From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #692 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 7 August 1996 Volume 05 : Number 692 In this issue: Re: Non-Standard Designation modifiers (before ...) Designations Re: Designations and Electric Saucers Re: Non-Standard Designation modifiers (before ...) Something I found Designations (Various Responses) Re: NASA Re: NASA Re: NASA (HL-20) Re: Non-Standard Designation modifiers (before ...) Re: Non-Standard Designation modifiers (before ...) "Silent Vulcans [[was "Out of This World"]] re: Designations (Various Responses) U-2 down U2 Down U-2 Crash today in Oroville, California Re: U-2 down 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: "Stefan 'Stetson' Skoglund" Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 18:10:43 +0200 Subject: Re: Non-Standard Designation modifiers (before ...) The british is rather short on usable nukes for the foreseeable future. They only have maybe a hundred of dumb nasty free-fall bombs. They also have the Trident armed SSBN fleet of course. ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 09:40:43 PDT Subject: Designations Don`t forget the USAF uses 1- and 2- designations. Also TG. The 1- and 2- denote single or two seat sailplanes, respectively. Schweizer 2-33 and 1-26 aircraft are owned and operated by the USAF in Boulder Co. The second number is the Schweizer design number, i.e., 2 place, 33rd design for a 2-33. TG was also used in the 40`s. They also have C-150`s and C-172`s! The "C" sure doesn`t mean "Cargo" on those two! GT is a slang designation for General`s Toy. Chuck ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 12:09:03 -0700 Subject: Re: Designations and Electric Saucers George Cully wrote: >... >On a different note, I seem to recall that Popular Science (or Popular >Mechanics) ran a gee-whiz piece last year on an "electric saucer" concept >that used an aerospike for propulsion, Prof. Myrabo's team coined the term 'airspike' not aerospike. The two are different. I agree it is confusing. I prefer to spell it 'air spike'. > and electric potentials in lieu of > maneuvering 'surfaces.' A ground-based (?) laser beam was supposed to >provide the power source to run the thing. In the original article, it was actually a space based microwave source. No fuel was carried by the vehicle at all. Microwaves provided the power for the superconducting magnets, converted the air to the plasma state in subsonic mode and in supersonic mode created the air spike and the MHD fanjet components required. There was never mention of where other onboard power would come from, but the assumption I guess was from the microwave source as well. > I probably have the the >article somewhere, and will try to post particulars if anyone else can't >cite it from memory, or at least pull it up more quickly from a better >filing system. It was Popular Mechanics, Sept. 1995, "Fly By Microwaves", Gregory T. Pope. Larry ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 10:44:36 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: Non-Standard Designation modifiers (before ...) Hmmm, then there are the political compromises in designations. A British example that comes to mind is the "Through-Deck Cruiser." Official policy at one time had it that the Royal Navy was not to have Aircraft Carriers, so this peculiar designation was invented for the Invincible class absolutely-not-carriers. It had a follow-on effect in that, to avoid further confusion, some ships that would be more accurately described as cruisers ended up being called destroyers. Correct?? - --Brett ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 22:21:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Something I found Here is something interesting about the Skunk Works. Maybe the Groom Lake cases will be settled out of court, too? Besides, of course, that they mean the F-117A rather than B-1 -- otherwise they should sue Rockwell -- but what the heck: BURBANK, Calif., Aug. 5 (UPI) -- Lockheed Martin Corp. has agreed to pay $60 million to nearly 1,300 residents who lived near the company's military airplane factory, a published report said Monday. The Los Angeles Times, citing sources close to the negotiations, said the settlements will range from $2,500 to $300,000. The Burbank, Calif., facility closed two years ago after being open for 63 years. Lockheed Martin, formed last year through the merger of Lockheed Corp. with Martin Marietta Corp., confirmed that a settlement had been reached but confidentiality agreements barred it from further comment. Some of the highest payments will go to surviving family members of residents who died, an unnamed source told the newspaper. The source also said the company will pay an additional $10 million for long-term medical monitoring and insurance protection for some residents. Residents near the plant blamed a variety of ailments, including cancer, on chemicals that seeped into the soil and water around the site. Some claimed contamination near the Burbank Airport has caused property values to decline. Lockheed, which built the B-1 and U-2 planes in Burbank, is proceeding with plans to build a $13.7 million vapor extraction system at the 103-acre site. The system, which treats potentially cancer-causing substances in the soil where the B-1 was built, is expected to completely clean the soil in 8 1/2 years. The Lockheed site, which is up for sale, is part of a larger Superfund cleanup of groundwater that was tainted primarily by Lockheed. Lockheed began moving operations away from Burbank in the late 1980s and transferred the work to Palmdale, Calif., and Marietta, Ga. "Lockheed always maintained that its operations in Burbank pose no risk to the community now or in the time we were in operation," the company said. - -- 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: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 22:15:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Designations (Various Responses) To save time, I want to collectively answer several people, who have posted to the Designation thread, rather than to each individual. 1) Rick Anderson wondered about the validity of the claim that US operated FSU aircraft, like MiG-21, MiG-23 and Su-17/22 (all proven to have been used) might have been (unofficially) 'designated' as F-112 through F-116, followed by the F-117 designation for the Nighthawk. I personally believe this theory is as valid (or better, invalid) as any other, including the most commonly heard one, that the aircraft was designated 'by default' F-117, because Nighthawk flights were labeled as "117's", and/or Lockheed printed the 'Dash-1' labled 'F-117'. There is no proof for one or the other side, though. Maybe time will tell. 2) Geo. Cully writes: >Have much enjoyed Andreas' designation notes; Thanks. >the subject is a complicated one, and there are errors in most listings, True. >including his. Where? >Some are simple clerical mistakes, Yup, the H-19 was accidentally listed as S.52 (typo) instead of S.55, and I wrote '4129.15L' instead of '4120.15L', and probably some more... >others are systemic misunderstandings Now here I get a little pissy... Can you specify that a little bit? Or at least give some examples of my errors, and/or corrections? >not made any easier to avoid by inconsistent Service usage. Andreas is >correct in citing DoD's "Model Designation of Military Aerospace >Vehicles" as an important contemporary authority, but the number is >4120.15L, not 4129.15L, and the most recent edition is dated March 1996; >interested private researchers can buy a copy through NTIS by calling >(703) 487-4600. Maybe it's time for me to get an update. ;) >For those lucky enough to have it, the best single >volume listing of present and past designation sequences >(USAAC/USAAF/USAF/USN/USA/USCG) that I know of was done by John M. >Andrade. Called "U.S. Military Aircraft Designations and Serials since >1909," it was published in softback by Midland Counties Publications >(U.K.) in 1979. Unfortunately, it's long since out of print, although >I've heard rumors that a revised edition is presently being assembled. >The respective Air Force (Swanborough/Bowers) and Navy (Bowers?) survey >volumes in the Putnam Aeronautical series also contain respective >Service designation sequence lists. I have all three of those, and some others, and used them extensively to prepare my list, even though they contradict each other partially, and are by no means error free. But definitely a must have! >USAAC/USAAF/USAF fiscal year sequential >serial number lists and Navy equivalents ('BuNos', or Bureau of >Aeronautics Numbers--an obsolete term, but still used) are also available >through various sources. Sooner or later, some buff will probably put >them all together in a data base on CD-ROM... What is the official, new, or correct term for BuNos? Just 'USN Serial'? 3) Besides the Tornado GR.1, GR.1A, GR.1B, F.3 and GR.4, there was of course also the F.2, the (useless) first Tornado ADV variant, without a radar. :) As far as I know, Tornado GR.1As, can be equipped with TIALD, but I don't think this resulted in the GR.1A designation. TIALD stands for "Thermal Imaging And Laser Designation", which puts the emphasis more on target designation, rather than reconnaissance. Tornado GR.1As have digital data recorder, Vinten 4000 horizon-to-horizon IR-line scanner, etc., to perform day and night reconnaissance. If the British would use Block numbers, one could distinguish small equipment modifications of their aircraft much better, like TIALD, ALARM or whatever capable, for example. 