From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #719 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 17 October 1996 Volume 05 : Number 719 In this issue: AIM-47 A-17 & "artichoke" Re: 5/1/60 Again re: AIM-47 speed Throttled SRMs Re: Throttled SRMs Re: 5/1/60 Again Re: Throttled SRMs Re: Throttled SRMs Re: Throttled SRMs Re: Throttled SRMs Re: Throttled SRMs Re: Throttled SRMs Re: Throttled SRMs re: AIM-47 speed re: AIM-47 speed Re: Throttled SRMs Re: A-17 Re: 5/1/60 Again 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: David Lednicer Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 17:18:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: AIM-47 Just for your info: The solid fuel engine in the Boeing Short Range Attack Missile (SRAM) has stop/start/restart capability. Somewhere I have also seen a throttable solid - it might also have been SRAM. I asked someone recently how they accomplished this stop/restart on SRAM and although I don't remember the answer, I do remember that it wasn't too exotic. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Kerry Ferrand Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 13:44:38 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: A-17 & "artichoke" The "A-17" and "artichoke" names both come from articles in "Popular Science" (December 94/January 95)..both written with the input of Steve Douglass. The Artichoke is supposedly an enlarged F-117-type design with weird-looking spikey anti-radar/sound baffles on its rear fuselage. The "A-17" (they admit the designation is pure speculation) is a large F-111 replacement that looks like a stretched YF-23 with swing wings. Both articles are really just attempts to explain (then) recent sightings of exotic looking aircraft. K ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 00:21:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: 5/1/60 Again According to "The Osprey Encyclopedia of Russian Aircraft 1875 - 1995" by Bill Gunston (even though I doubt he wrote the text, which is far from being grammatically sufficient), the series Su-9 (which is based on the T-43) had a service ceiling of 19.9 km (63,300 ft.), and the zoom altitude record of the modified first T-43 prototype (T-431) on July 14, 1959, is stated as 28,857 m (which would be 94,675 ft.) but the correct value is 28,852 m (or 94,659 ft., as Dave already wrote). The book also says that about 1,000 Su-9 were built, and that they were put into service in the Moscow and Baku air-defense districts in 1959. It also gives the usual weapons equipment as 4 RS-2US, or 2 RS-2US and 2 K-51 or 2 RS-2US and 2 UPK-23 gun pods (replacing the external tanks). I am not sure what the difference between the RS-2US and the K-51 is (I was under the impression that "RS-2US" was the military designation, while "K-51" was the OKB designation), but both are radio-controlled, beam riding (semi-active radar homing) air-to-air missiles, in the West known as AA-1b "Alkali B". They work together with the RP-9 radar and their range is usually given as about 5 to 6 km. The missile is also know as Izdieliye (product) IS, and the complete weapons system was the Su-9-51, which also included the Vozdukh-1 ground-based semi-automatic control system. They (the USSR) may have sent the aircraft up to intercept the U-2 (which might have been at about 70,000 ft. at the time), but why would they remove (or leave) all weapons, if the service ceiling (if stated correctly as 63,300 ft.) was so close to the (probable) target altitude? The point is, that it would be like sending an F-4C Phantom II without its AIM-7 Sparrow missiles to intercept a high flying target -- kinda stupid. I personally don't think the Su-9 account is correct either, but who knows? On a similar note, how does the incident on May 1, 1961, (exactly a year after the Powers incident) over Belarus (White Russia) fit into the picture. I was under the impression that all (manned) overflights of the Soviet Union (and also the Warsaw Pact countries ?) were stopped in 1960. But the article in AirForces Monthly (AFM) No.91 (October 1995), titled "White Russia" (pages 22-29) states that a Su-9 of the No.201 IAP was scrambled to intercept a U-2 which had entered Soviet airspace, but the pilot strayed into the defense zone of the PVO-missile batteries, and was shot down by SA-2s (as was Sr. Lt. Sergei Safronov in his MiG-19 the year before). Where did this U-2 come from? The only possible direction would be from the West, overflying Poland. To the East lies Russia, to the South the Ukraine, and to the North, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. At the time, all but Poland was part of the Soviet Union, and Poland was a Warsaw Pact member. So how could that U-2 fly up to Minsk in 1961, without being intercepted already over Poland or East Germany? Did flights over other Warsaw Pact countries continue after May 1960? - -- 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: betnal@ns.net