From: owner-skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V6 #56 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Tuesday, June 3 1997 Volume 06 : Number 056 In this issue: RE: Declassified Articles (Decoded) Declassified Articles - sorry Wei-Jen Su wrote in his signature file! Re: Wei-Jen Su wrote in his signature file! Re: Vol.6, #55 - Declassified Articles re: Recent articles... Re: Wei-Jen Su wrote in his signature file! RE: Sig file curiosity Re: Recent articles... [none] Re[2]: Recent articles... Re: Recent articles... F-22 and JSF Re: Mach Re: your mail Gone for a bit Re: Gone for a bit Northrop vs Northrup 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: Mon, 2 Jun 97 08:26:10 EDT From: JOHN SZALAY Subject: RE: Declassified Articles (Decoded) To save some of you the problem of "decoding" the message sent out to the list earlier, it was a WORD document and was UUENCODED apparently by the Joe's E-mailer. Here is the text of that message. John Szalay jpszalay@tacl.dnet.ge.com - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The CIA's Center for the Study of Intelligence has recently posted an index of declassified articles from STUDIES IN INTELLIGENCE on their website. Last year I paid the Nat Archives $17 for a booklet with an out-of date listing of declassified articles. There are many more articles in this new (and free) list. McIninch's OXCART story (nothing new to skunkers) finally appears on the list. There may be some new jewels among articles by Dino Brugioni - "Cuban missile Crisis, Phase I," and "Spotting Photo Fakery," among others and Henry S. Lowenhaupt - "On the Soviet Nuclear Scent", "Raveling Russia's Reactors", and "Somewhere in Siberia." I already have Lowenhaupt's "Mission to Birch Woods" which deals with planning for U-2 missions over the USSR. Instructions on how to get copies of the articles (at $0.25 per page) from the Archives are on the web page. CSI has also just posted Issue 7 of their newsletter. CSI main page is: http ;//www.odci.gov/csi/ Index of articles and bk reviews is http://www.odci/gov/csi/studies/97index/index.htm Joe Donoghue ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 08:42:00 -0400 (EDT) From: jdonoghue@cclink.draper.com Subject: Declassified Articles - sorry Sorry, I meant to convert that to a text file. Thanks to John Szalay for doing so. Joe ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 10:14:54 -0300 From: fsalles@trip.com.br (Felipe Salles) Subject: Wei-Jen Su wrote in his signature file! Wei-Jen Su wrote in his signature file: (Snip!) > May the Force be with you > > Su Wei-Jen > E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu > wjs@webspan.net > > Nicklas' Law of Aircraft Identification: "If it's ugly, it's > British; if it's weird, it's French; and if it's ugly and weird, it's > Russian." > Brian Nicklas By this simple law we can with no doubt conclude that: 1)The F-22A and F-117A are DEFINITELY of Russian origin! 2)The Sukhoi 27 (and its derivatives) should not be British, French or Russian (American, then?!?) I'm currently reading Ben Rich's book and I was surprised in knowing that Kelly Johnson was "revolted" by the prospect of Lockheed building such an ugly plane... Thank god for Lockheed that he was retired at the time! Comments on the impact of aesthetics in aircraft development and performance? Not very Stealthy but definitely interesting! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 97 15:53:37 SET From: "J. Pharabod" Subject: Re: Wei-Jen Su wrote in his signature file! >> Nicklas' Law of Aircraft Identification: "If it's ugly, it's >>British; if it's weird, it's French; and if it's ugly and weird, it's >>Russian." >> Brian Nicklas > >By this simple law we can with no doubt conclude that: > >1)The F-22A and F-117A are DEFINITELY of Russian origin! > >Felipe Salles (Mon, 02 Jun 1997 10:14:54 -0300) Yes, the F-117A is of Russian origin... Its multi-facets shape comes from a Russian theoretical study about stealthiness. J. Pharabod ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 02 Jun 1997 12:18:57 -0400 From: "James J. Bjaloncik" Subject: Re: Vol.6, #55 - Declassified Articles To Fellow Members of the Digest: Just got the latest issue of the Digest. Would someone please explain to me what this gibberish that constituted jdonoghue's "Declassified Articles" was, and why it was allowed to take up the last 1/3 or so of the Digest? This is not the first time this sort of thing has occcurred. It certainly doesn't serve me any purpose as far as a news item would in the Digest, and is even less useful as the infamous "Numbers Stations" I've picked up on shortwave in the past (Those at least were intriguing and mldly entertaining). Am I missing something? Cordially, Jim "Keep your eyes on the skies, Put a dollar in the kitty, Don't be rude to a friend..... Time out of mind". Steely Dan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 97 9:50:52 nA From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: re: Recent articles... Glad Andreas liked the article. I