From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #720 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Saturday, 19 October 1996 Volume 05 : Number 720 In this issue: Re: A-17 and Brilliant Buzzard XB-70 Re: Sausage Hybrid Rockets Re: A-17 and 'black aircraft' movement in general Re: XB-70 Re: A-17 Re: XB-70 Re: XB-70 Fwd: Neat Flying Experiences I've heard of... Edwards Open House. Russian Overflights of Continental US? XB-70 Escape Capsule Re: F-111 escape capsule. Re: F-111 escape capsule. Re: F-111 escape capsule. Re: Russian Overflights of Continental US? Re: F-111 escape capsule. 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: UKdragon@aol.com Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 02:50:39 -0400 Subject: Re: A-17 and Brilliant Buzzard Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: The only source for the "A-17" (as far as I know) was a short article in AirForces Monthly (AFM) No. 83, February 1995, which included a nice three- view drawing and an artists impression of an "YF-23-derived" aircraft, a two-seater electronic warfare/reconnaissance version, drawn by Pete West. For the record, AFM actually took its cue from (even ripped off?) the previous month's article by Stuart Brown and Steve Douglass in Popular Science (Jan 95). Entitled "Swing Wing Stealth Attack Plane", this ascribed the designation A-17 "as an educated guess" to the aircraft postulated in the article. Much of the article was unfounded speculation, IMHO, but the circumstantial evidence linking some kind of YF-23 derirative with the Boscombe incident did seem rather intruiging at the time....and still does. Regards Chris Pocock "Information is useless without Intelligence" UKdragon@aol.com ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 12:13:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: XB-70 Not quite Skunk Works. But maybe someone can help me. I heard that the XB-70 use a "bubble" type ejection system. Anyone can post any information about this topic?? Thanks in advance. BTW, I changed my e-mail account to whom are interested. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 11:20:45 -0700 Subject: Re: Sausage Hybrid Rockets 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). Brentley Smith writes: >At the risk of swerving completely off-charter, but hopefully just for >a few interesting moments... > >Please tell us more about the salami engine. Dave Rosen writes: >Wouldn't a liverwurst do just as well in the combustion chamber? It >would pain me less to see it burn up. > >Also, does it need an igniter or does it go on exposure to O2? Ha! :) I thought that might evoke a few responses! But it's true! I haven't witnessed it myself but I've heard about it from several members of our local High Power Rocketry Society. By the way, I encourage those of you who might be interested in this kind of thing to check out your local chapter. Look for an issue of High Power Rocketry magazine (usually in larger hobby shops that sell rocket flying supplies). The High Power Rocketry chapters around the US are mostly composed of adult men and women who like to build, research, and fly high powered rockets. These things are rockets that start where the Estes like rockets that many of us have flown with GREAT enjoyment end. There are even chapters that are building and testing their own liquid rocket engines. And judging from some of the later issues of the magazine, some chapters are building rockets that are as large as some that the US Army flew back in the 50's and 60's!!!! They also study guidance techniques etc. I've been wanting to make it to a launch but the only launch I could attend was scrubbed by the FAA when they didn't give approval for that day. I of course would love to do some airbreathing rocket research under the banner of this club. Anyway, these guys have tried all kinds of solid fuel. As you can imagine, with LOX it burns real good. There have been lots of jokes about measuring the Isp of salami and other meats, as well as the smell etc... . Larry ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 12:11:33 -0700 Subject: Re: A-17 and 'black aircraft' movement in general Steve Hofer writes: >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. Yes Steve, PS actually published the A-17 stuff first, but actually AFM or (Air Forces Monthly) that published it in the UK and not Air Force Times. I also agree that the A-17 is somebodies idea, read on below for my comments on this. Chris Pocock writes: >Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > >The only source for the "A-17" (as far as I know) was a short article in >AirForces Monthly (AFM) No. 83, February 1995, which included a nice three- >view drawing and an artists impression of an "YF-23-derived" aircraft, a >two-seater electronic warfare/reconnaissance version, drawn by Pete West. > >For the record, AFM actually took its cue from (even ripped off?) the >previous month's article by Stuart Brown and Steve Douglass in Popular >Science (Jan 95). Entitled "Swing Wing Stealth Attack Plane", this ascribed >the designation A-17 "as an educated guess" to the aircraft postulated in the >article. Ha Ha! Quite correct Chris, it looks to me like AFM ripped off PS too! But this seems to be the style among many publications. Read on. >Much of