Date: Wed, 16 Oct 96 07:15:29 GMT Subject: re: AIM-47 speed Andreas: From what I remember digging up, the old ASG-18 for the F-12 had a radar dish that spun in operation. There were a series of holes in the dish that were in line with some kind of optical window. Speculation was that the spin was used to "chop" the IR signal being reflected from some feed in the center. This might convert the IR signal to AC before before going to the sensor window. I'm not familiar with much more detail than that, except that a similar principle was used for the old IR versions of the Falcon missile, which I think were originally called GAR 4 or 2 or both. The dish also served the radar, and so this was a combined IR/radar detection and tracking system. This concept is used today in much more advanced form on the F-14D (albeit with the IR and radar sensors separated). I'm not familiar off the top of my head as to whether the AIM-47 had IR capability itself, or whether the IR was strictly aboard the F-12. I suspect the latter case was true, and IR was used for initial detection and for separation of targets that were in formation close enough to appear as one radar target due to beam width error. This was one of the uses of IR with radar on the AWG-9 of the F-14A, which was based on the ASG-18. It's worthy of note that early descriptions of Phoenix, which is sort of "son of AIM-47" mentioned provision for IR secondary guidance, but that was never installed. Instead, AIM-54 has its own active radar for terminal guidance. Presumably, IR didn't work that well in the '60s, and active radar fit the bill. I don't think the F-12 ever got far enough along to test IR terminal guidance of the missile, if in fact that was truly part of the AIM-47s guidance. Another similarity between AIM-47 and AIM-54 was the fact that both were designed to be used at all altitudes. In fact, AIM-54, which was more advanced than AIM-47 specifically was designed for a secondary air to surface role, primarily anti-shipping, in which it would have been terribly effective (imagine how much damage could be done by something weighing about 500 plus pounds carrying an enormous warhead and traveling over Mach 3 at impact). However, this wasn't a macho fighter type mission and so when the air to ground role was taken away from the F-14, they never trained on using the Phoenix in this role. Regarding the speed of AIM-47, there may not be a conflict between what Jay Miller writes and what the older sources say. Jay could be talking about the increase in missile speed itself, while the others could be talking about the ultimate speed the missile can achieve when you combine the missile's delta with launch speed up to the ultimate missile maximum speed. This is similar to AIM-54, which does go faster than Mach 3.8 depending on launch speed and flight profile (whether it shuts down or is drag limited or whatever) but whose maximum speed is not a simple addition of launch speed and missile's greatest potential velocity change. Art "Whoosh" Hanley ------------------------------ From: Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 04:32:18 PDT Subject: Throttled SRMs The only technique for throttling and shut-off of SRM`s that I`m aware of is when the oxidizer is liquid. This is the system used on the X15 which is still a pretty fast little airplane. But then you really are no longer an SRM. The only other way I can envision it would be to vary the area of the nozzle(unlikely) or the throat (highly unlikely). Chuck ------------------------------ From: Mary Shafer Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 14:09:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Throttled SRMs Er, the X-15 didn't have SRMs; the rocket used LOX and NH4, neither being solid. And the RCS used H2O2 catalyzed by platimum screens. No solids anywhere. Regards, Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... On Wed, 16 Oct 1996 Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com wrote: > The only technique for throttling and shut-off of SRM`s > that I`m aware of is when the oxidizer is liquid. This is > the system used on the X15 which is still a pretty fast > little airplane. > But then you really are no longer an SRM. The only other > way I can envision it would be to vary the area of the > nozzle(unlikely) or the throat (highly unlikely). > Chuck > ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 14:37:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: 5/1/60 Again One other thing I just realized, is that the speed of the Su-9, as given in the article, would be either too low to even overtake the U-2, or well above Mach 1, depending on which speed was meant. They either referred to the absolute speed of the Su-9 (TAS = True Air Speed) or the difference of speed between the two aircraft. (IAS = Indicated Air Speed or EAS = Equivalent Air Speed seem both unlikely, given the context of the article.) The article, quoted by Dave, says: "The