison to ATF More info on the Republic XF-103 Re: topic list Return of Offical Numbers Another Test Re: Return of Offical Numbers Test -< Please Don't Read > Re: Return of Offical Numbers Re: Blackbird as a target 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: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 03:53:08 PDT Subject: Turn rate for high speed aircraft. OK, here goes. Mind you , I`m a little rusty on some of this. There are different turn rates. There is the sustained turn rate, the maximum turn rate, and the instantaneous turn rate. The maximum is the structural or aerodynamically limited limited maximum of the instantaneous. Sicne we`re talking about avoiding SAMS the instantaneous is what we want. The centripital acceleraltion is, in classic flight dynamics, given as some scalar (n) of th aceleration due to gravity at the Earth`s surface (g). Makes sense. We speak of a 2g or 3g turn. The lifting surfaces must support the aircraft`s weight times n, and for level flight the vertical (-g direction) component of the aircraft must be equal to weight. We can conclude, therefore, that the horizontal component of lift is SQRT((n*n)-1). The turn rate can be computed as (mass*g*sqrt((n*n)-1))/(mass*velocity ) Yeah, I know, its a weird way to get there, I`m thinking out loud. I do that a lot. But we can clean it up and get turn rate(instantaneous) = (g*sqrt((n*n)-1))/V which says turn rate gets smaller as V increases and increases with the square of the g`s you pull. Since we know the turn rate we can integrate WRT time and get course deviation. The only thing there is that as the g`s are held constant the velocity changes. So you need to do a little more work. And you will find that the lit coefficient comes into play, along with the induced drag. So, without more numbers- you can`t really get the turn radius of the SR71. But........... You can guess from historical trends and make a pretty good guess. I should note for non-engineering types the turn rate above is in radians/time so covert by 180/pi for degrees/time. Chuck ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 05:05:20 PDT Subject: Turn rate for high speed aircraft. OK, here goes. Mind you , I`m a little rusty on some of this. There are different turn rates. There is the sustained turn rate, the maximum turn rate, and the instantaneous turn rate. The maximum is the structural or aerodynamically limited limited maximum of the instantaneous. Sicne we`re talking about avoiding SAMS the instantaneous is what we want. The centripital acceleraltion is, in classic flight dynamics, given as some scalar (n) of th aceleration due to gravity at the Earth`s surface (g). Makes sense. We speak of a 2g or 3g turn. The lifting surfaces must support the aircraft`s weight times n, and for level flight the vertical (-g direction) component of the aircraft must be equal to weight. We can conclude, therefore, that the horizontal component of lift is SQRT((n*n)-1). The turn rate can be computed as (mass*g*sqrt((n*n)-1))/(mass*velocity ) Yeah, I know, its a weird way to get there, I`m thinking out loud. I do that a lot. But we can clean it up and get turn rate(instantaneous) = (g*sqrt((n*n)-1))/V which says turn rate gets smaller as V increases and increases with the square of the g`s you pull. Since we know the turn rate we can integrate WRT time and get course deviation. The only thing there is that as the g`s are held constant the velocity changes. So you need to do a little more work. And you will find that the lit coefficient comes into play, along with the induced drag. So, without more numbers- you can`t really get the turn radius of the SR71. But........... You can guess from historical trends and make a pretty good guess. I should note for non-engineering types the turn rate above is in radians/time so covert by 180/pi for degrees/time. Chuck ------------------------------ From: co160@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Ron Poole) Date: 1 Jul 1996 14:42:35 GMT Subject: SR 71 as a target When I was in NORAD, 70 to 73, the Blackbird would act as a target in some of our exercises. We had his flight plan, times, speeds and altitudes, we still never got one. They restricted themselves to M2.0, 70,000 feet. The computers tracked him from raw data and the raw track was always miles ahead of the computer. I flew with Fox Stevens who set the world altitude and speed record in the Blackbird, all he would ever confirm was speeds in excess of Mach 3 and altitudes in excess of 110,000 feet on a regular basis. I still don't think anyone has the capability of hitting one, regardless of radar profiles. Ron Poole ------------------------------ From: David Lednicer Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 09:07:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Turn Rate For High Speed Aircraft It can be assumed that a high speed aircraft will make a steady state turn. Then: Radius * Tangent(Bank Angle) = speed^2 / gravitational acceleration Also: Load Factor = Tangent(Bank Angle) So: Radius * Load Factor = speed^2 / gravitational acceleration At really high altitudes, the speed of sound is steady at 968 ft/sec, so a Mach 6 aircraft would be going 5808 ft/sec (3960 mph). Gravitational acceleration is 32.1741 ft/sec^2. Hence the right side equals 1048447.8 feet. A 2G turn produces a turn Radius of 524223.9 feet or 99.28 miles, with a bank angle of 63.4 degrees. A 4G turn would have a radius of 49.64 miles, and a bank angle of 75.96 degrees. The circumference of a circle is 2 * Pi * Radius. Assuming no change in speed during the turn, for a 180 degree course reversal, the distance traveled in a 2G turn would be 1646898 feet (311.9 miles). At 5808 ft/sec, this would take 283 seconds or 4.72 minutes. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Mon, 1 Jul 96 9:12:17  Subject: Just a test This is just a test y'all. Art Hanley My employer disavows any knowledge of my actions and keeps hoping that I'll self- destruct in five seconds ------------------------------ From: jwp@lubrizol.com Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 12:13:09 +0000 Subject: Swedish stealth ships I tried to post this last week but I never saw it appear. I apologize if this is a duplicate. I just came across a report that Sweden is building two 230 ft YS2000 class high speed stealth ships for their navy with an additional two planned. The ships use carbon fiber reinforced resin for parts of the ship such as the hull. I heard that Lockheed's demonstration stealth ship (Sea Shadow?) was put into storage a year or two ago. Does anyone know if Lockheed or anyone else in the US are still working on stealth ships? Joe Pialet ------------------------------ From: darknite@juno.com (*********** * *************) Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 10:54:58 CST Subject: SR in comparison to ATF In a modern head to head is the SR vulnerable to say the new Advanced Tactical Fighter (or a varient thereof) mounting say an advanced Pheonix system. It's super-cruise capabilities as well as it's range should (at least) put it within the right envelope. David (I mess around with simulation games in my spare time, so while this is basically an idle question, it also helps further accurracy in our entertainment arena. Any comments welcome) E-mail Darknite@juno.com ------------------------------ From: pricharc@agcs.com Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 09:44:35 -0700 Subject: LOCKHEED SHUFFLES, SKUNK WORKS ABSORBS WORKERS FYI, Reported in AV news, see trailer. Clyde LOCKHEED SHUFFLES, SKUNK WORKS ABSORBS WORKERS Lockheed's famed Skunk Works--which designed and built such well known aircraft as the P-38 Lightning, the U-2 and the SR-71--will soon see its workforce swell. Lockheed Martin Skunk Works says it will move its Aircraft Services and approximately 1000 jobs from Ontario, California to newer facilities at the company's main plant in Palmdale. ------------------------------------------------------- Read full details of these and other stories on AVweb's NewsWire at URL http://www.avweb.com/ ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 13:51:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: SR in comparison to ATF On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, *********** * ************* wrote: > In a modern head to head >is the SR vulnerable to say the new Advanced Tactical Fighter (or a varient >thereof) mounting say an advanced Pheonix system. Yes, the F-22 (former ATF) and JST does not carry Phoenix missile. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu "Chew, if only you could see what I've seen with your eyes!" Roy Batty (Blade Runner) ------------------------------ From: Erik Hoel Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 12:30:16 EDT Subject: More info on the Republic XF-103 I recently found some more information on the XF-103 (a topic that was discussed a week or two ago on this list) that others may be interested in. It was found in a book entitled "U.S.Fighters" by Lloyd Jones (Aero Publishers, 1975). The following is quoted from the book: The heart of Republic's Xf-103 advanced interceptor design was a unique dual- cycle turbo-ramjet engine which was intended to hurtle the big plane to a speed of Mach 4, approximately 2,600 mph. The engine, designated Wright xj67-W-3/ XRj55-W-1, comprised a conventional turdojet and an afterburner which served the dual purpose of a ramjet engine. The turbine segment of the turbo-ram engine was to be fed directly through a variable-inlet sugar-scoop intake on the lower fuselage. During take-off and accelleration, the turbojet exhaust would be augmented by the afterburner. As the speed built up, a pair of valves on either side of the turbojet would redirect the incoming air straight to the afterburner, changing it into a pure ramjet. This transition was to take place between Mach 2 and 3 at 50,000 feet. In actual tests, the cycle was completed in seven seconds. Above 50,000 feet, the ramjet was to provide 18,800 lbs. of thrust. The J67 portion of the power- plant was rated at a maximum of 15,000 lbs. thrust. The entire power unit weighed nearly 7,200 pounds and occupied more than half the fuselage length. In its intended role, the XF-103 would be able to intercept an intruding bomber approaching over he North Pole at an altitude of 75,000 feet at Mach 2.2. After completing the interception, the XF-103 would return to its base on the power of the turbojet alone. The Air Force became interested in the XF-103 during the competition which produced the Convair F-102. Two prototypes were ordered at that time. An intensive development program was undertaken and the XF-103 