the article was unfounded speculation, IMHO, I agree. In fact, I KNOW where the shape of the A-17 in the PS article came from. Allow me to avoid additional truth by saying that it was from an enthusiast who has never had an 'A-17' sighting. In fact, I have a copy of this enthusiasts drawing and PS got at least one aspect of the drawing wrong. I won't go into it any more than that. But read on below. > but the circumstantial >evidence linking some kind of YF-23 derirative with the Boscombe incident did >seem rather intruiging at the time....and still does. Yes, exactly! Here is my recommendation to people who want to 'follow' 'black airplanes'. You shouldn't frame the sighting like the aviation writer 'expert' wants you to frame it. For example. Why should you call Chris Gibson's sighting Sweetman's Aurora or Sweetman's and Douglass's A-17? It should be Chris Gibson's sighting and that's it! Chris Gibson seems like a good witness, as he was in the Royal Observer Corps for 12 years as was even a member of its international aircraft recognition group according to Sweetman. Also, when he had his sighting in 1989, he was still in the ROC, according to Sweetman. This is significant information and it gets lost when one only remembers some interpretation of the aircraft that Gibson saw. Likewise the Boscombe Down story. Why call it the A-17, when it should be the Boscombe Down aircraft? This way, you correctly refer to a fact (namely that a certain incident occurred or that a real person reports an alleged fact) and you can proceed correctly with an investigation based on a fact which may be later proved incorrect or misinterpreted, instead of interpreting that fact incorrectly (very high probability of doing this) and then proceeding down the wrong path forever and ever. Now Steve Douglass claims he saw the A-17 as well in his PS piece. I am more convinced that he actually saw an EF-111, personally. But, based on my suggestions above, if one approaches this by saying, OK, the Steve Douglass sighting aircraft, instead of the 'A-17', one can then ask questions like, well, if Steve saw the aircraft from the ground, how does he know what the top half looks like? Larry ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 10:26:09 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: Re: XB-70 On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, Wei-Jen Su wrote: > > Not quite Skunk Works. But maybe someone can help me. > I heard that the XB-70 use a "bubble" type ejection system. Anyone > can post any information about this topic?? Thanks in advance. For ejection at Mach 3, the crews' seats had a sort of clamshell arrangement that snapped shut to form a capsule. I remember seeing photographs of these things that looked like a cross between an upright bathtub and a Dalek... sorry, can't remember where. - --Brett ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 09:59:54 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: Re: A-17 On Thu, 17 Oct 1996 ConsLaw@aol.com wrote: > 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 ....snip... > 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. Not scientifically wise, just an academic in the industrial design and architectural fields (wanna hear about loads on the ischial tuberosities?)... Well, the B-1A is a variable-geometry aircraft with some stealth characteristics, as were some AFX proposals... and the preceding NATF as well. However, I would imagine that a fully dedicated stealth strike aircraft wouldn't be a swing-wing. Maybe a highly swept delta with retractable canards for trim at takeoff/landing... or maybe just clever computers. In any case, I thought that the illustration in PopSci was ridiculous. For the combination of high sweep, low wing, YF-23 type engine nacelles and ventral intakes, the moveable portions of the wings had to be so far outboard and back as to be pointless. I tried doing a few sketches myself and found that that it was possible to fit retracted swing wings and structure around intake tunnels coming up through the wing to the engines... as long as the wings were still hinged a little farther outboard than is usual and they were shaped more like flippers... so I gave up. In any case, swing wings are heavy, Tornado notwithstanding, any new strike design wouldn't waste bombload weight on unnecessary structure. Overwing intakes or low engines would work, but have their own aerodynamic or stealth problems.. or maybe they are using alien technolgy at Groom Lake, maybe the thing's a flying TARDIS so that they can fit all of those features in. If the plane exists, it almost certainly isn't both YF-23 derived AND a swing wing. Anyway, my two cents --Brett ------------------------------ From: worldnet@gnn.com (JOHN F. REGUS) Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 21:09:00 Subject: Re: XB-70 >On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, Wei-Jen Su wrote: > >> >> Not quite Skunk Works. But maybe someone can help me. >> I heard that the XB-70 use a "bubble" type ejection system. Anyone >> can post any information about this topic?? Thanks in advance. > >For ejection at Mach 3, the crews' seats had a sort of clamshell >arrangement that snapped shut to form a capsule. I remember seeing >photographs of these things that looked like a cross