didn't do the captions, just explained what the editors were seeing on the photos and graphics I supplied. In fact, I haven't even seen the final edit of the article itself, let alone the captions. I'm surprised that Andreas already got a copy, since it wasn't supposed to hit the stands until next week. But then, Andreas seems to be able to ferret out things ahead of most of the rest of us, anyway. The original article was 24,000 words in length, but the final draft I submitted was ~16,500 words when they made the decision that it wouldn't be the whole issue. A couple of notes on things in the article that may not be clear: Although the SR-71 can fly a radar and photo mission simultaneously while the U-2 can not, it can not carry all of its types of cameras while it does radar. The OBC goes in the nose, as does ASARS. If ASARS is carried, only the TEOC cameras can be carried (in the chines). Not as much oxygen prebreathing is required for the SR-71 as the U-2. One of my original sources indicated that in the unusual case of a needed (relatively) quick turnaround, the SR crew would be kept on oxygen. Other sources indicate that if the crew egressed the aircraft they probably would't be because the requirement is not that long. In fact, if the time on the ground was going to be a few hours, the crew would likely desuit. Keep in mind that a quick turnaround is not a normal mode of operation for the aircraft. A couple of potential oversights (won't know until I see the published version): It's obvious to people on this list, but may not be to the general readership that the U-2 can loiter a Lot longer than a SR-71 can, with those advantages that that implies. That's why they are complementary systems. Also, the U-2 is cleared for more different types of sensors than is the SR-71. Why the SR-71 is not cleared for more is covered in the article (no commentary from here). Art Hanley Who Knows what Evil Lurks in the Heart of this Message? Not my employers, they had nothing to do with this. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 13:49:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: Wei-Jen Su wrote in his signature file! On Mon, 2 Jun 1997, Felipe Salles wrote: > > Nicklas' Law of Aircraft Identification: "If it's ugly, it's > > British; if it's weird, it's French; and if it's ugly and weird, it's > > Russian." > > Brian Nicklas > > By this simple law we can with no doubt conclude that: > > 1)The F-22A and F-117A are DEFINITELY of Russian origin! Well... I believe Brian Nicklas wrote his law in times of WWI and WWII... when there is concern in aerodynamics of aircraft. Today's technology, you can make anything to fly... Even the Statue of Liberty as Ben Rich mention. > 2)The Sukhoi 27 (and its derivatives) should not be British, French or > Russian (American, then?!?) Copy of F-15?? huh... now we are going to have some discussion :) > > I'm currently reading Ben Rich's book and I was surprised in knowing > that Kelly Johnson was "revolted" by the prospect of Lockheed building > such an ugly plane... Thank god for Lockheed that he was retired at the > time! Remind of what Ben Rich said once... he was looking at the design of the diamond shape aircraft at the initial state of the project, and Kelly walk to him, took the design and throw on the floor yelling that this aircraft is not going to fly. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net Nicklas' Law of Aircraft Identification: "If it's ugly, it's British; if it's weird, it's French; and if it's ugly and weird, it's Russian." Brian Nicklas ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 97 14:22:14 EDT From: JOHN SZALAY Subject: RE: Sig file > Subj: Re: Wei-Jen Su wrote in his signature file! > > On Mon, 2 Jun 1997, Felipe Salles wrote: > Nicklas' Law of Aircraft Identification: "If it's ugly, it's > British; if it's weird, it's French; and if it's ugly and weird, it's > Russian." Brian Nicklas > By this simple law we can with no doubt conclude that: > > 1)The F-22A and F-117A are DEFINITELY of Russian origin! > when there is concern in aerodynamics of aircraft. Today's > technology, you can make anything to fly... Even the Statue of Liberty as > Ben Rich mention. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and remember this sig ? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | The F-4 Phantom /0\ Living proof that if you put enough \_______[|(.)|]_______/ engine on something..even a BRICK o ++ 0 ++ o could fly! W. Weasel =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- The Iron Rhino has a beautiful look about it. The F-117 has that same type of look. "Get out of my face and let me do my job!" :) John Szalay jpszalay@tacl.dnet.ge.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 2 Jun 1997 15:02:27 -0500 From: Tom Robison Subject: curiosity Idle questions that come to mind on a dreary Monday... 1) Back when the Hustler was still active, was any thought given to its possible use as a high-speed reconnaissance platform, to "fill the gap", sort of, between the U-2 and the SR-71? 