4) Chuck finally wrote: >Don`t forget the USAF uses 1- and 2- designations. Also TG. Did I miss some smileys here??? >The 1- and 2- denote single or two seat sailplanes, respectively. >Schweizer 2-33 and 1-26 aircraft are owned and operated by the >USAF in Boulder Co. >The second number is the Schweizer design number, i.e., 2 place, >33rd design for a 2-33. TG was also used in the 40`s. >They also have C-150`s and C-172`s! The "C" sure doesn`t mean >"Cargo" on those two! >GT is a slang designation for General`s Toy. The Schweizer SGS.1-26 and the Schweizer SGS.2-33 are manufacturers model designations, as are Cessna's Model 150 (C-150) and Model 172 (C-172). Those are by no stretch of the imagination US military designations. Next you will tell me the B-747 is an out-of-sequence number for a secret USAF bomber. :) Now seriously, many of those Schweizer SGS.2-25, SGS.1-26E, SGS.2-33A, etc. in military service are designated either TG-3A, TG-4A or maybe even TG-5A and TG-6A (?), similar to the SGS.2-32 (X-26A Frigate), the SGM.2-37 (TG-7A), the SA.2-37A (RG-8A Condor), and the Schleicher ASK-21 (TG-9A). Those aircraft are 'Training Gliders' (besides the RG-8A 'Reconnaissance Glider'), and are for the most part operated by the USAF Academy in Colorado Springs, CO. The skipped G-1 and G-2 designations in the new series, might have been omitted (or actually used) for the 1950's SGS.1-26A and SGS.2-22A or maybe for redesignation of the (short lived) 'S' - 'Sailplane' designation of the early 1960s. The TS-1A and the S-2A might well be the missing TG-1A and TG-2A. The G-5 and G-6 designations were probably also used or maybe reserved for similar gliders. All those many Beech, Cessnas, Pipers, Schweizers and Schleichers, etc. are civil registered with the FAA, and many have (known) US FY-Serials (maybe even all). Several are registered to USAF flying clubs, while others, like C-130s, F-4s, F-100s, UH-1s, etc. are bailed to contractors and therefore received civil registrations. In the good old days, that would have resulted in an 'E' - 'Exempt' prefix (like EB-29) instead. By the way, SGS/SGM stands for Schweizer, Glider, Sailplane/Motorized. Any suggestions, corrections and updates are very welcome! - -- 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: chosa@chosa.win.net (Byron Weber) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 1996 19:20:04 Subject: Re: NASA One designation I have not seen posted, although with all the material I may have missed it, is the HL-20(PLS), Personnel space launch system. This was the original 'small space taxi system,' designed to carry material and up to 10 people. A lifting body design, it looked much like Lockheed Martin's Venture Star, to follow the development of the X-33. Anyone know if the Venture Star will be designated an HL and were, or are there other HL's? Byron ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 15:35:43 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Re: NASA On Tue, 6 Aug 1996, Byron Weber wrote: > launch system. This was the original 'small space taxi system,' > designed to carry material and up to 10 people. A lifting body > design, it looked much like Lockheed Martin's Venture Star, to > follow the development of the X-33. Anyone know if the Venture > Star will be designated an HL and were, or are there other HL's? There was of course the HL-10 lifting body. There was also a study of an "HL-42" lifting body SSTO(???) by NASA Langley. This is meant to be mentioned at...um... http://vab02.larc.nasa.gov/VABHPagepow.html or http://vab02.larc.nasa.gov:1023/Activities/... sorry, my notes are a bit rough. The "HL-42" reference has been "under construction" for a year or so, but other sections are fascinating. There is a good article on the HL-20 at http://www.mmrc.ncsu.edu/Projects/HL-20/NF172/NF172.html. Aerospace America had an article on it several years ago, I recall, but I haven't the faintest idea which issue. The HL-20 looks suspiciously like the Soviet lifting-body minishuttle design that appeared in several incarnations between the 60s and 80s. See Mark Wade's Space Encyclopedia at http://solar.rtd.utk.edu/~mwade/ This is a terrific site. Look up ASSET, PRIME, Spiral and Uragan in particular. - --Brett ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 02:06:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: NASA (HL-20) Byron, HL-20 is not a military designation, rather a project name or maybe model designation. The legacy of the HL-20 goes all the way back to the first 'lifting body' designs, like the NASA 'M2', developed at Ames by H. Julian Harvey Allen. The M2 shape, was a modified half cone, with a rounded nose, flat on top and round at the bottom. A flying model of the M2, also called the 'Cadillac' in reference to its two small stabilization fins, was built by Robert D. Reed at Edwards, followed by a manned glider. The proof-of-concept M2-F1 (M2-shape, Flight-model 1) was finished in 1963 and tested in Ames' wind tunnel, before initial tow-tests with a Pontiac convertible as two-tug were completed at Edwards. The vehicle, by now registered as 'N86652', was then towed behind NASA's C-47 (R4D-5) 'NASA 817', and made several towed and free flights. In 1964, Northrop won a contract to built two different, powered lifting body research aircraft, one based on the M2 shape, the M2-F2, (M2-shape, Flight-model 2), c/n 'NLB 101' (Northrop/NASA Lifting Body), later 'NASA 803' and the inverted Langley design -- flat on the bottom and round on top -- called 'HL-10' for (HL = Horizontal Lander), c/n 'NLB 102', later 'NASA 804'. Other early lifting bodies include the canceled Boeing X-20 'Dyna-Soar', as well as the three part START (Spacecraft Technology and Advanced Reentry Test) program, consisting of: * ASSET (Aerothermodynamic/Elastic Structural Systems Environmental Tests), 6 McDonnell-build re-entry vehicles; * PRIME (Precision