between an upright >bathtub and a Dalek... sorry, can't remember where. >--Brett > While TDY at WPAFB recently I went to the museum for the first time. Very interesting. Got to touch the SR71...they have it backed up against a wall so you can't do a complete walk around. Anyway the clamshell design that you speak about was developed for the B58, they had one sitting next to the plane. ------------------------------ From: Felipe Salles Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1996 06:58:27 -0800 Subject: Re: XB-70 Brett Davidson wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, Wei-Jen Su wrote: > > > > > Not quite Skunk Works. But maybe someone can help me. > > I heard that the XB-70 use a "bubble" type ejection system. Anyone > > can post any information about this topic?? Thanks in advance. > > For ejection at Mach 3, the crews' seats had a sort of clamshell > arrangement that snapped shut to form a capsule. I remember seeing > photographs of these things that looked like a cross between an upright > bathtub and a Dalek... sorry, can't remember where. > --Brett Just a couple of days agop I read in a pretty good article in a brazilian air magazine the story of the second XB-70's destruction. I found it curious that only the pilot had the chance to activate this "cocoon" and that apparently he got the arm of his flying suit caught in it as it closed for ejection. Also there is mention to a pneumatic/hidraulic cushion on the "cocoon" to protect the pilot from ground impact. Any comments anyone? The F111 also had a caracteristic escape system does it also have similar cushions? Felipe Salles Horda Producoes ------------------------------ From: tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com (Tom Robison) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 09:07:16 +0000 Subject: Fwd: Neat Flying Experiences I've heard of... >>Forwarded message: >>Subj: Neat Flying Experiences I've heard of.....This from a friend @ Boeing >>Date: 96-10-17 23:04:00 EDT >> >>"Sled Driver" By: Brian Shul SR-71 Blackbird Driver. >>I'll always remember a certain radio exchange that occured one day as Walt & >>I were screaming across southern California 13 miles high. We were monitoring >>various radio transmissions from other aircraft as we entered Los Angeles >>airspace. Though they didn't really control us, they did monitor our >>movement across their scope. >>I heard a Cessna ask for a readout of it's groundspeed. "90 knots," Center >>replied. >>Moments later a Twin Beech requested the same. "120 knots," Center answered. >>We weren't the only one's proud of our speed that day, as almost instantly an >>F-18 Driver smugly transmitted "Ah, Center, Ah, Dusty 52 requests groundspeed >>readout." >>There was a slight pause. "525 knots on the ground, Dusty." >>Another silent pause. As I was thinking to myself how ripe a situation this >>was, I heard the familiar click of a radio transmission coming from my >>back-seater, It was at that precise moment I realized Walt and I had become a >>real crew, for we were both thinking in unison. >>"Center, Ah, Aspen 20, Ah, you got a groundspeed readout for us?" >>There was a longer than normal pause. "Aspen, I show one thousand seven >>hundred forty two knots." >>No further inquiries were heard on that frequency...... Tom Robison tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of Hughes Defense Communications, Hughes Aircraft Corp, Hughes Electronics Corp, General Motors Corp, or God. ------------------------------ From: Wade Lengele Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 06:14:49 -0700 (MST) Subject: Edwards Open House. I hope someone on this list is going to the Edwards Open house so they can tell me all about it. I couldn't make it this year. I was really looking forward to seeing the SR-71 demo. Do they have this kind of great line up every year? Thanks Wade Home page http://www.starlink.com/~wade/planes.html ------------------------------ From: habu@why.net (habu) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 14:58:58 -0700 Subject: Russian Overflights of Continental US? On the subject these (INHO unlikely) stories of Power's U-2 being knocked out of the sky by Soviet "buzz" tactics, I offer the following thread twist... I just finished reading Craig Ryan's book "The Pre-Astronauts", a history of high altitude manned ballooning and parachuting. It is an excellent work covering projects like Manhigh, High Dive, Excelsior, Explorer, Strato Jump, Stratolab, Osoaviakhim, etc. and the individuals who contributed to these programs, including Dr. John Paul Stapp, Joseph Kittinger, David Simons, and many others. (okay, here comes the skunk-works segue...) Near the end of the book, Ryan writes about one Clifton McClure (Manhigh III). McClure, after not being selected as a Mercury astronaut candidate, resigned his commission in the Air Force and joined the Air National Guard so that he could avoid a desk job and continue flying. Quoting from the book: "He was stationed in South Carolina in 1962 and followed the Soviet arms buildup in Cuba through newspaper stories like everyone else. But when secret high-altitude Soviet reconnaissance flights were detected over the base that fall, McClure requested permission to go after them. But permission was not forthcoming. Later, official