airstreams whip past at 180 meters per second (400 mph), plus the turning factor." Chris Pocock writes in his Dragon Lady book on page 55: "Another significant point to watch throughout this maximum altitude profile was that the pilot had to adhere strictly to the speed specified for the particular altitude reached. It didn't vary much -- 394 knots TAS at 67,000 feet and 392 knots at 70,000 feet, for instance -- but if the pilot exceeded it even by small increments, there would be a further penalty to pay in fuel consumption." Now, 180 m/s or 400 mph is about 350 kts, while the expected U-2 speed of 390+ kts would be about 200 m/s or 450 mph, and Mach 1 at the postulated altitude of 70,000 ft. would be 295 m/s or 660 mph or 575 kts (everything rounded a bit, and the value for the speed of sound is from the "Standard Atmosphere Table" in the SR-71 manual). That means that the Su-9, if only flying 400 mph would not have overtaken the U-2, or that the Su-9 would have been flying with a speed of 850 mph (380 m/s or 740 kts) when overtaking the U-2. That would be indeed fast (about Mach 1.28) at that altitude, and then a supersonic shockwave and a working AL-7F engine, most likely with lit afterburner, should be expected. Maybe the account is not so inconsistent after all? Any comments? - -- 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: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 11:31:36 PDT Subject: Re: Throttled SRMs Mary, 'Oh contraire........ You may want to double check ALL configs'that flew! Chuck ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 12:11:51 -0700 Subject: Re: Throttled SRMs > The only technique for throttling and shut-off of SRM`s > that I`m aware of is when the oxidizer is liquid. >... > But then you really are no longer an SRM. That's the only technique I know of too. It's not a SRM but it is called a Hybrid rocket engine, liquid oxidizer, solid fuel. They're supposed to be pretty safe too. There are a fair number of enthusiasts flying similar engines with gaseous oxidizers and all kinds of fuels, from the the Shuttles solid blend to salami (you heard me right). >This is the system used on the X15 which is still >a pretty fast little airplane. Nope, X-15 used the XLR-99 (LR means Liquid Rocket). It used LO2 and Anhydrous Amonia. Larry ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Wed, 16 Oct 96 12:54:59  Subject: Re: Throttled SRMs This discussion on SRMs is getting quite educational. I've got a question that maybe one of you can answer, or if there's someone from the company formerly known as General Dynamics on this list maybe they'll know: The Navy's Advanced Air-to-Air Missile was designed to fly the long range Phoenix type of profile, but it was also to be used at medium range against highly maneuverable targets. In this case it would be under power in the terminal phase, to counter evasive maneuvers by the next generation of fighters. The missile also had to be roughly the size of AIM-7, in order to be used by multiple platforms Hughes planned to bid a missile with a ramjet sustainer, and would be powered all the way to the target GD's proposal revolved around a start-stop-start-stop platform. It used this multiple boost-coast method to tailor its flight profile for the particular shot. The missile would actually determine how the flight was to be accomplished, including when and how many firings would be necessary Now, I can't imagine the Navy agreeing to liquid fuel for an air-to-air missile, so how did the two teams plan to do it, especially GD? Art "Mr. Curiosity" 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: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 14:04:05 -0700 Subject: Re: Throttled SRMs Mary wrote: >Er, the X-15 didn't have SRMs; the rocket used LOX and NH4, neither being >solid. Chuck replies: >Mary, >'Oh contraire........ You may want to double check ALL configs'that flew! Oh Chas! Yes, there was another rocket used on the X-15 before the XLR-99 was ready, the XLR-11 (again LR=Liquid Rocket). The XLR-11 was a 4-chambered design that burned ethyl alcohol/liquid oxygen. Both the XLR-11 and XLR-99 were products of the boy wonders at Chemical Reaction Motors, Inc. Larry ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 14:20:24 -0700 Subject: Re: Throttled SRMs >The Navy's Advanced Air-to-Air Missile was designed to fly the long range >Phoenix type of profile, ... >... >GD's proposal revolved around a start-stop-start-stop platform. ... >The missile would actually determine how the flight was to be >accomplished, including when and how many firings would be necessary > >Now, I can't imagine the Navy agreeing to liquid fuel for an air-to-air >missile ... Perhaps the grain is segmented with an insolator and an igniter for each segment. The insolator could burn away with the immediately preceding inner grain but reduce the heat below ignition for the next grain. The computer could then fire the next igniter if it