From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #710 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Friday, 27 September 1996 Volume 05 : Number 710 In this issue: Beale Airfest 96 Re: "XB-70 like" Sighting Re: "XB-70 like" Sighting Re: "XB-70 like" Sighting Re: "XB-70 like" Sighting Re: "XB-70 like" Sighting Winglets Cray Re: Aurora? Not! Interesting rec.aviation.military post Re: Seymour Cray re: Interesting rec.aviation.military post Re: Interesting rec.aviation.military post Re: Interesting rec.aviation.military post Re: Aurora Not! 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: TIMOTHY_MCINTOSH@HP-SanJose-om1.om.hp.com Date: Sun, 22 Sep 96 11:23:52 -0700 Subject: Beale Airfest 96 Item Subject: cc:Mail Text Just got back from the Beale open house and wanted to share some sights and insights with all of you. On display were the usual aircraft, E-2 Sentry, C-5a, C-141, KC-10, KC-135, B-1, B-52, two C-130s, T-38, F-117 and they hand a few U-2s also. The U-2 hangers were between the parking area and the aircraft displays there were seven U-2s and 1 U-2ct in the open hangers. In the aircraft display area there was one more U-2 and one more U-2ct. They had one U-2 take off, make two passes and land. They are using Cameros with red and blue lights for chase cars now. I asked one of the pilots about the new engines. He said they were better for take offs and getting to altitude, but it was harder to keep power constant on final. I asked the F-117 pilot about HARMS and the F-117. He smiled and said they read Av Week too, and he would answer anything about bombs. I checked out the VIP area a few times during the day but did not see Marta Bohn-Meyer. Or maybe I did and not recognize her. At the end of Julie Clarks flight demo they set off some fireworks. Guess what?, they stared 4 grass fires between the taxi ways. So we got to see the Beale fire department at work. They now have a D-21 on display next to their SR-71. I had a good time, and it did not seem to be very crowded. This was my warm up for Fleet Week with the Blue Angels and the open house at Edwards in October. Timothy McIntosh ------------------------------ From: MiGEater1@aol.com Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 10:51:40 -0400 Subject: Re: "XB-70 like" Sighting Regarding the sighting of (clipped here) << a blended forward fuselage with extended twin foreplanes. This was followed by a delta wing, which began at a point approx. 1/2 - 2/3 the length from the nose. The wing tips ended as "winglets" which were canted upwards at approx. 45 deg. The aircraft did not have a conventional tail. Twin engine nacelles were observed below the wings and outboard of the fuselage. Observer was unable to determine if these were rectangular or round. No afterburner plumes were observed. >> Beech Starship would get my vote. ESPECIALLY with the absence of a conventional tail (could this mean vertical stabilizer?). Winglets couldn't possible keep an aircraft with a 150-200 floot length, stable around the vertical axis. Here at Hanscom AFB in Bedford MA, Raytheon base Starships in their hangers. Most local people upon seeing it for the first time: 1) assume it's a secret military project 2) think it is flying backwards or 3) think it is a UFO Its kind of funny to see their reactions .... John Clark ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 08:58:51 PDT Subject: Re: "XB-70 like" Sighting John Clark writes: >Winglets couldn't >possible keep an aircraft with a 150-200 floot length, Winglets are not yaw devices. They affect the aspect ratio of the wing. at some specific airspeed, they allow for less induced drag and highrt L/D. Rudderless aircraft rely on wing sweep. (See XB-35, etc.) The aft-of-the-CG location on the Rutan pushers is an aid, but not a complete, method of controlling the yaw stability derivative. Chuck ------------------------------ From: "J. Pharabod" Date: Tue, 24 Sep 96 18:05:14 SET Subject: Re: "XB-70 like" Sighting >Regarding the sighting of (clipped here) << a blended forward fuselage with >extended twin foreplanes. This was followed by a delta wing, which began > at a point approx. 