From: owner-skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V6 #59 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 Monday, June 23 1997 Volume 06 : Number 059 In this issue: Recent UAV Fighter article in AWST.... re: Recent UAV Fighter article in AWST.... Re: Recent UAV Fighter article in AWST.... re: Recent UAV Fighter article in AWST.... Re: Recent UAV Fighter article in AWST.... re: Recent UAV Fighter article in AWST.... BOOM! re: Recent UAV Fighter article in AWST.... Scramjet BOOM! Re: Recent UAV Fighter article in AWST....interesting principles Re: Scramjet out of the black tier 3 page preview for skunkers Patent Re: out of the black Does List still exist Re: EMD # 1 F-22A: Numbers Re: X-38 tests Re: X-38 tests Re: X-38 tests 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: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 19:00:53 -0400 From: John Stone Subject: Recent UAV Fighter article in AWST.... Hello All, Just finally got around to reading the article in the June 21 Av Week, on Unmanned Strike Aircraft. It states that there is a 40% savings in weight over a manned aircraft. I'm assuming that some of this is systems to keep the pilot alive, oxygen, ac, etc, but does this amount to 40%? Hw much does the cockpit related components come out to(on an average!)? Art, Andreas........anyone! Best, John | / ^ \ ___|___ -(.)==<.>==(.)- --------o---((.))---o-------- SR-71 Blackbird U-2 Dragon Lady John Stone jstone@thepoint.net U-2 and SR-71 Web Page:http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 97 16:39:41 nA From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: re: Recent UAV Fighter article in AWST.... The figure of how much lighter a UCAV would be relative to a manned aircraft varies a bit depending on which source you use, but it is usually given as a significant figure. The basis for the arguement is that for every pound you add to carry or support the crew you have to add an additional 3-5 pounds to the aircraft for more structure, larger size, bigger engine, more fuel, etc. If you're willing to accept higher losses because you don't have a crew to protect, you can lighten it even more. Therefore, so the story goes, eliminating the crew makes the whole thing significantly lighter. Of course, this only applies when you're starting from scratch. Also, the larger the aircraft or payload, the less this applies because the crew portion of the aircraft becomes smaller realtive to the whole aircraft. This whole thing also doesn't address relative capability of a manned vs. unmanned vehicle. Art Hanley Although those of simple minds might want to infer otherwise, none of the above has anything to do with the views of my employers ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 10:57:29 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: Re: Recent UAV Fighter article in AWST.... At 07:00 PM 19/06/97 -0400, you wrote: >Hello All, > >Just finally got around to reading the article in the June 21 Av Week, on >Unmanned Strike Aircraft. > >It states that there is a 40% savings in weight over a manned aircraft. I'm >assuming that some of this is systems to keep the pilot alive, oxygen, ac, >etc, but does this amount to 40%? Hw much does the cockpit related >components come out to(on an average!)? > >Art, Andreas........anyone! > >Best, > >John Ah, at last, my training as an architect is of some use here! Structure would actually be a major part of it. The cockpit is basically a big open, bathtub-shaped hole in the nose of the aircraft, filled with heavy weights (ejection seat, cockpit equipment, oxygen, canopy mechanism, displays, pilot etc etc), with the mass of all of the nose avionics hanging off the front end of that. It is from the begining, therefore, a point of major structural weakness, and this can be compensated for only by the addition of more heavy structure. It also has major shock and stresses transmitted through it every time the nose wheel comes down, and it is at the extremity of the aircraft. Think of a fighter as a lever on a balance, with a weight on one end: try to balance the whole pile (usually by putting more mass at the other end), while making the structure of the lever as light as possible, and cutting gaping holes out of it. THEN put the thing through high-G manoeuvres. Try shooting holes in it also. It's amazing that the front end and back end don't go their separate ways out of fright. It would be a bit easier to concentrate the heavy masses around the centre of gravity, which would be the torsional centre and pretty close to the aerodynamic centre as well (this isn't always true with buildings, which is why some twist themselves apart in earthquakes and winds). However, with a fighter, bomber, whatever, since the fuel and weapon loads are constantly changing through a mission (declining), then to avoid serious trim problems, THEY have to be there. The engines have to move back a bit, then. They aren't so much of a problem - yes, you have to be able to take them out, but the tube-shaped structure around then is a naturally very rigid shape. It's not just the weight of the pilot and supporting gear, then; there is also a flow-on effect. It also explains why the Boeing JSF entry, which uses direct-lift and thus has to have its engine directly over the centre of gravity, is such a stocky, ugly beast. Hope that helps, --Brett (who failed his first year of structures