2) I know one or more 58's were configured at one time to drop iron bombs...where were the bombs carried? Tom Robison tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN Home tcrobi@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Jun 1997 07:35:55 -0700 From: habu@why.net Subject: Re: Recent articles... ahanley@usace.mil wrote: > > I'm surprised that Andreas already got a copy, since it wasn't supposed to hit > the stands until next week. I picked up a copy at Borders last night - they had about ten copies on the rack. > The original article was 24,000 words in length, but the final draft I > submitted was ~16,500 words when they made the decision that it wouldn't be the > whole issue. Any chance you might post the full-length version either on a web page or possibly to individuals via e-mail? Greg Fieser "Reality is for people who can't handle simulation" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 09:09:48 -0500 From: "Centennial Library" Subject: [none] robin wynne guelph, ontario canada joe.burns@sympatico.ca I'm wondering if you have any information on the highly speculated aircraft,the Aurora. Is this real or not. Any info on the darkstar may be of use to me as I need it for a school project. Are you currently involved with the development of the x-33? your respone is greatly appreciated. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 10:50:03 -0400 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com (GREG WEIGOLD) Subject: Re[2]: Recent articles... Yeah Art! I'm sure most of the people on the list would love to read it (although not on here)!! If you'd make it available to us somehow, that would be great! Can't wait! Since most of the newstands here in Chapin have trouble carrying anything more technical (less entertainment) than Pop Sci!! AvLeak and all the others are unheard of out here. Now if you want to read about bass & catfish baits that really work...... Greg gregweigold@pmsc.com ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Recent articles... Author: habu@why.net at INTERNET Date: 6/3/97 7:35 AM ahanley@usace.mil wrote: > > I'm surprised that Andreas already got a copy, since it wasn't supposed to hit > the stands until next week. I picked up a copy at Borders last night - they had about ten copies on the rack. > The original article was 24,000 words in length, but the final draft I > submitted was ~16,500 words when they made the decision that it wouldn't be the > whole issue. Any chance you might post the full-length version either on a web page or possibly to individuals via e-mail? Greg Fieser "Reality is for people who can't handle simulation" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 10:39:25 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Recent articles... >ahanley@usace.mil wrote: >> >> I'm surprised that Andreas already got a copy, since it wasn't supposed >>to hit >> the stands until next week. > >I picked up a copy at Borders last night - they had about ten copies on >the rack. > >> The original article was 24,000 words in length, but the final draft I >> submitted was ~16,500 words when they made the decision that it wouldn't >>be the >> whole issue. > >Any chance you might post the full-length version either on a web page or >possibly >to individuals via e-mail? > > Greg Fieser > > "Reality is for people who can't handle simulation" I'd be more than happy to put it on Black Dawn as a web page. Dan http://www.macconnect.com/~quellish Black Dawn ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 13:45:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: F-22 and JSF Thanks to Wei-Jen Su for adding Bill Sweetman's F-22 article in the current Popular Science (June 1997), to my list. The "UFO Mania at ROSWELL" headline must have somehow repelled me, so I missed that one. :) Apropos F-22... Does anyone know the FY-serial of the first EMD aircraft? :) All articles that I have read, including recent Flight International, AW&ST, AirForces Monthly, and Air International magazines, have only relatively low-quality photos (or photos that don't show the tail markings), and only mention the c/n (4001), the nose art "Spirit of America" and the new popular name "Raptor", usually together with some suspected production numbers. The red "Raptor 01" and a very light grey tail number of "001" can usually be seen, but the preceeding "AF" and the Fiscal Year can only be suspected. It could be either "94-0001" or "95-0001" -- the FY-serials "89-0001", "90-0001", "91-0001", "92-0001", and "93-0001" are all F-16s -- but that is just speculation. And of course, the serials of the other EMD aircraft would be nice too. Anyone know for sure? And while we are on the topic of FY-serials, does anyone know the serials of the LMSW DarkStar HAE-UAV Tier 3- prototypes? The TRA Global Hawk HAE-UAV Tier 2+ prototype showed "95-2001" on its tail during roll-out, while another UAV (apparently a GA-ASI Predator MAE-UAV Tier 2 ?) at the GAT at Nellis AFB showed "94-0565" (thanks to Rick Anderson -- I will send you an