wants another kick. Larry ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 17:16:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Throttled SRMs Chuck: You wrote: >The only technique for throttling and shut-off of SRM`s >that I`m aware of is when the oxidizer is liquid. This is >the system used on the X15 which is still a pretty fast >little airplane. The 3 X-15 airframes (including the 2nd X-15 after modification as X-15A-2) made all together 328 flights, 129 of which were captive/aborted and 199 were free flights after release from the B-52 carrier. Of those 199 flights, 2 were unpowered glide flights (both by the 1st X-15), 29 were powered by 2 XLR11 engines (20 flights by the 1st X-15, and 9 flights by the 2nd X-15), the rest, 168 flights, were powered by 1 XLR99 engine (60 by the 1st X-15, 44 by the 2nd X-15, 22 before and another 22 after modification to X-15A-2, and 64 by the 3rd X-15). The two Reaction Motors (Thiokol) XLR11-RM engines, which were also used by the Bell X-1, Douglas D558-II, and other aircraft, used liquid oxygen (LOX or LO2) and diluted ethyl alcohol. The single Reaction Motors (Thiokol) XLR-99-RM engine used liquid oxygen (LOX or LO2) and anhydrous ammonia, which was also liquid. The turbo pump was powered by hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and the tanks were vented with Helium (He) and Liquid Nitrogen (LN2). The LR designation stands for Liquid-fuelled Rocket, the X for eXperimental. If any of the X-15s were modified with a Solid-fuelled Rocket engine (or even a hybrid engine), I certainly never heard about it. - -- 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: Mary Shafer Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 17:41:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Throttled SRMs I just looked at the drawings in Hallion's "On The Frontier" and asked my hisband, who worked on the project. They both say anhydrous and LOX. What's your counterexample? It's true that the XLR-99 was the first large, restartable, man-rated, throttleable rocket engine, but it wasn't a solid rocket. You're surely not thinking of that dummy scramjet. Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end.... On Wed, 16 Oct 1996 Charles_E._Smith.wbst200@xerox.com wrote: > Mary, > 'Oh contraire........ You may want to double check ALL configs'that flew! > Chuck > ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 19:03:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: re: AIM-47 speed On Wed, 16 Oct 1996 betnal@ns.net wrote: > impact). However, this wasn't a macho fighter type mission and so when > the air to ground role was taken away from the F-14, they never trained > on using the Phoenix in this role. Will you update me the current status of F-14? I thought the new F-14D have air-to-ground capacity?? Did they cancel the role again?? May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@barney.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Wed, 16 Oct 96 17:13:48  Subject: re: AIM-47 speed Su Wei-Jen The F-14 was always designed to have air to ground capability. That's one of the reasons for the pallet design of carrying external weapons in the tunnel Testing in this role was stopped in the 1970s because of separation problems with existing Navy ejectors (there's so much lift in the tunnel that the bombs didn't clear as easily as expected), because it wasn't a "Fighter" mission and to help justify the existence of the F/A-18. The F-14D has the potential for all-weather strike capbility exceeding that of the F-15E, requiring only off-the-shelf sensors, minor cockpit changes, porting over the F-15E software and adding a couple of maritime strike modes (such as inverse synthetic aperature capability). This is what was canceled in the early '90s when it was decided to develop the F/A-18E/F. Lesser air-to-ground capability is presently being added to all F-14s. This includes LANTIRN shared among the squadrons, GPS for all Tomcats meeting the five year rule, Night Vision System, limited radar upgrades for air to ground. The laser spot tracker is still being blocked. The Tomcat is being cleared for dumb bombs (including 750 and 2,000 pounders), laser-guided weapons, Harpoon, SLAM (maybe) and other weapons. It will Not be all weather strike capable. The Navy loses that capability next year with the early retirement of the A-6 and will not get it back until 2010-2012 (if then) with the introduction of the JSF. ------------------------------ From: Brentley Smith Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 22:39:49 -0400 Subject: Re: Throttled SRMs Larry wrote: >There are a >fair number of enthusiasts flying similar engines with >gaseous oxidizers and all kinds of fuels, from the the Shuttles >solid blend to salami (you heard me right). At the risk of swerving completely off-charter, but hopefully just for a few interesting moments... Please tell us more about the salami engine. Brentley bsmith@zippynet.com ------------------------------ From: ConsLaw@aol.com Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 00:16:56 -0400 Subject: Re: A-17 Andreas (schnars@ais.org) wrote about the Air Force Times being the source for information concerning the A-17. I recall seeing a Popular Science article concerning the plane, and I believe the source was interceptor Steve Douglass (Steve1957@aol.com). The information was substantially the same as Andreas relayed (an F-23 derived strike aircraft). Other than that one blurb, I have heard nothing about the aircraft. To me it sounds more like an idea for an aircraft than an existing aircraft. Other than the swing wing (an outdated concept) it sounds like it would fill the role left empty by the retirement of the F-111. If it does exist, It wouldn't surprise me if it was the new tenant at Tonopah. Maybe those who are more scientifically wise could comment, but it seems to me that it would be especially difficult to make a swing wing stealthy because you have more edge surfaces, and you they change in relationship to other surfaces as the wing moves. It seems like it is the landing gear door and bomb bay door problem times 100. - -Steve Hofer conslaw@aol.com ------------------------------ From: UKdragon@aol.com Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 02:50:50 -0400 Subject: Re: 5/1/60 Again David Lednicer wrote: >> On Saturday morning, the Seattle Times carried a very interesting Reuters report, datelined Moscow, entitled: "What Really Happened in 1960 U2 Crash". The text is as follows: Dave, thanks for posting the full article. I beleive I responded to a short summary of it, posted on r.a.m., but here goes again for readers of this list >> A former Soviet fighter pilot broke 36 years of silence yesterday to reveal what he said was the true story of one of the hottest moments of the Cold War: the downing of Gary Powers' U2 spy plane in 1960. Igor Mentyukov told Trud newspaper his new Sukhoi Su-9 fighter was unarmed when he was scrambled over the Urals and ordered to ram the high flying "spy in the sky" piloted by Powers, a U.S. agent. Right story, but wrong pilot, per all the accounts in my possession. It was a Capt Mityagin who was scrambled in the Su-9. >> He said he managed to overtake the U2. "Powers' plane got into the slipstream of my Su-9," Mentyukov said. "The airstreams whip past at 180 meters per second (400 mph), plus the turning factor. It started to flip him over, his wings broke off... It all happened by chance." Er, from my translations and interviews, the Su-9 was vectored by GCI but never did get a VID on the U-2. It apparently overshot (not clear how close in altitude he got, but certainly, if any Soviet interceptor was going to get there, it would have been the Su-9). >> Mentyukov said Soviet generals, eager to satisfy Kremlin leader Nikita Khrushchev's misguided faith in Moscow's rocket defenses, covered up his extraordinary feat and insisted for three decades that the U2 was hit by a guided missile. Right now, my guess is that Comrade Mentyukov, like so many in the FSU, have embellished the truth in order to make a few roubles. A couple of years back, we had KGB officer Viktor Sheymov telling us they had a copy of the flight plan. Before that, it was a bomb in the tailplane etc etc Given the dire economic conditions there, I suppose I might do the same, if in their shoes. >> Soviet commanders were apparently so frustrated with repeated U.S. photographic missions that the commander of air-defence forces, Marshal Yevgeny Savitsky, ordered Mentyukov to ram the U2. "Savitsky knew I had no weapons system. And there was no chance of surviving a ramming." said Mentyukov, whose wife was pregnant at the time. "They told me" 'Everything will be done.' There was no time for fine words." Not made explicit in this article was the reason why the Su-9 pilot (whoever he was) wouldn't survive: - no pressure suit to protect him if cabin pressure lost in the ramming. On to Dave's comments: >> Now, how to judge the accuracy of this story. Its basically Mentyukov vs. Penkovsky with Powers in the middle. Penkovsky claimed, in the reports he sent to MI5, that 14 SA-2s were fired, shotgun style, at Powers and this is what brought him down. Personally, I tend to believe Penkovsky, as he is/was a more reliable source, plus his account explains the "orange flash" better. Additionally, Kelly Johnson determined that the structural failure that downed the U-2 was the right horizontal stab breaking off. Agreed, though it's not just Mentyukov v Penkovsky. As explained above, a considerable number of accounts published in Russia since 1990, plus interviews, support the SA-2 version. It's Mentyukov v. the entire PVO heirarchy of the time, actually. Regards Chris Pocock "Information is useless without Intelligence" UKdragon@aol.com ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #719 ********************************* 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).