1/2 - 2/3 the length from the nose. The wing > tips ended as "winglets" which were canted upwards at approx. > 45 deg. The aircraft did not have a conventional tail. Twin engine nacelles >were observed below the wings and outboard of the fuselage. Observer was >unable to determine if these were rectangular or round. No afterburner >plumes were observed. >> > >Beech Starship would get my vote. ESPECIALLY with the absence of a >conventional tail (could this mean vertical stabilizer?). Winglets couldn't >possible keep an aircraft with a 150-200 floot length, stable around the >vertical axis. Here at Hanscom AFB in Bedford MA, Raytheon base Starships in >their hangers. [...] >John Clark (Tue, 24 Sep 1996 10:51:40 -0400) Maybe it was a Beech Starship, but then it was not "XB-70 like". There is a (not very good) photo of a Beech Starship on http://airspacemag.earthlink.net/NBAA/NBAA_News10.html If this photo is correct, the main wings of this plane are rather conventional, and located about at the middle of the fuselage. On the other hand, the XB-70 looks like a big delta wing, extended by a fuselage with canards. IMH0, the only resemblances are the canards... J. Pharabod ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 12:03:41 -0700 Subject: Re: "XB-70 like" Sighting >>>Regarding the sighting of ... John Clark writes: >>Beech Starship would get my vote. ESPECIALLY with the absence of a >>conventional tail (could this mean vertical stabilizer?). Winglets couldn't >>possible keep an aircraft with a 150-200 floot length, stable around the >>vertical axis. Here at Hanscom AFB in Bedford MA, Raytheon base Starships in >>their hangers. [...] >>John Clark (Tue, 24 Sep 1996 10:51:40 -0400) J. Pharabod responds: >Maybe it was a Beech Starship, but then it was not "XB-70 like". There >is a (not very good) photo of a Beech Starship on >http://airspacemag.earthlink.net/NBAA/NBAA_News10.html >If this photo is correct, the main wings of this plane are rather >conventional, and located about at the middle of the fuselage. On >the other hand, the XB-70 looks like a big delta wing, extended by >a fuselage with canards. IMH0, the only resemblances are the canards... Yes, good point. It is good for airplane experts to be skeptical about these things. It's OK to think it was probably a Beech Starship. However, you might want to know if the witnesses of these things have ever been asked their opinions. Ever since the 'XB-70 thing' was first seen at approx. 5 pm on 5/10/92 (a Sunday) flying over Atlanta GA, people (myself included) who have talked to the witnesses have asked them if they actually saw a Beech Starship. In many cases the witness has taken the trouble to go check out what a Beech Starship looks like. So far, in every case I've heard of, the Beech Starship wasn't a match but a photo of the North American XB-70A was 'more like it' or 'yes, this is closer'. I also agree with the comments made as to why would a secret aircraft be at a low altitude outside the test range. Or why would a secret aircraft fly over a large city like Atlanta where someone might (and possibly did) see it? The military has done some strange things like this before. There was a D-21B drone test drop near Los Angeles in the daytime once that was seen by some of the public (it was an unknown until the D-21 stuff came out a few years ago). Back on 12/21/66, they flew a secret A-12 OXCART all over the country (10,198 statute miles in 6 hours) at a high altitude producing an ominous rumble on the ground (they also flew over Atlanta on this flight). They also flew F-117A's at night on public airways to/from the test range and mock attacked some civilian targets for practice. They tookoff the D-21B mothership with 2 D-21B drones attached in broad daylight from Beale! If the public noticed, the 'plausible deniability' response was to be that the B-52 mothership was carrying Houndog missiles. The public never noticed. So who knows! Go ahead and be skeptical, I'm skeptical too, but don't forget history, and don't be surprised! :) Larry ------------------------------ From: dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 14:47:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: "XB-70 like" Sighting > John Clark writes: > >Winglets couldn't > >possible keep an aircraft with a 150-200 floot length, > > Winglets are not yaw devices. They affect the aspect ratio of the > wing. at some specific airspeed, they allow for less induced drag > and highrt L/D. > Rudderless aircraft rely on wing sweep. (See XB-35, etc.) > The aft-of-the-CG location on the Rutan pushers is an aid, > but not a complete, method of controlling the yaw stability > derivative. The "winglets" on the Starship however do function as rudders. ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 05:34:29 PDT Subject: Winglets Dean Adams writes: >The "winglets" on the Starship however do function as rudders. But Poorly. There is an aerodynamic reason winglets should not be used for rudders. The winglet, though vertical, acts like a horizontal extension of the wing. This makes the "rudder" really an aileron. It affects the flowfield ahead of the wing at points inboard of the winglet. (Prandtl`s lift line theory applies here) If you want ot yaw left, you deflect the TE of the winglets in the same direction (body-axis system.) Now, the upwash in front of the wing changes. This causes a rolling moment lifting the left wingtip. The result is a slip to the right. Now - to maintain coordinated flight the autopilot must "cross controls". This creates poor performance and unsafe flight characteristics. The Cooper-Harper is still an important parameter of aircraft design. The Starship is a canard. It has all the canard problems. Period. Marketing over science. Winglets are an off-design liability anyway. Chuck "Aerospace Engineer to the Stars" ------------------------------ From: tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com (Tom Robison) Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 08:34:29 +0000 Subject: Cray >Below is forwarded from another mailing list: > >On Sunday, 9/22, Seymour Cray, the premier computer systems >designer in the world, who is the father of the fastest machines and >most powerful computers that the world has seen since computers came >out on the market in the 1950s, was critically injured in a car >accident in Colorado Springs. Seymour was the greatest living >contributor to the advances in high-performance computing, and all >that comes with that, and that his machines have made possible. If >I could pick one man who in the latter part of this century has made >the most indirect impact on all of our lives, it would be Mr. Cray. > >He was a simple farm boy, like many of us, growing up very >unpretentiously in Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin. But as a computer >designer, he was a genius...plain and simple. His machines made >possible the development of accurate weather models, cars that are >better desinged to protect you in collisions such as his own, huge >reserves of petroleum being discovered, advances in jet aircraft and >jet engines, chemistry codes to determine and engineer new polymers >and casting techniques, and oh yes, a plethora of national security >things some too dark to even contemplate. I am not underestimating >that Seymour Cray was a living vital national security asset. > >But now, this great man lies on life support, with severe head >injuries, a broken neck, and in critical and unstable condition. >He is 70 years old, and so the prognosis is no doubt bleak. Even if >he survives, most assuredly he will be only a shadow of his >genius. > >Terry Jones forwarded by: Tom Robison Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com (work) tcrobi@fortwayne.infi.net (home) ------------------------------ From: Joe Vincent Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 10:50:38 +0000 Subject: Re: Aurora? Not! David Lednicer wrote: > > While reading Rich Graham's new book on the SR-71, something > occured to me. There have been a lot of sightings of "doughnut on a > rope" contrails and people have speculated that these were produced by > the mythical Aurora aircraft. Graham says that the SR-71 rarely produced > contrails and if they did, they just climbed higher to get rid of them. > As the Aurora is alleged to fly as high or higher than the SR-71, I think > we can conclude that it too wouldn't produce a contrail. Hence, these > strange contrails are from something else. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > David Lednicer In stating they climbed higher was Graham really saying that the _higher_ altitude eliminated the contrails, or that changing altitude was the answer? It's not unusual at all to see an airliner pass at the same approx. altitude with no contrail, while another, higher one is conning. I've also seen different planes at the same level producing, or not producing contrails. It seems that temp.