From: owner-skunk-works-digest@ (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V6 #45 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@ Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@ Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Wednesday, April 16 1997 Volume 06 : Number 045 In this issue: Re: F-22A Rollout Re: F-22A Rollout Re: One of our planes is missing RE: One of our planes is missing. A-10 RE: One of our planes is missing. RE: One of our planes is missing. Secret Wind Tunnel at Calif Inst Tech? Re: Really skunky questions RE: Really skunky questions U-2's used in SAR RE: One of our planes is missing Re: U-2's used in SAR Skunk Works Legal Logo ??? Skunk Works Legal Logo - Part 2 One of our planes is missing. Re: One of our planes is missing. And now, for something completly different..... re: And now, for something completly different..... Re: And now, for something completly different..... Re: And now, for something completely different..... And now, forsomething completely different. re: U-2's used in SAR Re[2]: U-2's used in SAR re: Re[2]: U-2's used in SAR Re: Re[2]: U-2's used in SAR Contrails and new pictures 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 13:48:41 -0700 From: larry@ichips.intel.com Subject: Re: F-22A Rollout You all have been talking about rollout but nobody has said when it was. So let me say that it's supposed to be TODAY from the Marietta site. So watch the news tonight. Has anybody seen anything yet? Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 16:08:24 -0700 From: Christopher DM Vigil Subject: Re: F-22A Rollout I got to see the whole thing, and frankly disappointing. The aircraft was briefly shown under dim lighting, (of course there are stories about why....); there was more comp. generated model time and stump speeches, than hard article viewing. Looked like a beauty though. larry@ichips.intel.com wrote: > > You all have been talking about rollout but nobody has said when > it was. So let me say that it's supposed to be TODAY from the > Marietta site. So watch the news tonight. Has anybody seen > anything yet? > > Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 23:57:39 -0600 From: Laurel Richards Subject: Re: One of our planes is missing Er... forgive me, but since there's been a lot of discussion about what's appropriate to this list, I have to ask the question: What's this missing A-10 have to do with Skunk Works? Thanks, Laurel |------------------------------------------------------------------|||| |Laurel Joy Richards "Courage is the price that life extracts ||| |tasha@uncle.org for granting peace with yourself." || | -- Amelia Earhart | |---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Apr 97 06:48:45 EDT From: JOHN SZALAY Subject: RE: One of our planes is missing. From: THOMAS::"tasha@uncle.org" "Laurel Richards" > Er... forgive me, but since there's been a lot of discussion about > what's appropriate to this list, I have to ask the question: > > What's this missing A-10 have to do with Skunk Works? > > Thanks, > Laurel IHMO: the fact that a U-2 is being used in the SAR mission. That is not the normal state of affairs is these types of missions, normal SAR operations include CAP and regular AF SAR units, the fact that the brass is concerned enough to detail a reconn platform. One does not want 4 500lb bombs laying around. Much less the loss of a pilot. John Szalay jpszalay@tacl.dnet.ge.com BTW: for those of you in the Louisville media area, have you noticed that ALL of the media outlets have made a point of including the SR-71 in the promo for Thunder over Louisville/50th AF bash, dispite the statement from the 9th SRW, that the Blackbird is not scheduled to attend ? I wonder if someone is going to truck one in. :) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 08:55:35 -0700 From: patrick@e-z.net Subject: A-10 Laurel- I am the guilty party for relating this incident. It was interesting that the pilot has caused the plane to end up far far from its planned mission. I tied it in with the reference to the U-2 being used to seach for the aircraft. Sorry for the waste of bandwidth! You are correct in questioning this thread. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 12:50:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: RE: One of our planes is missing. There's also the detail that the reason they didn't "hear" a crash on all that seismic equipment was because we were laying down a big sonic boom with the A about when it would have been. I hesitate to mention this, knowing it's going to bring the conspiracy nuts and the UFO loonies out of the woodwork, but everyone in SoCal knows that seismic equipment can hear supersonic aircraft so I guess it's not honest to not mention it. Besides, it was in the L A Times. 