as an undergraduate) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 11:42:14 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: re: Recent UAV Fighter article in AWST.... > This whole thing also doesn't address relative capability of a manned >vs. unmanned vehicle. Simplistic, I know, but when I think of UCAVs, I often think of the metaphor of a foxhunt - a pack of hounds to do the tracking and initial subduing of the quarry, and the human riders on the horses in overall command and giving the coupe de grace. - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 97 17:45:47 nA From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: Re: Recent UAV Fighter article in AWST.... One of the other reasons, in addition to the points that Brett made, why the Boeing JSF wins the "Fat Albert Award in Fighter Design" is Boeing's philosophy behind their design. They have stated that there intention was to produce a small aircraft, as one of the methods of reducing costs. This is one of the ways they claim that they can produce their aircraft for less. Their design is planned to have more range, yet will be small enough that the USN version will not need folding wings. To get all the stuff in and still reduce the size, it's gonna be "fatter". The Harrier also uses direct lift, yet it's quite a handsome aircraft. (It doesn't have to fold for shipboard for a different reason. The wings don't have to be sized for the low speed regime since it can count on jet lift to help support the aircraft). Art Hanley "My employer has nothing to do with this" (keeps the lawyers happy) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 97 17:48:52 nA From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: re: Recent UAV Fighter article in AWST.... Reply by : Art Hanley@IM@SPK Date : Thursday, June 19, 1997 17:48:51 Reply to : , smtp@SPKSYS12@Servers[] Reply CC : internet[] Reply: The interesting question, though, is what happens when the hounds dive into the bushes and find they've encountered an angry rhino.... Art "Where's the BIG gun?" Hanley These thoughts, such as they are, do not represent the thoughts of my employers, if in fact they choose to have any -------------------------- [Original Message] ------------------------- To : Cc : From : Brett Davidson Subject : re: Recent UAV Fighter article in AWST.... Date : Thursday, June 19, 1997 at 4:42:14 pm PDT - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This whole thing also doesn't address relative capability of a manned >vs. unmanned vehicle. Simplistic, I know, but when I think of UCAVs, I often think of the metaphor of a foxhunt - a pack of hounds to do the tracking and initial subduing of the quarry, and the human riders on the horses in overall command and giving the coupe de grace. - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 20:30:59 -0700 From: Earl Needham Subject: BOOM! Night before last, my entire house was shaken so bad I though one of my kids had fallen down the stairs. Or something! Yesterday morning, all the local news programs related that an SR-71 had flown over this area at about 35,000' and created the boom. But WHY would that plane be flying that fast so low? Or is this perhaps a cover story? Or just speculation? Earl Needham, KD5XB Clovis, NM Wood Badge at Philmont! http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/7582/ ICQ #925486 KD5XB@AMSAT.ORG Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, Pi Chi '76 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 14:25:58 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: re: Recent UAV Fighter article in AWST.... >>Simplistic, I know, but when I think of UCAVs, I often think of the metaphor >>of a foxhunt - a pack of hounds to do the tracking and initial subduing of >>the quarry, and the human riders on the horses in overall command and giving >>the coupe de grace. >> >>--Brett >The interesting question, though, is what happens when the hounds dive into the >bushes and find they've encountered an angry rhino.... > > > Art "Where's the BIG gun?" Hanley I guess it allows the hunters at least the chance to try the classic tactical responce of running away. - --Brett "Defending the frontiers with every last drop of someone else's blood" Davidson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 01:26:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Scramjet Hello Skunkers... Just want to ask you know if there is any rumors of a Scramjet black aircraft flowing around... The reason are: When Bill Sweetman was doing some speach about Aurora in the AIAA Long Island Section... most of the people are from GASL... After Bill speach, there is not so much question about the doubt that the aircraft exist as always any engineer will go for... As you know GASL is the place that invented the Scramjet by the manager of Anthony Ferri... and they are doing a lot of study in Hypersonic aircraft and right now in the Hyper-X. As AW&ST stated, the Hyper-X may evolve from some classified aircraft. Today, I was talking to one of the heads of GASL asking if some students from our school (Polytechnic U.) can visit the installantion. We state that some of us are not US Citizen, and he said: yes, we can visit the installation but only some part of it. 