(obviously effected by altitude), humidity, and type engine have more impact than just altitude. - -- Joe Vincent YGBSM! (jvincent@netten.net) ------------------------------ From: quellish@shore.intercom.net (Dan Zinngrabe) Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 02:57:22 -0500 Subject: Interesting rec.aviation.military post This is a long one- schiefaw@uwec.edu wrote: > > Casey Armstrong wrote: > > > > Hi to the group > > Can anyone point me to a newsgroup or whatever, to find some Honest to > > goodness info on the alleged spook aircraft commonly called "Aurora". I've > > read Sweetman's pages, but they somehow lack substance. > > > > Check Six! > > Casey Armstrong > > That is because there is no such aircraft in the official inventory. Most >of the > evidence refers to an accounting item in the US budget that was labled >"Aurora". > According to Ben Rich, former head of the Lockheed Skunkworks, this WAS a >secret program > to develop a super-fast recon aircraft. That aircraft was Have Blue, >later the SR-71. Ummm, as I recall, the official airforce project name for the RS-71 was called Project Oxcart or Boxcar (I can never remember which of the two, but the name was picked based on something slow to confuse people). I've never seen in any literature, or any of the many TV documentaries on the plane it described as Have Blue. There is currently an X-plane (X-35) that is a classified AirForce project in development with no officially confirmed flights as of yet, perhaps this is the damn Aurora everyone keeps talking about. > Also, who needs to go Mach 5 at 90,000 ft. when we have stealth? >With a new > stealthy drone, we can go low and slow at night with modern sensors. This >would be MUCH > cheaper. Because at Mach5 plus at 90,000 feet or more (more likely to occur at above 100,000 feet) your outside the interception envelope of ANY missile or fighter currently in service with any country. The SR-71s flight profile puts it in the interception envelope of a Mig-25 Foxbat or Mig-31 Foxhound. The Foxbat could actually match the speed of the SR-71, and the Foxhound has a radar & missile system (and enough speed) to get close enough to have a high-probability of hitting an SR-71 with one of its Mach-4 plus AA-6 missiles. At that height and altitude, the plane (given sufficient range) could DIRECTLY overfly hostile countries during times of hostilities with an advanced sensor load and cover a large area in a short time. Drones are limited by range, payload, and available sensors. A Drone with a SLAR to survey the battlefield for targets for example, would be one dead drone the moment it lights off its radar. A Mach-5 plus recon plane at 100,000 plus feet altitude could sweep the entire battlefield with radar in seconds and not worry about any reprisals. _________ Does anyone have more info on the "X-35"? This is one I've heard little about so far.... ------------------------------ From: Greg Weigold Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 16:10:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Seymour Cray Figured the list might be interested! GW Here is the latest from the Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph on Wednesday, Sept 25, 1996: ========================================================= Cray's condition stabilizes but still is critical By Joanna Bean Seymour Cray's condition improved slightly Tuesday, but the noted computer scientist remained in critical condition at Penrose Hospital after a rollover traffic accident Sunday. Cray suffered head, neck and chest injuries after his Jeep Cherokee was struck by a car on Interstate 25. Cray, 70, had been in critical and unstable condition until Tuesday afternoon, when doctors upgraded his condition to critical and stable. A hospital spokeswoman said Cray's vital signs have stabilized. Cray remains in the intensive care unit. His wife, three children and sister are with him. On Tuesday, the family issued a statement through Terry Willkom, Cray's business partner and friend: "Although it is early in the recovery process, the family is cautiously optimistic for his chances for recovery," the statement said. "The family would like to thank everyone for their continued expression of support and prayers." The accident has come as a shock to those who've followed Cray for the past four decades. The Wisconsin native is considered the father of the supercomputer industry, having invented a series of ultrafast computers that solve complex scientific and engineering problems. For all his technical prowess, Cray has tried to stay out of the limelight. Cray came to Colorado Springs in 1988 as part of a computer development project for Cray Research Inc., the Minnesota company he started in 1972. Cray Research spun off the project in 1989 to create Cray Computer Corp. Cray Computer ran out of money last year before Cray could finish his latest supercomputer, the Cray-4. The company went bankrupt and was dissolved. Just last month, Cray started his fourth company, SRC Computers Inc., on the city's north side. Cray said he planned to build computers but was mum on details. Since Sunday, Penrose Hospital has fielded hundreds of calls from well-wishers and media across the country, including