From: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V5 #728 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@mail.orst.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@mail.orst.edu Precedence: Skunk Works Digest Wednesday, 20 November 1996 Volume 05 : Number 728 In this issue: Re: Airborne Laser Defense against ABL Re: Airborne Laser re: Defense against ABL re: Lockheed & Navy's A-12 Inside of the Skunk Works Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #727 Re: ABL Re: Inside of the Skunk Works Re: ABL re: Defense against ABL Re: Inside of the Skunk Works re: Defense against ABL Re: Inside of the Skunk Works Re: US Aircraft Carrier Fleet Re: A new designator F-117 crashes 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 D. Hawes" Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 11:46:37 -0500 Subject: Re: Airborne Laser > No matter how agile a fighter is, relative to the beam it's >motionless. With good sensor lock (not necessarily onboard the laser >aircraft), a 360 degree multi-shot long range laser aircraft is going to >dominate the air battle arena no matter how it lumbers through the sky. Ya know.. This reminds me of the movie 'Read Genius'... with the space-based laser-type weapon. I've been reading posts to the list and I'm a little confused about the nature of the ABL aircraft. Most of these questions are pretty basic, so bare with the casual listener. Is the Laser actually powerfull enough to destroy other aircraft? Just blind them? ANd what if this laser hits a raincloud.. Could the beam be deflected by raindrops? Dave ____________________________________________________________________________ /\ ____ /\ . ' \+\\VV//+/ . _/\_ ' . . \\// . <========> ' \/ oyager@wpi.edu []:::::\__/ ' . , . " " . . " " @@@ {}{}{} @@@ [][][] @@@ ()()() @@@ [][][] @@@ {}{}{} @@@ &&&&& David D. Hawes @@@@@@@@@ http://www.jax.org/~dhawes &&&&&&&&&&& %%%%% ################ Http://www.wpi.edu/~voyager/ ############ %%%%%% ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 14:00:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: Defense against ABL Talking about ABL, this may sound stupid, but if the enemy missile, aircraft, etc. is coated with reflected material (like mirrors) for the laser wavelenght... so, it will be useless the ABL. Anyone can explain me how the laser work in the ABL case?? Destroying the object by the high pressure generated maybe??? Thanks in advances. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Tue, 19 Nov 96 11:25:37  Subject: Re: Airborne Laser Initially, all they'll say is that the ABL will be operating above 40,000 feet, above the cloud layer. This means it'll shoot at ballistic missiles during their boost phase. There is some talk it might also be useful against satellites. One story indicated possible future anti-cruise missile operations, which would imply that they will be eventually capable of shooting through rain and the like. Although this system will not be effective against tactical aircraft, it isn't that big a jump to get there, once you've gone this far. Against aircraft, such a weapon would be useful in inducing structural failures as well as severing control systems. When they reach that point, air combat is going to look markedly different from how it does now, Especially in the VFR arena. Art Hanley Those that seek to find a relationship between what I've written here and what my employer may believe, seek something that can't be found. ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Tue, 19 Nov 96 11:34:37  Subject: re: Defense against ABL If you put some kind of coating on a ballistic missile, you add weight, which requires more structure and thicker skin, which means more weight. A missile takes off vertically and flies through thrust and ballistics. If you add weight for shielding, you've got to take it off somewhere else. Either you give up fuel, which helps to negate the missile's capability, or you give up payload, which has the net effect of "shooting down" some of the warheads without their ever having flown. To get your range and payload back, you have to start from scratch with a new missile with larger engines, hence more fuel requirements, etc. This is a very expensive and time consuming process. The attractiveness of an airborne laser concept is that once you've crossed the initial hurdle of getting the thing to work to begin with, it's probably easier for the shooter to up the power of the beam than it is for the tactical "missileer" to change the missile to counter it. Art Hanley Looking for my employer's views? Look somewhere else 'cause they won't be found here. ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Tue, 19 Nov 96 11:50:45  Subject: re: Lockheed & Navy's A-12 The Marine and Air Force versions of Lockheed's JSF are to be virtually identical except for some avionics, low speed handling systems and the lift fan. On the USAF version, the lift fan and power shaft will be replaced by an extra fuel tank. In the case of the F-4, the basic design did so many things that needed to be done well, that when the Air Force was forced to buy it they found it would perform a lot of what they needed to do. A Phantom for the Air Force was virtually the same as a Phantom for the Navy, aircraft-wise.It had inherent penalties built in because of all the requirements for carrier compatibility, but even with them the Phantom was so much better than anything the Air Force had, that it worked. In the case of the F-111, aside form the fact that McNamara probably picked the wrong contractor, this was a case of trying to do totally incompatible missions with one aircraft, and being more concerned with justifying a personal preference (commonality over all else) than with the job to be done. Hopefully, the latter mistake won't be repeated. The JSF is probably a bit heavier than USAF would like for its F-16 replacement in order to have the basic things in there needed for the Navy version. The Navy version doesn't go as far or carry as much as the Navy wanted for A/FX, but allows for a simpler version to meet USAF desires. As for the Marines and Royal Navy, they are essentially buying a STOVL version of the Air Force model. Like the F-4 example, the USAF model can perform the missions they need, so as long as its marinized and STOVL (they're willing to give up some range), they don't see the need for any big changes to the basic model. Art Hanley These thoughts, such as they are, do not represent the thoughts of my employers, if in fact they choose to have any ------------------------------ From: bonorden@beast.amd.com (David Bonorden) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 14:58:42 -0600 Subject: Inside of the Skunk Works > > I was talking to a friend of mine that worked in Skunk Works a >couple of years ago, he was working in the shape of the YF-22. He mention > >[snip] > > I asked him what is the real max. range and speed of the >AIM-120?... the data amazed me!!! I couldn't react for a 5 seconds!!! He >didn't tell me that this data is classified, but just to make sure, >another expert of this missile in the list can offer the unclassified >data. He said, practically, the missile can reach its target without been >detected by the enemy aircraft. That's why USAF is not hurry up to >fill the short range gap of the next generation Sidewinder (AIM-9X). > > May the Force be with you > > Su Wei-Jen > E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu > wjs@webspan.net I think your friend was feeding you a BS line. If your friend worked on tail structures then he/she probably had little contact with the weapons integration people and was probably just feeding you a line to impress you. Although an improvement on AIM-7 kinematics, I'd hardly call AMRAAM kinematic performance amazing. The only accurate answer for a question like "what's the REAL max range and speed" is always "It depends". Anyone giving you a different answer is uninformed. What does it depend on? Launch A/C: speed, altitude, attitude, radar mode, launch station Target: speed, altitude, attitude, horizontal and vertical aspect, RCS, ECM, maneuvers Environment: temperature, humidity, rain As far as reaching the target without being detected, that depends on the quality of the RWR gear on the target. However, there probably wouldn't be a lot of warning time. Dave Bonorden 8 yrs in AMRAAM flight test ------------------------------ From: jbaugher@lucent.com Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 14:57:18 +0600 Subject: Re: Skunk Works Digest V5 #727 Yes, SWA0100 is also scheduled to be offered. The next offering is on January 8, 9, and 20, this primarily for Bob Borg's people although others may find room there. Next offeering is on the week of March 17. Incidentally, the course is not taught by me. It is done by Georgia Velisaris. Joe ------------------------------ From: Brett Davidson Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 12:03:21 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: Re: ABL What I want to know is: Will it be used in a harassment campaign against Saddam Hussein by burning his toast every morning? - --Brett ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 18:13:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Inside of the Skunk Works On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, David Bonorden wrote: > > I think your friend was feeding you a BS line. If your friend worked on > tail structures then he/she probably had little contact with the weapons > integration people and was probably just feeding you a line to impress > you. Although an improvement on AIM-7 kinematics, I'd hardly call AMRAAM kinematic > performance amazing. Well... my friend is one of these genius that work for Skunk Works and also is "civilian test pilot" for the military. He is not only a engineer, he flew all type of modern fighter for testing. So, the information of AMRAAM are not from what he done in Skunk Works, it is from the military. > The