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: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 20:30:59 -0700 From: Earl Needham Subject: BOOM! Night before last, my entire house was shaken so bad I though one of my kids had fallen down the stairs. Or something! Yesterday morning, all the local news programs related that an SR-71 had flown over this area at about 35,000' and created the boom. But WHY would that plane be flying that fast so low? Or is this perhaps a cover story? Or just speculation? Earl Needham, KD5XB Clovis, NM Wood Badge at Philmont! http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/7582/ ICQ #925486 KD5XB@AMSAT.ORG Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, Pi Chi '76 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 11:25:52 -0700 From: larry@ichips.intel.com Subject: Re: Recent UAV Fighter article in AWST....interesting principles Art writes: >The wings don't have to be sized for the low speed regime since it can >count on jet lift to help support the aircraft). Not a bad principle to remember for a hypersonic application. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Jun 1997 12:01:11 -0700 From: larry@ichips.intel.com Subject: Re: Scramjet > Hello Skunkers... Just want to ask you know if there is any rumors >of a Scramjet black aircraft flowing around. None that I know of except for: Hyper-X (not flying yet) USAF Scramjet Missile Program French VESTA (scramjet missile) program >When Bill Sweetman was doing some speach about Aurora in the >AIAA Long Island Section... most of the people are from GASL... >As you know GASL is the place that invented the Scramjet by >the manager of Anthony Ferri... and they are doing a lot of study in >Hypersonic aircraft and right now in the Hyper-X. GASL, if I recall, is doing the scramjet design for HYPER-X. >Hyper-X may evolve from some classified aircraft. Well, not really, Hyper-X IS the winning design from McDonnell Douglas for a manned 2-place Mach 10 dual fuelled reconnaissance vehicle study that was let by NASA several years ago. The interesting thing is why McDD didn't win the HYPER-X contract. McDD was teamed with P&W for the actual design of the engines. Yes, plural. There was a turbo cycle and a dual mode scramjet cycle design in the McDD design. The turbo cycle was a classified engine called the AceTR (Air Core Enhanced TurboRamjet). The engine configuration was an over/under configuration. The AceTR was fuelled by the SAME FUEL AS THE SR-71, namely JP-7. Interestingly enough, the JP-7 was used an an endothermic in this design. This seems to imply that with an appropriate catalyst one can use JP-7 through Mach 4 +. The vehicle's flight profile was to takeoff and with with its AceTR engines, accelerate to Mach 4. Start to transition to dual mode scramjet running in ramjet mode at Mach 4. Cutover to dual mode scramjet running in ramjet mode was complete by Mach 4.5, at which point the AceTR was shutdown and the vehicle was now running on pure dual mode scramjet power, fuelled by H2. The dual mode ramjet scramjet would accelerate through ramjet mode and go into scramjet mode and eventually reach Mach 10 over target. The vehicle could proceed to a non CONUS base or hit a JP-7 equipped tanker for flight back home. Another interesting thing about the vehicle was in the actual design of the shape. The shape is not a traditional waverider shape. That shape was found to be too draggy when the dual mode scramjet was off design. In other words, since the dual mode scramjet was sized for cruise, it didn't have the thrust capability to overcome the additional drag of a waverider shape when the aircraft was off design. So the solution is to minimize the drag of the airframe when the dual mode scramjet is off design. So the very slender HYPER-X shape was chosen for a cruiser to minimize off-design drag. So, next time you look at HYPER-X, you'll appreciate it a little better! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 16:29:05 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: out of the black The patent for the Have Blue- filed in 1979, but only released/issued in 1993 http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/cgi-bin/viewpat.cmd/5250950 makes for nifty weekend reading :) Dan http://www.macconnect.com/~quellish Black Dawn ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Jun 1997 17:17:52 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: tier 3 page preview for skunkers Go to http://www.macconnect.com/~quellish/tier/tier.html For a preview of the Black dawn Tier 3 page. Black Dawn is getting a major update, again, so it may be a week or so before you can get to this page through the main site. PLEASE don't book mark this page- you'll miss out on some new stuff coming soon if you do. Thanks Dan http://www.macconnect.com/~quellish Black Dawn ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 12:32:21 +1200 (NZST) From: Kerry Ferrand Subject: Patent Just looking at the HAVE BLUE Patent that Dan found..the second design is pretty interesting..is this a close relative of the original "hopeless diamond" model that is often mentioned? Also from the text: "It will also be recognised that this vehicle may either be manned as a piloted vehicle or that the cockpit region [snip] may be eliminated or that the vertical stabilizer may be eliminated and replaced by a thrust vector control system such as used in missile and spacecrafts. In such event, the vehicle is provided with appropriate radio controls or such other system as may be necessary to achieve its guidance." Interesting that they seem to equate a tail-less configuration with unmanned. The basis for, or hints of some skunky UAV experiments that have been speculated on in the past? K ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 13:58:32 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: Re: out of the black At 04:29 PM 21/06/97 -0700, you wrote: >The patent for the Have Blue- filed in 1979, but only released/issued in 1993 >http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/cgi-bin/viewpat.cmd/5250950 >makes for nifty weekend reading :) Aha!, so that's the original source to look at! If you change the nuber suffix of that, you'll find the Boeing BETA(?) 