updated list, as soon as I get to it!). That reminds me -- I finally know which designation is used by which JSF team. The JSF prototypes from the Boeing team (now with MDC) will be designated X-32A/B, while the ones from the Lockheed Martin team (now including also Northrop Grumman) will be designated X-35A/B. What about their serials? - -- 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/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 13:51:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: Mach Wei-Jen Su asked: >How a supersonic aircraft know her Mach speed? I know that they >use its pitot tube, it measure the total pressure after the shock wave >and knowing the static pressure before the shock wave you will know the >Mach number. But, how does it knows the static pressure before the shock >wave? The pitot tube pokes out in the free air stream and measures the ram-air pressure of the air ahead of the aircraft (or at the shock wave). The static pressure would be the pressure of the ambient air, behind (or inside of) the shock wave, rather than "before the shock wave". The difference of those pressures would be created solely by the movement through air, and the Mach meter would display it as fractions of the speed of sound. That would be IAS (Indicated Air Speed), but might be actually corrected for temperature and altitude pressure to TAS (True Air Speed) by some (most ?) displays. I could be dead wrong though, because I have no formal education in aerodynamics and such, and just made that up, based on some books I read. :) >Some people said that they use a diamond shape pitot tube (like >the F-117) so the shock wave is behind of it... But, I don't know. Can >someone explain me and why the F-117 pitot tube is diamond shape? The F-117A obviously doesn't fly faster than Mach 1 (at least not on purpose). The 4 diamond-shaped pitot tubes are flat and angled (like the rest of the aircraft), for RCS-control only. Each has 5 little holes on the tip, and two more further behind, which measure the pressure of the passing air. The on-board computers are able to calculate air speed, side slip, climb rate, the AOA (Angle-Of-Attack), and maybe more, based on those differential measurements from each pitot tube. Each of the four FCS (Flight Control Systems) has its own pitot tube and air data computer for quadruple redundancy. BTW, its a shame that the 1st F-117 FSD aircraft ('780'), which is displayed on a pole at Nellis AFB, NV, had its unique 5th center pitot tube removed, to look more like a production aircraft. As far as I know, that was the sole (stupid) reason for the change. - -- 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/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 14:02:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: your mail There are three questions here, which I'll try to answer. 1. The Aurora? It's either the Canadian version of the P-3C Orion or an Oldsmobile. There's no secret version. 2. The Darkstar? It's also the Tier III- and you can find some information at http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/ and on the Lockheed Martin Web site. 3. The X-33? Yes, I'm involved. No, I'm not going to go into any detail here. Again, try the Dryden web site, as well as Marshall's, http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/, and Lockheed Martin's. 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 Tue, 3 Jun 1997, Centennial Library wrote: > robin wynne > guelph, ontario > canada > joe.burns@sympatico.ca > > I'm wondering if you have any information on the highly speculated > aircraft,the Aurora. Is this real or not. Any info on the darkstar may be > of use to me as I need it for a school project. > Are you currently involved with the development of the x-33? > your respone is greatly appreciated. > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 14:14:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Gone for a bit I'm having my second round of reconstructive oral surgery tomorrow, Wednesday, and I probably won't be around on a sustained basis for at least a week. I can log on from home, but I'm not sure you-all want to hear from me when I'm goofed on painkillers. This surgery is a little sooner than originally planned, but I'm such a quick healer that I get to push the schedule up a bit. I'm so excited about getting this one done! And there's only one more to follow and it'll be easy, with no more bone transplants. As for Dryden's skunky news, we're doing a series of flights with 844 getting ready for the LASRE flights. The current plan is to fly the first LASRE flight in late August, although I'm not sure if this date refers to the first envelope expansion flight or to the first hot fire flight. However, this is the first believable flight date I've heard, whichever it's for, so I'm very optimistic. 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.... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 14:32:44 -0400 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com (GREG WEIGOLD) Subject: Re: Gone for a bit I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say, "Good luck" on your surgery tomorrow. Actually, it might be entertaining to read your posts when you're "flying without your airplane!". :-) Greg Weigold Chapin,SC gregweigold@pmsc.com ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Gone for a bit Author: Mary Shafer at INTERNET Date: 6/3/97 2:14 PM I'm having my second round of reconstructive oral surgery tomorrow, Wednesday, and I probably won't be around on a sustained basis for at least a week. I can log on from home, but I'm not sure you-all want to hear from me when I'm goofed on painkillers. This surgery is a little sooner than originally planned, but I'm such a quick healer that I get to push the schedule up a bit. I'm so excited about getting this one done! And there's only one more to follow and it'll be easy, with no more bone transplants. As for Dryden's skunky news, we're doing a series of flights with 844 getting ready for the LASRE flights. The current plan is to fly the first LASRE flight in late August, although I'm not sure if this date refers to the first envelope expansion flight or to the first hot fire flight. However, this is the first believable flight date I've heard, whichever it's for, so I'm very optimistic. 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.... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Jun 1997 15:28:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Northrop vs Northrup Peter Merlin wrote: >The mystery commuter flight may have been one of the Beechcraft 1900s >operated by EG&G Special Projects, McCarran Operations in Las Vegas. They >transport personnel to Groom Lake from Las Vegas, Palmdale, Edwards AFB, >and other locations (perhaps Northrop's facility in Hawthorne). Northrop >personnel also occaisionally use company-owned aircraft to commute to >Groom and other locations. Dan Zinngrabe confirmed that the aircraft was Northrop's Beech 1900C, c/n UC-2, registered N19NG. The origin of the flight is still not known, but is probably related to B-2 testing. Regarding the misspelling of Northrop (as Northrup) and other errors in publications, news items in the press and on the internet in general, it seems to me that those errors should be kept to a minimum, if possible. I usually don't care about orthographic and grammar errors, but facts and names should receive special care. It really annoys me to read all the time about Linda Finch's solo flight around the world, following the route of Amelia Earhart's solo flight attempt. Neither flew solo. I might be pedantic, but Northrup, Beach and Huey (instead of Hughes), are just not aircraft manufacturers to me. And when I read in dedicated aviation magazines like AW&ST the stuff quoted below, I wonder how competent the writers are in general. From AW&ST, April 14, 1997, page 54 (last paragraph): "The first IAF squadron slated to receive the new Sukhoi fighters is the 24th Hunting Hawks, which has been operating MiG-21Ms that were converted by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. in the late 1970s from the Gnat light fighter." It seems that not many Skunk Works subscribers could get a hold of Art Hanley's exquisite SR-71 article in the latest Airpower magazine yet, and don't know what I mean, but the photo captions and the Editor's Note include so many errors, that my first impression was not very positive! I often read the photo captions when browsing at the book store before I purchase a book or magazine, and those captions made a very bad impression on me. For example the following excerpt is from a caption of a photo showing a LASRE fit-check at LMSW: "These "rocket ride" flights intended to boost the Blackbird to altitude more quickly, are exclusive to NASA and aren't flown very often because they are not really needed and are also rough on the SR-71's tires." Other whoppers include: "A total of 32 SR-71s were produced, including 29 two-seat but single canopy As, two B trainers and a one-off C model hybrid, manufactured from salvaged parts." And showing fuel spills after an in-flight refuelling: "In Photo 2, what appear to be gray stain marks on wing inboard of engine nacelles are actually humid air vortices spilling off the wing from fuselage chines. Both tail fins and nacelles are canted inward to take advantage of this flow pattern." There are many other errors and the Editor's Note claims that "out-of-touch policymakers" wanted the SR-71 retired and kept from resurrection, even though the exact opposite is the truth. Claiming the SR-71 is "once again, our nation's most dependable strategic reconnaissance vehicle" drips from pseudo-patriotism, but is just not a fact. Anyway, I enjoy reading and writing about aerospace topics, but I would be ashamed, publishing those errors, which are obviously based on carelessness. - -- Andreas [preaching to the choir] - --- --- 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 V6 #56 ******************************** 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