began to emerge as a monstrous creation of heat-resistant titanium and stainless steel weighing over 20 tons. Because of the great drag that would be caused by any protrusion, the conventional canopy over the cockpit was eliminated and the pilot was to be provided with a retractable periscope. The cockpit itself consisted of a capsule which could be lowered from the nose. In an emergency, the capsule could become an ejection seat. Released information concerning the XF-103 shows a wingspan of 35'10" and a fuselage length of 81'4" and a height of 18'4". Wing area was 401 square feet. Fuel capacity was a phenominal 3,730 gallons. A ventral fin which retracted for take-offs and landings was provided for stability at the high Mach numbers predicted. Combat radius was 431 miles with a service ceiling in excess of 75,000 feet. The XF-103 design included provisions for housing six air-to-air missles and thirty-six 2.75 inch Mightly Mouse FFAR rockets. After a nine-year development period, the first example was under construction when, on August 21, 1957, the Air Force cancelled the project. Although the reason given was economic, it had become apparent that the Wright J65 would not provide adequate thrust for the proposed performance. At the time of cancellation, Republic was working on the possibility of replacing the J65 with a 20,000 lb. thrust British-built Bristol Olympus. The low-mounted intake, with its complicated wariable-inlet and bypass valves, was also a cause for concern. Its location directly behind the nose wheel made it highly susceptible to foreign object injestion. (figures: one artist's concept, a three-view planform, and a photo of the metal mock-up) ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 16:13:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: topic list NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, is a US government agency. I have no idea what makes you think it might not be. If, in fact, anything the government has paid for belongs to everyone, I'd like to have a copy of your elementary and secondary school and college transcripts if you received any government funding, including attending a school with such funding. Surely it's my right.... 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 Sat, 29 Jun 1996, Matthew Etherington wrote: > >No, I wouldn't jump at the chance to become privy to sensitive > >information. First, I already _am_; second, it's a real nuisance handling > >the stuff; third, I understand the "need-to-know" concept; and fourth, I'm > >mature enough not to feel left out when others have secrets I don't share. > > > Well, since you are in fact with NASA, and not a government > agency, you are clearly unaware that said agencies are > keeping certain items secret that the public not only has > a need to know, but a right to know. > > In reference to your 4th point - I don't want to sound like a naive > idealist, but surely the government is "by the people, for the > people", is it not? Surely what we call "the government" are in fact > just a group of administrators, and the people themselves *are* the > real government? If so, then any and all intelligence collected by > the administration, or any of it's agencies, is, by definition, "for > the people", and should therefore be made public immediately. > > >NASA is NOT a DOD agency. You may have mistaken the reference to the DoD > >as a reference to the Department of Defense. It's not and has nothing at > >all to do with any federal agency. > > > My apologies for this error. > > >Your signature would be greatly improved by being trimmed to about a third > >its present size. > > > I know, but I want to keep all the quotes :) > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > "Some men see things the way they are, and say 'Why?' > I dream things that never were, and say 'Why not?'" > -- Robert F. Kennedy > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Matthew Etherington > =8^) [ agentx@closer.brisnet.org.au ] =8^) > > -- PESSIMIST IS WHAT AN IDEALIST CALLS A REALIST -- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------ From: John Stone Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 18:56:54 -0400 Subject: Return of Offical Numbers Hi, Sorry to restart this topic again, but it has taken a little while to get this info together from several sources. The cost for flying the SR-71 alone, is $38,000 an hour, if the aircraft is flown over 300 hours annually the cost drops to $27,000 an hour. Now this does not include Tanker support or T-38 profeciency flying. Which as I'm told are usually included in the other higher figures that the anti-SR people quote. Now the figures that the anti-SR people quote for fighter operation don't include the tanker support (which raises the cost of their operations dramatically) that they need also, so I'm just trying to compare apples to apples. And, the figures for the U-2 are about $7,000 an hour, now this doesn't include fighter cap or AWACS support,that the U-2 needs (and used extensively in Desert Shield/Storm) or T-38 profeciency flying. Another item that is always mentioned by detractors is the SRs reliance on Tankers. The SR with proper basing can fly unrefueled over North Korea ("Rocket Ride"), Bosnia, Iran, Libia, and other foreign countries. Later, John | / ^ \ ___|___ -(.)==<.>==(.)