spokesmen would deny that the Russian overflights had occurred. Air Force Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Arthur Sylvester, and White House Press Secretary Pierre Salinger kept up a litany of denials even as key members of the Senate Foreign Relations and House Armed Services Committies clamored for an official investigation. Walker Stone, editor-in-chief of the Scripps-Howard newspaper chian in which the Russioan overflight stories broke, continued to insist on the unassailability of his reporter's sources, which came, according to Stone, from high in the Kennedy administration's military establishment. No definitive account of the incident ever surfaced..." This is the first I have heard of this. I was admittedly a bit younger during the early '60s, so I may have missed it while watching "Lone Ranger" episodes :) Ryan's information was obtained directly from McClure when he was interviewed for the book. Can anyone substantiate or add to this report of alleged Soviet overflights of the continental U.S. ??? Greg Fieser ------------------------------ From: habu@why.net (habu) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 14:54:06 -0700 Subject: XB-70 Escape Capsule Again, from Steven Pace's XB-70 book (an excellent reference on the history of the XB-70): "For the XB-70, North American devised a capsule-type ejection seat system. It was modelled to allow the crewmen to operate safely at 70,000 to 80,000 foot heights, and more importantly to safely escape the aircraft in a dire emergency. The capsule could be launched via rocket propulsion anywhere from zero to 80,000 feet. "The cocoon-like capsule provided for each crew member formed by closure of its upper and lower clamshell doors. Each capsule featured self-contained pressurization and oxygen systems to protect the crewmen, becoming a secondary sealed enclosure in the event of sudden decompression. "Trim knobs located within the capsule would allow its rider to control the B-70 while descent to a lower altitude was made. The GE J93 engine throttles could be retarded but not advanced from inside the capsule. Providing throttle advance capabilities within the electromechanical remote system employed by the B-70 would have added to its cost and complexity. "A window in the forward part of the capsule would enable the crewmen to monitor the aircraft's flight instrumentation while descending. At lower altitudes the clamshell doors could be retracted allowing the pilot to regain full control . To position the B-70 pilot or copilot properly before closure of the clamshell doors, the seat reclined backwards about 20 degrees to begin encapsulation. The heels of the crewman had to be positioned in detents before the ejection sequence could proceed. "If the B-70 crewmen elected to eject after the doors were properly closed, they activated another control lever which would automatically jettison the upper fuselage escape hatch panels and clamshell blast doors, then fire the capsule up and away from the doomed plane. The closed and ejected capsule's rocket motor burnout would come at 0.5 seconds, with a trajectory peak of plus 325 feet at 1.9 seconds. Its descent chute would deploy automatically at 9 seconds (about 15,000 feet) followed by a 28 fps descent and landing. The capsule was aerodynamically stabilized by two booms. The capsule featured an automatically inflating rubberized ablative impact bladder on its underside to cushion the landing shock." "Crewmen would remain inside the B-70's escape capsule during the entire ejection process. North American claimed that safe emergency ejections were possible over a range of from 90 kias on takeoff to Mach 3 at altitudes of about 70,000 feet." "Survival equipment, cold-weather clothing and enough food and water for several days were stored aboard the capsule. If it landed on water the capsule would float like a boat and was equipped with fishing tackle and an inflatable life raft. On January 30, 1960, USAF Airman B. Barwise completed a 72-hour test afloat in a survival capsule designed for use in the B-70." Of course, during the tragic loss of XB-70A-2 on June 8, 1966, all did not work as planned. Carl Cross failed to initiate his capsule's ejection sequence, possibly due to either a blow to the head or excessive g-forces, or both. Al White caught his arm in the clamshell doors as they closed, and pulled his arm out of his shoulder socket as he freed it from the closed doors. The airbag also failed to deploy, and White's capsule hid the ground (again, quoting Pace) "with an estimated force of 43 g's. The capsule hit so hard, in fact, that his heels drove deep dents into the metal flooring and his body tore away the entire seating structure. The collapse of the seating structure eased the landing force on White, however, and probably prevented fatal injury, although his internal organs were badly wrenched, causing damage that threatened his life during the next several days." The F-111 capsule shares some of these features, i.e. the airbag and the ability to float (I believe), but that's another story for another day...anyone? Greg Fieser ------------------------------ From: Side Show Marc Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 14:48:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: F-111 escape capsule. Hey