only accurate answer for a question like "what's the REAL max range > and speed" is always "It depends". Anyone giving you a different answer > is uninformed. What does it depend on? > > Launch A/C: speed, altitude, attitude, radar mode, launch station > Target: speed, altitude, attitude, horizontal and vertical aspect, RCS, ECM, > maneuvers > Environment: temperature, humidity, rain > Yes, I know, he told me the max. range and speed in a "standard condition". A average... even so, the max. range is much much longer than the Sparrow in a "standard condition". May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ From: Jonathan Colvin Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 17:45:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: ABL I would be deeply skeptical about the ability of an ABL to take out an incoming AAM. Assuming a radar-guided missile (obviously a IR tracking head would get barbecued), given that the nose-cone is already insulated against air friction-heating, and has a tiny cross-section, I see no likelihood of the laser being able to knock it down. Of course such a valuable platform would have a plethora of ecm but that is another matter. Jonathan Colvin Tech support IO.ORG, ICAN.NET jcolvin@io.org _______ *********** ( ) * ( ) ____ * ( ) ( ) * (_______) (______) *** ***** ****************************************************************** *** Glider pilots stay up longer ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 18:05:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: re: Defense against ABL On Tue, 19 Nov 1996 ahanley@usace.mil wrote: > If you put some kind of coating on a ballistic missile, you add weight, which > requires more structure and thicker skin, which means more weight. A missile > takes off vertically and flies through thrust and ballistics. If you add > weight for shielding, you've got to take it off somewhere else. Either you > give up fuel, which helps to negate the missile's capability, or you give up > payload, which has the net effect of "shooting down" some of the warheads > without their ever having flown. In conclusion, even if the missile is inneficience, its "mirror" coat will reflect the laser??? May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ From: Earl Needham Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 17:05:16 -0800 Subject: Re: Inside of the Skunk Works > From: Wei-Jen Su , on 11/19/96 5:03 PM: > Well... my friend is one of these genius that work for Skunk Works > and also is "civilian test pilot" for the military. He is not only a > engineer, he flew all type of modern fighter for testing. So, the > information of AMRAAM are not from what he done in Skunk Works, it is from > the military. Am I wrong, or aren't most "civilian test pilots" working for the contractor? Earl Needham, KD5XB, in Clovis, NM Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, Pi Chi '76 ------------------------------ From: ahanley@usace.mil Date: Tue, 19 Nov 96 16:07:05  Subject: re: Defense against ABL Su Wei-Jen: Not necessarily. A custom, coated "reflecting" missile won't just be inefficient, it'll be easily countered. Pump more power through the laser. Also, during flight the missile will loose its mirror-like reflectivity, making it more vulnerable (also highly reflective means easier to track). Trying to fix this would make the missile too big and cumbersome to use. There are other possible counters, such as continuously emitting some gas or cloud to diffuse the beam, but that also makes the missile less practical for offensive use. this is as good as shooting it down. It it forces your advesary to abandon Ballistic missles, you have accomplished the goal of the ABL. Further, the emission of that reflective cloud or gas gives another weapon something to home in on. For a practical demonstration of this technique, one may refer to the tactic employed by Capt. James T. Kirk at the Battle of Kittomer in Star Trek VI. Jonathan: Keep in mind that TRW has been shooting AAMs out of the air with a laser for some time now, and even USAF did it once. The cross section may be tiny, but that's an engineering "challenge" (i.e. "problem") that can be overcome. Hey! Even Windows 95 works pretty well now, so anything is possible. Once again, remember that, to the beam, the target is motionless. So, if you can pump enough energy on a relatively fragile target quickly, away you go. You don't have to vaporize the thing, just damage it enough so it tears itself apart or at least misses. This ABL won't be able to do it, but that doesn't mean the next one, or the one after that won't. Another option is if the ABL outranges the AAMs, you can shoot the launcher before he fires, and that's a bigger target anyway. The first muskets were at a disadvantage against a mounted crossbowman, but there ain't too much cavalry left, anymore. For general interest, it should be noted that IR in medium range missiles is not the impossibility that many think it is. For example, the