- --------o---((.))---o-------- SR-71 Blackbird U-2 Dragon Lady John Stone jstone@thepoint.net U-2 and SR-71 Web Page:http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Mon, 1 Jul 96 16:09:44  Subject: Another Test Anyone see this one? Art Hanley "My employer has nothing to do with this" (keeps the lawyers happy) ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 00:12:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Return of Offical Numbers On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, John Stone wrote: > Another item that is always mentioned by detractors is the SRs reliance on > Tankers. The SR with proper basing can fly unrefueled over North Korea > ("Rocket Ride"), Bosnia, Iran, Libia, and other foreign countries. > Yes, but from where??? From Nellis AFB??? Thanks in advance. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mail: wsu02@barney.poly.edu "Chew, if only you could see what I've seen with your eyes!" Roy Batty (Blade Runner) ------------------------------ From: OnLine Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 06:41:52 Subject: Test -< Please Don't Read > Subject line says it all...doesn't get more interesting. I blame all this X-File talk for all this . D ------------------------------ From: John Stone Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 06:18:30 -0400 Subject: Re: Return of Offical Numbers Wei-Su Jen wrote: >On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, John Stone wrote: > >> Another item that is always mentioned by detractors is the SRs reliance on >> Tankers. The SR with proper basing can fly unrefueled over North Korea >> ("Rocket Ride"), Bosnia, Iran, Libia, and other foreign countries. >> > > Yes, but from where??? From Nellis AFB??? > Thanks in advance. Well lets see......for the N. Korean missions Kadena AB (The infamous "Rocket Ride"); Bosnia well, how about Mildenhall AB (the old SR base in UK) or hey, Istreas AB where the U-2s are based now; Okay now for the Middle Eastern missions, we have several bases to choose from, where some of the facilities that the SR uses are already located (ie U-2s are flown from these bases) Akroitiri AB, Cyprus or Taif, Saudi Arabia. Later, John | / ^ \ ___|___ -(.)==<.>==(.)- --------o---((.))---o-------- SR-71 Blackbird U-2 Dragon Lady John Stone jstone@thepoint.net U-2 and SR-71 Web Page:http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ From: BROWN A <92913938@mmu.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 13:03:30 GMT Subject: Re: Blackbird as a target OK!, I know it's been a while since this thread started, but I've just got to have my say in it. (Especially as it's probably the last thing I'll post to the list before I have to sign off following my graduation.) Having a fair knowledge of the technology and organisation of modern air-defence systems, as well as their history and tactical doctrines, it seems to me that some of the arguments used to explain why no SR-71's were ever shot down have serious flaws in them. Firstly, many of the arguments are based on the assumption of the plane only being engaged by a single SAM site. In my experience, SAM sites never come alone! Anyone setting up an air-defence network will, if they know their stuff, place the sites so that an aircraft evading a launch from one site comes within range of a second site nearby. This was a favourite trick of the N. Vietnamese with their Sa- 2 sites, and it caught many an unwary plane, even weasels at times. The Soviet AD doctrine was based around the concept of "Mass, mix and mobility." This basically meant lots of highly mobile launchers, of several different and complimentary types. Any aircraft taking action against one system, by say diving below its minimum engagement altitude, would instantly find itself engaged by ten other systems. Again this was proved in combat by both the N. Vietnamese and the Arabs in 1973. In Vietnam, the standard evasion tactic for a Sa-2 sighted in the boost phase of its flight was to break towards and underneath it, followed by a break upwards as it attempted a diving intercept. Pretty early on, the NVA started deploying light AAA around all the SAM sites, with great effect. In the October 1973 war, when the Egyptians began using Sa-6's, Israeli aircraft trying the same tactic encountered the ZSU-23-4, again with devastating effect. While AAA would be ineffective against an SR-71, it does illustrate how real AD systems depend heavily upon the integration of many complimentary systems, each covering the gaps in its compatriots cover (a lesson apparently forgotten by Western AD planners, who rely upon a small handful of systems such as Patriot, Hawk etc.) Having a large number of systems also has the advantage of diluting the available jamming power. Any ECM system, no matter how advanced, is limited in the number of threats it can counter at any one time. The most effective form of jamming, spot, is limited by the fact that each transmitter can only counter one threat at a time (but at a very high power density.) If the number of threats exceeds the number of available jammers, you have two options, spot-jam only those you think are the greatest threats (which can leave you open to indirect attack by systems obtaining track data from unjammed radars), or jam all the radars with a broadband jammer. This has the disadvantage