Recovery Including Maneuvering Entry), the SV-5D (Space Vehicle 5, Drone ?), 4 Martin Marietta X-23A re-entry vehicles; * PILOT (Piloted Low Speed Tests), one SV-5P (Space Vehicle 5, Piloted ?), the X-24A, FY-Serial: '66-13551', and 2 SV-5J (Space Vehicle 5, Jet ?), jet-engined trainer, which never received a designation nor serial. The X-24A of course was modified to 'FDL-7' configuration (FDL = Flight Dynamics Laboratory), and became the X-24B. In 1991/92 NASA Langley developed the HL-20 PLS (Personnel Launch System) (about 2 times the size of the HL-10, thats were the name/designation is from). It was canceled due to cost, but a full-scale model/mockup was built by students of the North Carolina State University and North Carolina A&T University. It was to be launched like the X-20 'Dyna-Soar' on top of a Titan III (or maybe Titan IV) or NLS (New Launch System) rocket. JSC (Johnson Space Center) later developed the X-35 concept, similar to the older X-24 lifting bodies, and 'named' it in lieu of the X-33 and X-34 media announcements, the 'X-35', probably to give it more credibility, I suppose. It is proposed as an ACRV (Assured Crew Rescue Vehicle), also called 'X-CRV' or 'ACRV-X', a 'life boat' system for the International Space Station. The 'real' X-35 designation is applied to one of the two competing JAST/JSF (Joint Advanced Strike Tactical / Joint Strike Fighter) designs, the other competitor will be designated the X-32. Now the tie-in with the Skunk Works. I bet that either the X-32 or the X-35 will be a Skunk Works design. Also, the Skunk Works studied the feasibility of the HL-20 for NASA, and published a paper about the concept: IAF Paper 93-V.2.618 -- "Business as Usual/Skunk Works Comparison Study for Development of the HL-20 Lifting Body Spacecraft". Another related paper is "Titan III Feasibility for HL-20 Prototype Missions", published in the Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol.30, No.5, September/October 1993. Hope that was not to confusing, - -- 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: "Phil Wellings" Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 08:16:50 +0000 Subject: Re: Non-Standard Designation modifiers (before ...) [snip] > > I am not aware of a separate designation for TIALD equipped Tornados, but > > I believe that the Jaguar GR 1A carries TIALD. > > Doesn't the Tornado GR.1A carry TIALD as well? Yes - but no separate designation AFAIK. > The TIALD-equipped Jags are GR.1Bs aren't they? Whoops - you are completely right. Serves me right for not checking. Mind you, that begs the question of what (if ever there were any) were the differences between the Jaguar GR1 and Jaguar GR1A ? Anyway, this is getting away a little from the point. Military aircraft designations are (despite efforts to the contrary) confusing. If I wanted to put forward a real conspiracy theory I would say that this was deliberate to allow black projects to be hidden in the accounts. In reality, I suspect that "the little old lady in tennis shoes" (to paraphrase a splendid phrase used earlier in this discussion) gets a bit confused from time to time and in any case likes to do things a bit differently to her predecessor and what we see is the result. - ------------------------------------------------------------------ My other .sig is funny. Phil Wellings, Systems Engineering, Martin-Baker Aircraft Co. Ltd. - ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ From: "Phil Wellings" Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 08:46:22 +0000 Subject: Re: Non-Standard Designation modifiers (before ...) > Hmmm, then there are the political compromises in designations. A British > example that comes to mind is the "Through-Deck Cruiser." Official policy > at one time had it that the Royal Navy was not to have Aircraft Carriers, so > this peculiar designation was invented for the Invincible class > absolutely-not-carriers. It had a follow-on effect in that, to avoid > further confusion, some ships that would be more accurately described as > cruisers ended up being called destroyers. > Correct?? > > --Brett - ->-creak-<- Can you hear the can of worms opening ? Naval designations make aircraft designations look like mathematical proofs in terms of the rigor with which they are applied. (Just my opinion of course, in case any Naval types are reading and getting hot under the collar) One way of looking at things is to classify by role. There are 3 main roles (namely anti-air, anti-surface and anti-submarine). The number of roles that the ship can effectively fight defines the name, as below. Note however that even a frigate dedicated to (say) anti-sub operations will have some form of capability in the other 2 areas, complicating the matter somewhat. Frigate = 1 Destroyer = 2 Cruiser -= 3 Sometimes the classification goes by size, ie Corvette = weeny Frigate = small Destroyer = medium Cruiser= large Battlehip = very large However, you will find exceptions to every single one of the above rules. One mans corvette is another mans frigate, and so on. And I have'nt even mentioned fast attack craft, minesweepers, air cushion vehicles ..... The Russians seem to have the