Soviets used to make radar guided and IR guided version of their large AAMs (one of each hit KAL 007). The canceled AIM-7R was a version of Sparrow that was radar/IR guided. The Navy's canceled AAAM probably would have been, and I believe Europe's FMRAAM program is investigating that possibility. There are a number of ways to do it. One is to use Aerojet's platelet techology to cool the missile head. Another is to use a "shovel" nose and a rotate-to-track (being used by one of the bidders on AIM-9X) optic on the seeker. Speaking of AIM-9X, that little puppy's going to move pretty fast and its nose is going to get quite warm, and it's IR. Art "Take That, Ming the Merciless" Hanley If you think this appears to represent the views of my employers, you're wrong. Just remember, appearances can be deceiving ------------------------------ From: Wei-Jen Su Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 23:39:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Inside of the Skunk Works On Tue, 19 Nov 1996, Earl Needham wrote: > > From: Wei-Jen Su , on 11/19/96 5:03 PM: > > Well... my friend is one of these genius that work for Skunk Works > > and also is "civilian test pilot" for the military. He is not only a > > engineer, he flew all type of modern fighter for testing. So, the > > information of AMRAAM are not from what he done in Skunk Works, it is from > > the military. > > Am I wrong, or aren't most "civilian test pilots" working for the > contractor? > You are right. My mistake. He is working for the contractor (Lockheed). What I mean he is flying military aircraft. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 01:55:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: US Aircraft Carrier Fleet Jimmy, You can find information about the current status of the US aircraft carrier fleet on the web on "Vulture's Row", Robin J. Lee's naval aviation page, at: , and general technical and historical information on aircraft carriers and other naval vessels on Andrew Toppan's naval page at: - -- 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: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 01:58:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: A new designator Art, Thanks for the update on JSF, and the new AL-1 designation. That is actually the first time since 1962 (at least as far as I know), that a new Mission or Type symbol was introduced in the Joint Aerospace Vehicle Designation System. There were also some other new designations added lately, while others were either skipped or kept secret. If anyone knows anything about the skipped Cargo planes, I would appreciate any information! C - Transport aircraft (Cargo) series: ====================================== * C-32 Manufacturer: Boeing (CAG) Model: Boeing 757-200 Project/Purpose: VC-X (staff transport, replacing C-137C) Versions: * C-32A (4 leased with option to buy, not yet delivered) * C-33 (no information) * C-34 (no information) * C-35 (no information) * C-36 (no information) * C-37 Manufacturer: ? (not yet decided) Project/Purpose: Off-The-Shelf business aircraft Versions: * C-37A (2 planned) * C-38 Manufacturer: IAI/Tracor Aerospace (Tracor Flight Systems) Model: (based on) IAI Astra SPX Project/Purpose: special long range cargo/passenger (VIP) missions Versions: * C-38A (2 ordered, plus 2 options) L - Laser (carrying) aircraft series (NEW): =========================================== * L-1 Manufacturer: Team ABL (Boeing/Lockheed Martin/TRW) Model: (based on) Boeing 747-400F Project/Purpose: ABL (AirBorne Laser) for TBM-Defense and others Versions: * YAL-1A (1 prototype ordered) * AL-1 (AL-1A or AL-1B, etc., 6 series aircraft, planned) X - eXperimental vehicle series: ================================ * X-32 Manufacturer: Lockheed Martin (LMTAS and LMSW) Project/Purpose: JAST (JSF demonstrator) (first candidate) Versions: * X-32A (1 CTOL demonstrator (USAF model) ordered) * X-32B (1 STOVL demonstrator (USMC model) ordered) * X-32C (maybe the X-32A will be modified to show aircraft carrier capability (USN model)) * X-33 Manufacturer: Lockheed Martin (LMSW) Project/Purpose: sub-orbital demonstrator for SSTO RLV "Venture Star" Versions: * X-33A (1 vehicle ordered) * X-34 Manufacturer: Orbital Science/Rocketdyne Project/Purpose: (sub-orbital) demonstrator for small (partial-)RLV Versions: * X-34A (1 vehicle ordered) * X-35 Manufacturer: Boeing (D&SG) Project/Purpose: JAST (JSF demonstrator) (second candidate) Versions: * X-35A (1 CTOL demonstrator (USAF model) ordered) * X-35B (1 STOVL demonstrator (USMC model) ordered) * X-35C (maybe the X-35A will be modified to show aircraft carrier capability (USN model)) * X-36 Manufacturer: MDC (Phantom Works) Project/Purpose: UAV representing a 28%-scale prototype of a generic next generation tailless fighter aircraft without vertical surfaces, using split ailerons and thrust vectoring only (NASA ARC/USAF project); Versions: * X-36A (1 UAV delivered) * X-37 Manufacturer: (not yet decided ?) Project/Purpose: test vehicle for air-breathing hyper sonic, rocket or scramjet engines for launch vehicles; Versions: * X-37A (2 to 4 different layouts envisioned, NASA project) (It is possible, that this designation refers to the planned ca. 280"-long UAV version of the 100"-long, NASA LaRC-designed LoFLYTE (Low-Observable Flight Test Experiment) waverider model/UAV, built by Accurate Automation Corp., or that the vehicle will be at least based on that design.) * X-38 Manufacturer: Scaled Composites Project/Purpose: CRV (Crew Rescue Vehicle), previously also known as: "X-CRV" (eXperimental CRV), "ACRV" (Advanced CRV), "X-35" (which was not an official DoD designation), "CTV" (Crew Transfer Vehicle), (NASA JSC project) Versions: * X-38A (2 atmospheric flight prototypes ordered, used for unpowered drop tests from B-52 launch aircraft) * X-38B (larger space-worthy version, planned, to be launched on any bigger launch vehicle available) The X-32 and X-35 manufacturers may be reversed, because I still don't know for sure whose design will get which designation! - -- 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: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 01:56:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: F-117 crashes Dan, You asked for a complete and reliable listing of F-117 crashes. I can't guarantee either the completeness nor the reliability of the following list, but it is all that is publicly available to me, right now: Up to date, 5 or 6 of the 65 F-117s built have been lost: ========================================================= 04/20/1982 - Article 785, 1st series F-117A, (maybe USAF serial '80-0785'): - crashed on first (?) flight, at Groom Lake/Area 51; - Lockheed test pilot Robert L. 'Bob' Riedenauer (Bandit 103), was severely injured; - the flight control system wiring was inverted, reversing control inputs; 07/11/1986 - Article 792, 8th series F-117A, (maybe USAF serial '81-0792'): - crashed at 0200 local time, during night training flight, about 12 miles from Bakersfield, CA; - USAF (4450th TTG) pilot Maj. Ross E. Mulhare (Bandit 198), using call sign 'ARIEL 31', did not attempt to eject and was killed; - probable cause was CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain) into a hillside due to spacial disorientation; 10/14/1987 - Article 815, 31st series F-117A, (maybe USAF serial '85-0815'): - crashed during night training flight at a Nellis gunnery range, 65 miles east of Alamo, NV; - USAF (4450th TTG) pilot Maj. Michael C. Stewart (Bandit 231), using call sign 'BURNR 54', did not attempt to eject and was killed; - probable cause was CFIT into a hillside due to spacial disorientation; 08/04/1992 - Article 802, 18th series F-117A, (maybe USAF serial '82-0802'): - crashed into a storage building during night training flight near Holloman AFB, Allamogordo, NM; - USAF (416th FS) pilot Capt. John B. Mills (Bandit 402), ejected uninjured; - probable cause was apparently spatial disorientation; - aircraft had flown 19 combat missions during DESERT STORM, and displayed nose art 'Black Magic' in the weapon bay; 04/05/1995 - Article 824, 40th series F-117A, (maybe USAF serial '84-0824'): - caught fire during a night emergency landing at Holloman AFB, NM, and burned partially out; - USAF (9th FS) pilot escaped uninjured; - possible cause was a broken fuel line, the aircraft may be not a total loss and could be rebuilt if it is not too expensive; 05/10/1995 - Article 822, 38th series F-117A, (maybe USAF serial '86-0822'): - crashed at 2230 local time during night training flight, on the Zuni Reservation, 7 miles SSW of Zuni, NM; - USAF (9th FS) pilot Capt. Kenneth W. Levens (Bandit ???), did not attempt to eject and was killed; - probable cause was autopilot failure, coupled with spacial disorientation, leading to CFIT into a hillside; Also, both HAVE BLUE test aircraft crashed: =========================================== 05/04/1978 - XST-1 / HAVE BLUE 1001 / XST FT&E (Flight Test & Evaluation): - crashed on 36th test flight, at/near Groom Lake/Area 51; - Lockheed test pilot William M. 'Bill' Park ejected, but was severely injured on landing, because he was knocked unconscious exiting the cockpit and his parachute did not deploy correctly; - after hitting the runway hard during a high sink-rate landing attempt, one main landing gear jammed in semi-retracted position and could not be freed, and it was decided to abandon the aircraft (the wreck is buried at Groom Lake); 07/11/1979 - XST-2 / HAVE BLUE 1002 / XST LO (Low-Observable): - crashed on 52nd test flight, at/near Groom Lake/Area 51; - USAF test pilot Lt. Col. Norman Kenneth 'Ken' Dyson ejected and landed uninjured; - an engine fire developed which also destroyed hydraulic fuel lines, and it was decided to abandon the aircraft (the wreck is also buried somewhere on the Nellis Test Range); - -- 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 #728 ********************************* 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).