2STO patent. http//patent...etc.../viewpat.cmd/4802639 - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 08:05:10 -0700 From: "Brent N. Kellogg" Subject: Does List still exist Is this list still viable, working etc?? - -- Brent N. Kellogg DDS, PS voice 206-742-1641 fax 206-742-5967 Bkello02@Interserv.com Bkellogg@Msn.com 74007.525@Compuserve.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 18:25:44 -0400 (EDT) From: JNiessen@aol.com Subject: Re: EMD # 1 F-22A: Numbers For anyone interested, the following are the official F-22 serial numbers: The first EMD aircraft is 95-4001; the second is 96-4002; the third and fourth aircraft will bear 97-series number; and the fifth through ninth aircraft will receive 98-series numbers. Jay Miller ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Jun 97 04:25:38 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: X-38 tests These thoughts are in regard to some postings earlier in the month that I missed and just showed up in the Digest, so please exclude their untimeliness. I wonder if the reason the X-38 will look and operate the way it does actually has little to do with its announced lifeboat mission. Here's what I mean: Back before it became apparent that NASA really had no plan for the space program after the moon landings and Nixon was going to cut it back anyway, Rockwell had done major design work on a more advanced Apollo capsule that could carry six people. This was shelved for obvious reasons. However, I'll bet all the work that was done is still available. Using the advances in materials and computer technology that have taken place since then, it's be a fairly simple matter to build this thing. THIS IS ALL YOU NEED FOR A LIFEBOAT. X-38 will probably be somewhat more effective, but not that much more so as a Lifeboat. In fact, because of its increased complexity, it could arguably be less effective in the Lifeboat role. It will certainly cost far, far more. There are two possible alternative reasons for the X-38 design, pessimistic and optimistic. The pessimistic explanation is that once again NASA is following its preference for the most advanced technology, needed or not, and the biggest program to accomplish a job. The optimistic explanation is that there are good and compelling reasons to continue work on lifting bodies, but no money to work on them per se, while there is moneyh for a lifeboat. Doing this gets the lifting body research done, and as a byproduct you get a lifeboat. Just a thought, Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 16:40:47 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: Re: X-38 tests At 04:25 AM 23/06/97 GMT, you wrote: > These thoughts are in regard to some postings earlier in the month that I >missed and just showed up in the Digest, so please exclude their untimeliness. > The pessimistic explanation is that once again NASA is following its >preference for the most advanced technology, needed or not, and the biggest >program to accomplish a job. Possibly. British Aerospace also proposed a capsule for Freedom, but that didn't eventuate, due to Britain's minimal contributions to ESA, and opposition to spending the expense of manned spaceflight - which lead to no end of trouble with Ariane 5 funding... but that's another story. If the tooling etc no longer exists, then the Apollo capsule cannot be resurrected without great expense. It's not as easy as it looks. Regarding capsules in general, the reason why Soyuz capsules are not to be used any more than is absolutely necessary is that they only fit small-toaverage people. How crowded would a 6-seat Apollo get? Also, ballistic capsules enter at very high-g - not a good idea for a lifeboat, where you might have injured people. What has decided the issue was the lifeboat function: a capsule must splash down (OK, the Russians land theirs on dry land... with a hell of a bump) near a support ship. A lifting body has greater cross-range capability and can select a wider variety of landing sites, therefore it need not linger in orbit for long. This also reduces on-board equipment costs - everthing can be designed for short, rather than long endurance in free flight. Also good for injured people who need a doctor ASAP. > The optimistic explanation is that there are good and compelling reasons to >continue work on lifting bodies, but no money to work on them per se, while there >is moneyh for a lifeboat. Doing this gets the lifting body research done, and as >a byproduct you get a lifeboat. There is VERY little money. Aerodynamically, the X-38 is a scaled-up X-23/24. Nothing new there except the use of a parafoil - and that is only new in combination. It is suggested that an upgraded version, with endurance, fancy upholstry, central locking, CD player etc etc could be developed with ESA as their microshuttle and consolation for failing to get Hermes of the ground. This would also help recoup some of the expense of the X-38, perhaps. All of this can be classified as "AFAIK," so take a few grains of salt. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 23 Jun 97 06:06:17 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: X-38 tests Brett: > > > The pessimistic explanation is that once again NASA is following its > >preference for the most advanced technology, needed or not, and the biggest > >program to accomplish a job. > > Possibly. > > British Aerospace also proposed a capsule for Freedom, but that didn't > eventuate, due to Britain's minimal contributions to ESA, and opposition to > spending the expense of manned spaceflight - which lead to no end of trouble > with Ariane 5 funding... but that's another story. > > If the tooling etc no longer exists, then the Apollo capsule cannot be > resurrected without great expense. It's not as easy as it looks. > True, it would cost a lot to resurrect the six-man Apollo, but nowhere near as much as to develop, test and operate the X-38 > Regarding capsules in general, the reason why Soyuz capsules are not to be > used any more than is absolutely necessary is that they only fit > small-toaverage people. How crowded would a 6-seat Apollo get? Also, > ballistic capsules enter at very high-g - not a good idea for a lifeboat, > where you might have injured people. > > Another factor on Soyuz is the amount of money available. Also, Soyuz was to be part of the Soviet moon mission, if I recall. Their technology is frankly rather old. A 6 seat Apollo wouldn't be all that crowded. For one thing, it was to be bigger than the 3 seat, and folks were going to have to ride it all the way to the moon. For another, in a lifeboat role you wouldn't need all the go-to-moon equipment. A capsule or a lifting body is going to experience the same g loads because they'll be entering at the same speeds. By the time the lifting body's aerodynamics are functional, maximum g should be behind you. Also, the capsule doesn't have to do the 180 degree flip that an aerodynamic vehicle might to translate from retrofire position to entry attitude. > What has decided the issue was the lifeboat function: a capsule must splash > down (OK, the Russians land theirs on dry land... with a hell of a bump) > near a support ship. A lifting body has greater cross-range capability and > can select a wider variety of landing sites, therefore it need not linger in > orbit for long. This also reduces on-board equipment costs - everthing can > be designed for short, rather than long endurance in free flight. Also good > for injured people who need a doctor ASAP. While a lifting body has greater cross range capability, you don't get to take advantage of that until you're already well into the reentry. If you're on the opposite side of the world from where you want to land when you have to exit the ISS, or too far offset, you will stay in orbit for a while in either vehicle. The lifting body really shines when you can plan your deorbit. It does indeed permit more flexibility in landing. By definition, if you have to use the lifeboat, you're not going to have that advance notice. You're talking about a situation where you have to abandon the station before a rescue ship can arrive, usually on fairly short notice. In such an unplanned case, you may have to stay in orbit for a day with either vehicle until the geometry is right. If you have to come down, Real Soon, it's a lot more complex problem to insure that the lifeboat will have all the information available to make an automated landing at any site in the world that may be selected at the time of the emergency than it is to have an automated system that insures you hit an ocean. The on station maintenance of a capsule should be easier, because it's simpler, which is what you want a lifeboat to be. This kind of makes my point. The lifting body is so dramatically better than a capsule for so many things, but one of them isn't as a lifeboat. That's why fighters and bombers use ejection seats instead of auxiliary aircraft (which was tried). > The optimistic explanation is that there are good and compelling > reasons to continue work on lifting bodies, but no money to work on them per se, > while there is money for a lifeboat. Doing this gets the lifting body research > done, and as a byproduct you get a lifeboat. > > There is VERY little money. Aerodynamically, the X-38 is a scaled-up > X-23/24. Nothing new there except the use of a parafoil - and that is only > new in combination. > They're asking X-38 to do far more than X-23/24 (automated re-entry and landing, deploy parafoil, change nav modes in flight, land at unknown site, etc.). A big Apollo is only being asked to do what it did before, in fact less because it won't be coming in at 25,000 mph from the moon. My point is that as a lifeboat alone, I don't think the development of the X-38 can be justified. In combination with another role or two, that's a different story, providing it would be reusable. > > All of this can be classified as "AFAIK," so take a few grains of salt. > > Ditto. Art "Look Out Below!" Hanley ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #59 ******************************** 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