The New York Times and CBS News, said hospital spokeswoman Kate Brewster. "This man commands a lot of attention and respect," she said. In testament to Cray's renown, a Cray fan on Tuesday launched an unsolicited blood drive on the Internet on Cray's behalf. Brewster said the hospital always welcomes blood donations. The blood drive was started by Sandy Combs, director of the VON Coalition, which hosts a Web site with news about telecommunications and Internet developments. Combs sent an e-mail to 10,000 people on VON's mailing list suggesting that they donate blood at Penrose or any blood bank on behalf of Cray. When asked about the blood drive, Combs responded via e-mail: "When was the last time someone of this stature in the computer industry has had this type of tragedy -- and if others wanted to, could instantly help? "I have no personal or professional relationship with Cray other than knowledge of his tremendous accomplishments (and failures) within the computer industry." ------------------------------ From: "Earl Needham, KD5XB, in Clovis, NM" Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 17:51:30 -0700 Subject: re: Interesting rec.aviation.military post "HAVE BLUE" was the name given to the two prototypes of the F-117. But don't tell anybody *I* said so! 7 3 Earl Needham, KD5XB, in Clovis, NM (DM84) Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, Pi Chi '76 Have you really jumped ROUND PARACHUTES? (Overheard at the Clovis Parachute Center) http://www.3lefties.com/users/needhame.html > From: quellish@shore.intercom.net (Dan Zinngrabe), on 9/26/96 2:57 AM: > This is a long one- > > schiefaw@uwec.edu wrote: > > > > Casey Armstrong wrote: > > > > > > Hi to the group > > > Can anyone point me to a newsgroup or whatever, to find some Honest to > > > goodness info on the alleged spook aircraft commonly called "Aurora". I've > > > read Sweetman's pages, but they somehow lack substance. > > > > > > Check Six! > > > Casey Armstrong > > > > That is because there is no such aircraft in the official inventory. Most > >of the > > evidence refers to an accounting item in the US budget that was labled > >"Aurora". > > According to Ben Rich, former head of the Lockheed Skunkworks, this WAS a > >secret program > > to develop a super-fast recon aircraft. That aircraft was Have Blue, > >later the SR-71. > > Ummm, as I recall, the official airforce project name for the RS-71 > was called Project Oxcart or Boxcar (I can never remember which of > the two, but the name was picked based on something slow to confuse > people). I've never seen in any literature, or any of the many TV > documentaries on the plane it described as Have Blue. There is currently > an X-plane (X-35) that is a classified AirForce project in development > with no officially confirmed flights as of yet, perhaps this is the > damn Aurora everyone keeps talking about. > > > Also, who needs to go Mach 5 at 90,000 ft. when we have stealth? > >With a new > > stealthy drone, we can go low and slow at night with modern sensors. This > >would be MUCH > > cheaper. > > Because at Mach5 plus at 90,000 feet or more (more likely to occur at > above 100,000 feet) your outside the interception envelope of ANY > missile or fighter currently in service with any country. The SR-71s > flight profile puts it in the interception envelope of a Mig-25 > Foxbat or Mig-31 Foxhound. The Foxbat could actually match the speed > of the SR-71, and the Foxhound has a radar & missile system (and enough > speed) to get close enough to have a high-probability of hitting an > SR-71 with one of its Mach-4 plus AA-6 missiles. At that height > and altitude, the plane (given sufficient range) could DIRECTLY overfly > hostile countries during times of hostilities with an advanced sensor > load and cover a large area in a short time. > > Drones are limited by range, payload, and available sensors. A Drone > with a SLAR to survey the battlefield for targets for example, would > be one dead drone the moment it lights off its radar. A Mach-5 plus > recon plane at 100,000 plus feet altitude could sweep the entire battlefield > with radar in seconds and not worry about any reprisals. > _________ > > Does anyone have more info on the "X-35"? This is one I've heard little > about so far.... > > > > > ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 12:31:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Interesting rec.aviation.military post That Subject line should read: Stupid r.a.m post! Dan Zinngrabe wrote: >schiefaw@uwec.edu wrote: >>According to Ben Rich, former head of the