best idea - if they have a large ship which they intend to be used for anti-sub ops thay call it a "large anti-submarine ship". This idea is applied to their whole fleet, and is eminently logical. (Cynicism mode on ) The chances of it being adopted in the West are therefore close to zero. (Cynicism mode off) To return to the question asked, originally the "Invincible" class cruisers were to operate anti-sub helicopters only, as part of the Royal Navy operation to clear the North Atlantic supply routes of Warsaw Pact submarines during World War 3. It was only British ingenuity (pause for stirring music owing to nationality of poster) that allowed the Harrier to be operated from a ski jump. Hope things are now clearer. :-) Phil - ------------------------------------------------------------------ My other .sig is funny. Phil Wellings, Systems Engineering, Martin-Baker Aircraft Co. Ltd. - ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ From: "Terry Colvin" Date: Wed, 07 Aug 96 10:57:16 GMT Subject: "Silent Vulcans [[was "Out of This World"]] ______________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: "Out of This World" Author: forteana@lists.primenet.com at smtp-fhu Date: 7/08/96 10:07 Following on from last night's programme regarding the British Airways UFO and the suggestion that the craft in question may have been flown from BAe Warton. I can believe that BAe are working on stealth technology - a documentary on Eurofighter showed that they have the facilities to bombard an aircraft with radar on the ground and alter it's design to reduce its' radar signature.I don't have any knowledge of "HALO" but I would guess that this concerns the application of stealth to existing designs. The real problem I have is with the suggestion that BAe are flying "Silent Vulcans" from Warton. I live quite close to the airfield and it certainly doesn't enjoy the isolation of "Area 51". The field is overlooked to the east by a large number of houses and to the west by farms. A large caravan park sits at the end of the only runway.IMHO, I cannot believe that BAe could get away with operating such craft (even at the dead of night) without them being seen by a great number of people. In a posting I read yesterday, the author referred to Warton being "plagued" by triangular UFOs. I have to be honest, I haven't seen anything about this in the local press but would welcome any details on these if available. As an aside, if such craft were being operated from Warton, would the security systems in use be so lax as to allow 4 women to gain access to the field and wreak 1.5 Millions' worth of damage to a Hawk jet ? - -- Steve Barnett ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Wed, 7 Aug 96 11:50:52  Subject: re: Designations (Various Responses) Hey Andreas, Wasn't the Tornado F.1 the one without the radar (along with other deficiencies), the F.2 the one with the radar that didn't work, and the F.3 the one with the radar that works but has a tough time catching things? 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: habu@why.net (habu) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 1996 18:35:07 -0700 Subject: U-2 down I just heard on NPR that a U-2 went down in California today - does anyone have any details??? Greg Fieser ------------------------------ From: clew@netcom.netcom.com (Hypoxic Wombat) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 17:20:35 -0700 Subject: U2 Down According to Reuters: "The USAF says a U2 spy plane has crashed in northern california. A spokeswoman for Beale AF base near Sacramento confirmed that a U2 plane based there had crashed near Oroville, about 60 miles north of Sacramento. She did not know whether one or two people were on board or their condition. Radio reports said the U2 rec. plane crashed into a parking lot in downtown Oroville." - -- The avalanche has already started. It's too late for the pebbles to vote. <*> clew@netcom.com http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/2925 ------------------------------ From: jetguy1@ix.netcom.com (BRENT CLARK ) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 17:49:02 -0700 Subject: U-2 Crash today in Oroville, California Wondering if anyone has any more information about todays crash of a U-2 Spyplane in California. Witnesses say that the airplane was on fire and exploded prior to crashing. Killed 2 persons. ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 21:16:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: U-2 down According to CNN (www.cnn.com): Two killed in U-2 spy plane crash in California A U-2 spy plane crashed into a newspaper building parking lot in Oroville, California, Wednesday, killing the pilot and at least one person on the ground. Two others on the ground were also slightly injured. The plane crashed about 5:15 p.m. EDT, about 40 miles southeast of Beale Air Force Base. Witnesses said they saw flames under the left wing as the plane piraled to the ground. - -- 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/ - --- --- ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #692 ********************************* 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).