of reducing the power density of the jamming, increasing the possibility of "burn-through". Obviously, any active jamming can be turned against the user, as it provides an additional means of tracking the target. Another favourite trick used by the NVA was to fire off SAMs on purely ballistic trajectories at predicted impact points, using track data from EW radars only. The actual guidance radars would be on "dummy load" (on but not transmitting) until a few seconds before the predicted time of intercept. This gave the ECM gear on the target a very short time to identify and react to the threat. If several sites all used the same technique simultaneously at the same target, the ECM would rapidly overload, and at least one missile would get through. The NVA took this technique to an extreme during the "Linebacker 2" campaign, when B-52 crews reported up to 12 simultaneous launches against a single aircraft! As the guidance radars are off the air until just before the actual intercept, the only warning of a launch came from visual observation of the missile. As the SR-71 has zero downwards visibility from the cockpit, the first warning the crew would receive of a launch would be when their RHAWS lit up like an xmas tree. As to why the N. Vietnamese never brought down a Blackbird, well, their only major SAM system was the Sa-2. This could reach the SR-71 operational altitudes, but only if fired straight up. Its engagement envelope at those kind of altitudes was just too narrow to be able to track a target at Mach 3, and was hard put to track even a U-2 (Check Mike Spick's Osprey book on the U-2 and SR-71 for a picture of a Sa-2 taken from a U-2) If the NVA had been given a few Sa-5s by the Soviets, then things might have been different. Not only do these have a higher maximum intercept altitude, but also a longer range. These would have had no trouble at all tracking a Mach 3 target at 80kft+ for long enough to intercept. The arguments saying that the Soviet AAMs could never intercept either as they were too short ranged seem to be based on the commonly quoted NATO range estimates, which have always been dangerously conservative. I for one have never believed the official range figures for the AA-6 Acrid of less than 30km. To me, about double this seems the minimum realistic figure, given the performance of the AIM-7 and AIM-54 with much smaller airframes. If a MiG-25 could have been positioned ahead of an intruding SR-71, it could quite easily have zoom-climbed up to 60kft+, launched its AAMs, and continued illumination during its descent. Hell, the illumination need not be for real if the AA-6 had a home-on-jam mode, as all you need to do there is persuade your target that you're firing in semi-active mode. If you succeed in that, he'll keep his jammers on-line, giving your passive homing missile a nice jucy target! Now, about the RCS of the Blackbird making it impossible to track for long enough to intercept. I seem to remember a story about when the Blackbird first officially visited the UK in 1976 (I think). It landed at the Farnborough airshow, where the USAF began making great claims about how no enemy could ever track it for long enough to achieve an intercept. They soon shut up, however, when someone from (I think) Marconi gave them a map marked with the profile for the last 200 miles of its flight. When asked how they had obtained this classified data, the person in question told them, "Oh, we tracked you with our new radar." Which gave a lie to the SR-71s supposed invulnerability. Let's not forget, also, the fact that a Blackbird cruising at Mach 3 is a very hot target (even ignoring the AB plumes) against a very cold background, ideal for an IR system. Given a head-on shot, an IR missile need not be flying at Mach 5 to get an intercept, eliminating the "How could we cool the lens" objection used to shoot-down (yes, pun intended!) the IR SAM idea. All the IR SAM needs is to have enough power to climb to intercept altitude, and then enough power after that to manoeuvre into an intercept position. Given that many ABMs developed in the 1960s had a "loiter" capability, and that multi-stage SAMs are feasible, an IR homing (with home-on-jam capability), loiter-capable SAM deriving initial guidance data from the EW radar network would seem to be the perfect weapon for anti-Blackbird operations. Does such a system exist (or did one ever exist)? Probably. Given our, even now, limited knowledge of Soviet systems, it is entirely possible that some systems of this type were developed. It is known that the final stage of the Sa-5 had a limited loiter capability in the ABM role, it would have been only a minor modification to have added an IR homer. So, in closing (finally, you say), why were no Blackbirds ever shot down? Easy, they never really went up against a truly integrated and well equipped AD system. Adrian. (Who believes no aircraft is immune to intercept) +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | | | "Go out and stuff the universe into your eyes." | | - Paul Kantner | | | | "Feed your head!" | | - Grace Slick | | | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ (oops, that's the OTHER Airplane list!) ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #673 ********************************* 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).