All, Not very Skunky, but hard to pass on one of my favoirte A/C. In F-111 by Bill Gunston he discusses the F-111's escape capusle as a one piece unit that contains both crew memembers and is powered by a 40,000LBs thrust rocket motor. General Dynamics says it can be used at any Mach # and at any height. Impact is cushioned by air bags that deploy from the bottom of the capsule and if you have the misfortune to land in the water, the control stick can be detached and used as part of a bilge pump. Although Gunston doesn't site a specific instance, he does state that there are " . . . cases of crews surviving with nothing more a shaking after a capsule has rolled down a craggy mountainside." The same scheme was employed on the B-1A but was dropped after it was realised that in order to service the capsule a tempororay bulkhead had to be fitted to the fuselage in order to keep the B-1 from folding at the nose while the escape module was gone. In addition, the amount of systems that had to disconnected and reconnected was enormous. When ever one talks about escape capsule you always hear about spinal injuries and botched ejections. Is this because capsules are more unsafe than seats or is this another case of "convetional wisdom?" I realise that ejection is inheriently dangerouse but I would think that a capsule might give you an edge in an emergency. Time to go back to lurk land. ___________ Marc Studer ___________________________________________ "Life is a fair approximation of reality." - Jacques Portman "Two plus two equals Duh." - Jacques Portman ______________________________________ mstuder@spu.edu ___________ ------------------------------ From: "Earl Needham, KD5XB, in Clovis, NM" Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 16:22:36 -0700 Subject: Re: F-111 escape capsule. > From: Side Show Marc , on 10/19/96 4:19 PM: > The same scheme was employed on the B-1A but was dropped after it > was realised that in order to service the capsule a tempororay bulkhead > had to be fitted to the fuselage in order to keep the B-1 from folding at > the nose while the escape module was gone. In addition, the amount of > systems that had to disconnected and reconnected was enormous. Interesting idea, but as far as I know, the F-111 only has it's capsule removed once -- byt he rocket motor. In other words, the capsule is not routinely removed for servicing. Was the B-1's (planned) capsule different? 7 3 Earl Needham, KD5XB, at Cannon AFB, NM Have you really jumped ROUND PARACHUTES? (Overheard at the Clovis Parachute Center) http://www.3lefties.com/users/needhame.html ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Sun, 20 Oct 1996 13:21:46 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: Re: F-111 escape capsule. On Sat, 19 Oct 1996, Earl Needham, KD5XB, in Clovis, NM wrote: > routinely removed for servicing. Was the B-1's (planned) capsule different? The B-1As capsule was much larger for a start - four seats - and as I remember, also had small folding wings; not to generate lift, but to allow a controlled descent - gliding or rocket-powered anyone? It probably had other features as well, such as a jacuzzi and a bowling alley... - --Brett ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 20:33:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Russian Overflights of Continental US? On Sat, 19 Oct 1996, habu wrote: > "He was stationed in South Carolina in 1962 and followed the Soviet > arms buildup in Cuba through newspaper stories like everyone else. > But when secret high-altitude Soviet reconnaissance flights were > detected over the base that fall, McClure requested permission to go > after them. But permission was not forthcoming. Later, What type of Soviet aircraft will get to South Carolina without soviet bases around there?? A possible aircraft will be the Tu-95. Flow from Cuba airbase maybe??? Aircraft from a supercarrier may be a possibility. But, I don't think the Yak-38 have enough range if her carrier will stay in a "safe" distance from US Continent. I mention in this list before. Soviet's aircrafts penetrated a couple of times in Alaska airspace during the Cold War. A Air Force pilot based in Alaska told me that. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ From: "Earl Needham, KD5XB, in Clovis, NM" Date: Sat, 19 Oct 1996 18:53:59 -0700 Subject: Re: F-111 escape capsule. Let me rephrase the question -- was the original plan to remove the B-1's module routinely? This certainly was not done with the F-111's here at Cannon, nor is it now done with the EF's. Earl Needham Have you really jumped ROUND PARACHUTES? (Overheard at the Clovis Parachute Center) > From: Brett Davidson , on 10/19/96 6:51 PM: > > > On Sat, 19 Oct 1996, Earl Needham, KD5XB, in Clovis, NM wrote: > > > routinely removed for servicing. Was the B-1's (planned) capsule different? > > The B-1As capsule was much larger for a start - four seats - and as I > remember, also had small folding wings; not to generate lift, but to allow > a controlled descent - gliding or rocket-powered anyone? It probably had > other features as well, such as a jacuzzi and a bowling alley... > --Brett > > > > ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V5 #720 ********************************* 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).