Lockheed Skunkworks, this WAS a >>secret program to develop a super-fast recon aircraft. That aircraft was >>Have Blue, later the SR-71. As anyone on this list surely knows, "Aurora" was, according to Ben Rich, a line item referring to the (Lockheed) competitor to the B-2A Spirit stealth bomber, while the two Lockheed Have Blue aircraft (several years before) were proof-of-concept aircraft for a stealthy plane, which was later built as the Lockheed Martin F-117A Nighthawk (under the Senior Trend program), while the SR-71 predates those by another decade. That reminds me of the Ford Century, the fasted Nissan ever built by VW. :) Kristan Roberge wrote: [even though that was not attributed to him in the original post] >Ummm, as I recall, the official airforce project name for the RS-71 >was called Project Oxcart or Boxcar (I can never remember which of >the two, but the name was picked based on something slow to confuse >people). I've never seen in any literature, or any of the many TV >documentaries on the plane it described as Have Blue. There is currently >an X-plane (X-35) that is a classified AirForce project in development >with no officially confirmed flights as of yet, perhaps this is the >damn Aurora everyone keeps talking about. The 'RS-71' (SR-71) was code named Senior Crown, and the earlier A-12 was the Oxcart. The claim (from a person getting his/her aviation knowledge from PopSci), that the X-35 is a secret aircraft, is ridiculous. The X-35 will be the second JAST/JSF contender, while the X-32 will be the first, basta. [rest of MiG-25, MiG-31 and AA-6 'rubbish' deleted] Earl Needham responded: >"HAVE BLUE" was the name given to the two prototypes of the F-117. >But don't tell anybody *I* said so! [and had to quote the whole shit] [grumpy mode on] Please don't waste everyones time and lots of bandwidth. These kinds of meaningless posts, full of errors, and/or quoting previous articles completely, while adding only a 2-liner, might be common on UseNet, but should not happen here on the Skunk Works Mailing List. It is those posts, not the occasional UFO or off-topic post, who degrade the quality of this list, and make people unsubscribe (at least in my opinion). Dean Adams corrected most of the above errors on r.a.m. anyway, already. [grumpy mode off] Just had to say something about that... - -- 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: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 10:12:21 PDT Subject: Re: Interesting rec.aviation.military post Andreas, We all vent sometimes. Just don`t get out of control and slip anything out about our secret project. The propulsion guys will be ready to test by next month. If we can get clearance from NORAD the first insertion is scheduled for Jan 97. PS - I really do have a new pulse-jet project underway. Pics will follow as my friend Dan and I try not to blow upstate New York up! This is what happens when you give engineers free time. Uses an aerosol can as a combustion chamber. Unique nozzle design changes frequency for thrust control. A word to the wise. If you hear a really loud 120Hz buzz DON`T LOOK UP. SEEK SHELTER IMMEDIATLY. I would suggest the "duck and cover" technique. Chuck ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Fri, 27 Sep 96 11:01:31  Subject: Re: Aurora Not! I'm going to continue to lie low on the mystery plane that may or may not be a Beech Starship , except to point out that like the mystery plane refueling over the North Sea this description also matches what a Black Horse would look like. Given that one of those could operate out of any regular airfield, seeing one in CONUS would not be all that extraordinary. Given their flight profile, it wouldn't even be surprising if they're painted black. Just to muddy the waters a bit more, USAF has been saying lately that what, if anything, follows the B-2 will probably not be a super stealthy aircraft like it, but a transatmospheric vehicle. Gee, a Black Horse would be an excellent way to test such concepts. Of course, I have absolutely no evidence to support any of this except for that series of photos and negatives those guys in dark trenchcoats and sunglasses borrowed from me to, "... show some of their friends". You know, it's been a while. Do you think they forgot to return them? Come to think of it, I didn't catch their names. Art Hanley My employer has absolutely nothing to do with any of this and is no doubt glad of that fact ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #710 ********************************* 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).