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 Thu, 10 Apr 1997, JOHN SZALAY wrote: > From: THOMAS::"tasha@uncle.org" "Laurel Richards" > > > Er... forgive me, but since there's been a lot of discussion about > > what's appropriate to this list, I have to ask the question: > > > > What's this missing A-10 have to do with Skunk Works? > > > > Thanks, > > Laurel > > > IHMO: the fact that a U-2 is being used in the SAR > mission. That is not the normal state of affairs is these types of > missions, normal SAR operations include CAP and regular AF SAR units, > the fact that the brass is concerned enough to detail a reconn platform. > One does not want 4 500lb bombs laying around. Much less the loss of a > pilot. > > John Szalay > jpszalay@tacl.dnet.ge.com > > BTW: for those of you in the Louisville media area, have you noticed that ALL of > the media outlets have made a point of including the SR-71 in the promo > for Thunder over Louisville/50th AF bash, dispite the statement from the > 9th SRW, that the Blackbird is not scheduled to attend ? > I wonder if someone is going to truck one in. :) > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 17:07:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: RE: One of our planes is missing. On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Mary Shafer wrote: > There's also the detail that the reason they didn't "hear" a crash on all > that seismic equipment was because we were laying down a big sonic boom > with the A about when it would have been. ^if there were one. I'm not claiming there was a crash, I'm claiming that if there had been one they couldn't have "heard" it because of the SR-71's boom. 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.... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 00:16:53 -0500 (CDT) From: jaz5@ix.netcom.com Subject: Secret Wind Tunnel at Calif Inst Tech? Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had a one paragraph piece about a secret wind tunnel being retired at California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. It had been in use for 68 years. Anyone have any info on this? Wednesday, April 9, page CA6 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Apr 97 15:29:57 SET From: "J. Pharabod" Subject: Re: Really skunky questions Thanks to everybody who answered my questions. I hope the article will be published in June. If it's good (i.e. same as I wrote it, not denatured by publisher's editing... this happens too often) I will ask if they can send a couple of issues to you overseas (precision: a couple = the total, they surely would not agree to send a couple of issues to each skunk-works subscriber...). Now still a question: was the XB-70's canard retractable ? I read that in a big French book "Chronique de l'Aviation", but could not see any picture with the canard inside the body. I'm afraid the author(s) of this book made a confusion: the outer portions of the big delta wing coud indeed be folded down. J. Pharabod ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 11:23:29 -0700 From: Erik Hoel Subject: RE: Really skunky questions J. Pharabod writes: Now still a question: was the XB-70's canard retractable ? I read that in a big French book "Chronique de l'Aviation", but could not see any picture with the canard inside the body. I'm afraid the author(s) of this book made a confusion: the outer portions of the big delta wing coud indeed be folded down. No, the canards were not retractable. For a very nice site devoted to the Valkyrie, I suggest: http://www.labiker.org/xb70.html Erik - -- Erik Hoel _|_| Environmental Systems Research Institute ehoel@esri.com _|_| 380 New York Street 909-793-2853 tel Redlands, CA 92373-8100 909-793-5953 fax ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 97 10:55:13 EDT From: JOHN SZALAY Subject: U-2's used in SAR THis mornings news carried the line that Three (3) separate U-2's are being used in the SAR mission for the missing A-10. I checked the DM press release's for more info, and then the Beale site, they just linked to the DM releases. Found nothing new. I can understand 1 bird being used, but 3 ? I can see it, if they are all carrying different sensor or imaging systems. thats the only way it would make sense, since the area to be covered, should be within the flight capacity of one A/C. Thoughts or comments welcome. John Szalay jpszalay@tacl.dnet.ge.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:04:01 -0400 From: "Jeffrey L. Blue" Subject: RE: One of our planes is missing The local rag yesterday had the Associated Press's feed on the planes involved in the search: three U-2 (2 with radar to see through snow) Colorado National Guard helicopters (16 sorties) Civil Air Patrol (16 sorties) a military turboprop Is it the four 'live' bombs that caused the three U-2s to be tasked? I assume that they do not normally join search and rescue missions. It seems that one U-2 would cover a large enough area. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:13:08 -0400 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com (GREG WEIGOLD) Subject: Re: U-2's used in SAR Has anybody addressed the possibility that this a/c might have had some kind of payload that is non-standard? Nuclear or new secret sophisticated electronics? It seems hard to imagine that with all of the manpower and equipment being used in this search, that they can't find wreckage! I really hate to think that the plane and its payload might have been 'spirited' away, especially while within the US borders, but...... Its been what, a week plus now? and no sign of wreckage or parachutes or anything? And from 3 U-2's ???? This is getting more 'unusual' all of the time! Greg Weigold Columbia, SC gregweigold@pmsc.com ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: U-2's used in SAR Author: JOHN SZALAY at INTERNET Date: 4/14/97 10:55 AM THis mornings news carried the line that Three (3) separate U-2's are being used in the SAR mission for the missing A-10. I checked the DM press release's for more info, and then the Beale site, they just linked to the DM releases. Found nothing new. I can understand 1 bird being used, but 3 ? I can see it, if they are all carrying different sensor or imaging systems. thats the only way it would make sense, since the area to be covered, should be within the flight capacity of one A/C. Thoughts or comments welcome. John Szalay jpszalay@tacl.dnet.ge.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 97 12:38:16 PDT From: gregd@cambertx.com (Greg Fieser) Subject: Skunk Works Legal Logo ??? There is an article in today's (4/14) Dallas Morning News about a New York firm that has filed a petition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, challenging Lockheed Martin's claim to the exclusive rights to the name "Skunk Works". The NY company, "Skunk Works Marketing Lab, Inc.", says that because of the wide use of the term "skunk works" in common language, Lockheed Martin is no longer entitled to it's exclusive rights. The article didn't have an AP or UPI by-liner so I'm wondering if anyone else has seen this? I haven't done a search on "Skunk Works" in a while, so I don't know if said NY psuedo-skunk has a presence to check out. I'll do this as time allows. Oh, the article is on page D-1 (Business section)... %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Greg Fieser 4/14/97 gregd@cambertx.com 12:38:16 PM (aka habu@why.net) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 97 13:20:49 PDT From: gregd@cambertx.com (Greg Fieser) Subject: Skunk Works Legal Logo - Part 2 I just found the article on the Dallas Morning News web site: http://www.dallasnews.com/business-nf/biz311.htm %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Greg Fieser 4/14/97 gregd@cambertx.com 1:20:49 PM (aka habu@why.net) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:34:38 -0700 From: patrick@e-z.net Subject: One of our planes is missing. News on the radio said they have added an SR-71 to search efforts. I live in the Northwest and have seen many rescue efforts in our mountains take days and days as C-130, Blackhawk helos and Mohawk aircraft, all equipped with FLIR equipment go back and forth over the same area till finally finding their targets. This is common to searching in mountainous terrain in winter. And its true we still are "discovering" WW2 crash sites in mountain areas. I believe the spyplanes are looking for a "hot" spot such as an engine. A-10 engine configuration should facilitate its ability to survive a crash relatively intact. And I am sure the AF is sensitive to the loss of the stated weapons on board and the appearance of a renegade pilot. Not stuff the AF loves talking about. As far as any speculation about the complexity of the search or what the plane may have been carrying, it seems to be just that, speculation. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 15:52:24 -0400 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com (GREG WEIGOLD) Subject: Re: One of our planes is missing. I know that SAR missions in the mountains can be a real problem, but this seems like so much overkill.... Has anyone ever seen this much hardware thrown after 1 plane? At least a 'non-stealth' plane? Seems excessive, since the pilot is no longer assumed alive, according to interviews with senior officers on the scene. GW ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: One of our planes is missing. Author: patrick@e-z.net at INTERNET Date: 4/14/97 11:34 AM News on the radio said they have added an SR-71 to search efforts. I live in the Northwest and have seen many rescue efforts in our mountains take days and days as C-130, Blackhawk helos and Mohawk aircraft, all equipped with FLIR equipment go back and forth over the same area till finally finding their targets. This is common to searching in mountainous terrain in winter. And its true we still are "discovering" WW2 crash sites in mountain areas. I believe the spyplanes are looking for a "hot" spot such as an engine. A-10 engine configuration should facilitate its ability to survive a crash relatively intact. And I am sure the AF is sensitive to the loss of the stated weapons on board and the appearance of a renegade pilot. Not stuff the AF loves talking about. As far as any speculation about the complexity of the search or what the plane may have been carrying, it seems to be just that, speculation. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 02:22:14 GMT From: blackbird@telis.org (Jon Price (PJ)) Subject: And now, for something completly different..... Anyone have any idea what is flying out of the Tonopah Test Range (TTR) these days? After all, they did manage to fly '117's out of there for several years and keep it a secret. Last that I heard, they were doing a lot of new construction facilities wise(?). This was not very long after the Nighthawks moved to N.M. In fact, at that time, I understood that the '117's were moved out a few months ahead of schedule to make room for whatever was moving in. I am interested in terrestrial based vehicles only (Don't want to start that other stuff again!). ;^} - -- ************************************************** Jon Price If only Naval Aviators flew SR-71's, I'd be happy. Just imagine. "O.K. 3 wire Blackbird"! A PROUD member of the Tailhook Association. I am NOT known for being politically correct. *************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 20:40:10 -0600 From: Earl Needham Subject: re: And now, for something completly different..... Well, you didn't hear it from ME, and my employer has nothing to do with this, but I've heard rumors of F-22's being operational there. That's what I heard about 2 years ago. Sounds a little hard to believe, what with the recent unveiling. Never heard anything different, either. Earl > From: blackbird@telis.org (Jon Price (PJ)), on 4/15/97 2:22 AM: > Anyone have any idea what is flying out of the Tonopah Test Range > (TTR) these days? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 01:59:41 -0700 From: patrick@e-z.net Subject: Re: And now, for something completly different..... Jon Price (PJ) wrote: > > Anyone have any idea what is flying out of the Tonopah Test Range > (TTR) these days? After all, they did manage to fly '117's out of > there for several years and keep it a secret. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The F-117 wasn't really a secret in its latter black days to the people who worked at TTR and lived in Tonopah. They sold Sweatshirts in town with 117 silhouettes on them and the planes flew over the annual miners day parade. But who wanted to drive all the way to Tonopah if you had no reason to go there? Unlike Groom, one can drive on excellent roads and park several miles from a straight in approach from the north to the single runway. The runway is only 2 or 3 miles south of the fence line. The "man camp" is built on the fence line and one can throw a rock at the barracks from the public parking lot. But don't throw any rocks, please! But who wants to drive there... patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Apr 97 11:42:35 SET From: "J. Pharabod" Subject: Re: And now, for something completely different..... >>Anyone have any idea what is flying out of the Tonopah Test Range >>(TTR) these days? After all, they did manage to fly '117's out of >>there for several years and keep it a secret. >The F-117 wasn't really a secret in its latter black days to the people >who worked at TTR and lived in Tonopah. They sold Sweatshirts in town >with 117 silhouettes on them and the planes flew over the annual miners >day parade. But who wanted to drive all the way to Tonopah if you had >no reason to go there? >Patrick Cullumber (Tue, 15 Apr 1997 01:59:41 -0700) That's not the story I got. It was already known (had been seen by civilians, maybe those guys who try to photograph secret planes in the South-West US) several years before the military released in November 1988 the first official (and bad) photograph. Before this release, the Air Force spread disinformation and called it the F-19. A man called Lee Graham (if memory serves) revealed the real name F-117 in 1986, and nearly lost his job and security clearance. Now that's what I have read in books and on the net, but is it true ? J. Pharabod ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 08:18:26 -0700 From: patrick@e-z.net Subject: And now, forsomething completely different. Let me clarify my point. Tonopah is a rather remote town. It is a bit of a company town too due to it supplying workers to TTR and a home for civilians working there. And other things go on there besides airplane development. (During the black F-117 days, there were times when all F-117 people were required to remain in doors while test were conducted nearby with inert nuclear bomb drops to perfect their trajectories. So when a large chunk of federal money is being spent in the town they are somewhat supportive and protective of their golden goose. But if no outsiders ever went there then the residents of Tonopah were oblivious to what was flown overhead. They were happy to live and let live. It wasn't until "outsiders" or "fence hangers" with cameras showed up that these flights were known to the real world so to speak. Aviation Week has posted many of these early photos. Point is....if none of us go there to look and see what is flying then we will possibly never know. One of these fence hangers observed F-117's massing one day over TTR with numerous tankers. It made more sense the next day when he got home and the 6 o'clock news announced the infamous F-117 raid to begin the Panama War. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Apr 97 12:33:21 nA From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: re: U-2's used in SAR John, The reasons 3 U-2s may be involved could be that they may have wanted to get radar and photo coverage at similar times. Unlike the SR, the U-2 can fly a photo mission or a radar mission, but not both simultaneously. The third one could be for back up, or to cover a different area. Art Hanley Once again, do not make the mistake of believing that whatever I droned on about above has anything to do with I am authorized to drone on about. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 16:18:07 -0400 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com (GREG WEIGOLD) Subject: Re[2]: U-2's used in SAR I saw video this morning from the area around New York Mt. (?) where the SAR missions are now centered. The snow is unreal! The avalanches appear to be happening continually!! Glad I'm not on one of those ground search crews. I didn't know that the U-2 wasn't multi-protocol capable, seems like it would have been a necessary thing, so that the radar and photo recon could confirm each other. But what do I know. Greg Weigold Columbia, SC ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: re: U-2's used in SAR Author: ahanley@usace.mil at INTERNET Date: 4/16/97 12:33 PM John, The reasons 3 U-2s may be involved could be that they may have wanted to get radar and photo coverage at similar times. Unlike the SR, the U-2 can fly a photo mission or a radar mission, but not both simultaneously. The third one could be for back up, or to cover a different area. Art Hanley Once again, do not make the mistake of believing that whatever I droned on about above has anything to do with I am authorized to drone on about. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Apr 97 15:47:50 nA From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: re: Re[2]: U-2's used in SAR Greg, As I understand it, in the U-2 the radar or the camera is carried in the nose. When you carry one, you can't carry the other. The SR can carry radar in the nose at the same time it is carrying photo equipment in the bays in the chines Art Hanley My employer disavows any knowledge of my actions and keeps hoping that I'll self- destruct in five seconds ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 19:30:22 -0700 From: habu@why.net Subject: Re: Re[2]: U-2's used in SAR ahanley@usace.mil wrote: > As I understand it, in the U-2 the radar or the camera is carried in > the nose. When you carry one, you can't carry the other. The SR can > carry radar in the nose at the same time it is carrying photo equipment > in the bays in the chines I just know it's not gonna be this simple, but couldn't a U-2/TR-1 carry a photo nose unit and radar in the superpods simultaneously? Just got me to wondering - I know not of which I speak... ;) Greg Fieser ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 19:28:53 +0000 From: adrian mann Subject: Contrails and new pictures At about 11.30 local time today, 8th April, from Birmingham, UK, I watched a 747 fly overhead on its way down to Heathrow. Weather fine, slight haze, altidude of 747 - approx 27 - 30k ft. The contrail it left appeared normal - - distinct trails from the four engines for about 5 aircraft lengths, blending in to two trails approx. 15 aircraft lengths, then merging into one trail. The contrail was well defined, and persistant. As it degraded, it took on the characteristic donuts-on-a-rope look, as well as appearing segmented in places. This was quite pronounced, and looked to all intents and purposes like the photo taken from Amarillo, Texas. Next time it happens, I'll take a photo and drop it on my web site. This was quite definitely a 747 - but it had the wingtip fences (I watched it through binoculars). Is it possible that the segmentation etc. is caused by vortices/turbulence from the fences affecting the airflow downstream? Does anyone have any wind-tunnel experience as to what happens to the airflow affected by various wingtip devices/fences? I've talked with Chris Gibson on this subject, and he concurs. As far as I know, 747's have not been recently equipped with PDW engines - unless of course, you know better! Also - two small Aurora tidbits. 1. I got a message from a UK magazine who want to use my pics for an upcoming feature. The mention that they have video footage of what purports to be Aurora, but they are checking its authenticity. 2. I got another message asking if there was any news on the recent Aurora crash in the Outer Hebrides (close to Macrihanish). Any comments? BTW - new pics of TR-3A, the "Mothership", AX-17/FB-119 etc on my web site at: www.aemann.demon.co.uk - see Mystery Aircraft page. Adrian Mann, aem@aemann.demon.co.uk Birmingham, UK - ------------------------------------------------------------------ Web site: http://www.aemann.demon.co.uk Adrian Mann, Birmingham, England ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #45 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@netwrx1.com". 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@netwrx1.com" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "georgek@netwrx1.com". 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 e-mail request by sending a message to majordomo@netwrx1.com with no subject and a line containing "get skunk-works-digest vNN.nMMM" (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number). You can get a list of all available digests by sending the one line command "index skunk-works-digest". If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R. Kasica