From: owner-skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@eagle.netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V6 #64 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, July 21 1997 Volume 06 : Number 064 In this issue: Re: F-22 and JSF refueling question Re: F-22 and JSF refueling question Tell me about these skunk words!! Boom vs. Probe & Drogue Refueling F-22 and JSF refueling Re: Boom vs. Probe & Drogue Refueling subscription request AC-130U Refueling 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: Sat, 19 Jul 1997 11:24:02 -0400 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com (Greg Weigold) Subject: Re: F-22 and JSF refueling question Just the fact that everyone else uses the P&D sounds like a good enough reason to me. I wouldn't want to be the one USAF pilot who's low on fuel, near a bunch of tankers, and can't hook up to any of them!! Imagine punching out when you can see 50,000 lbs. of fuel in orbit above you, but you can't hook up to it because it isn't a USAF tanker!! God! How frustrating!! And imagine explaining to an air crew's family why their loved ones had to punch out in sight of fuel, but they couldn't hook up to it. Sometimes I really wonder about the USAF policy makers. This makes too much sense, so you know they won't go for it. Greg Columbia,SC gregweigold@pmsc.com ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: F-22 and JSF refueling question Author: betnal@ns.net at INTERNET Date: 7/19/97 2:14 AM Since the list is slow right now. I'd like to post a thought here and elsewhere for some discussion which might prove thought-provoking. We're at the start of developing two new systems (F-22 and JSF), and in the next decade there may be a few more. Do y'all think USAF should abandon their "flying boom" method of refueling and replace it with the "probe and drogue" method on the F-22, JSF and all future aircraft? From the '50s until it was disestablished, USAF was dominated by SAC and they were the one that got boom adopted (the early USAF fighters used probe and drogue). Their sole interest was in getting the fastest possible fuel flow to refuel their fleets of bombers, and since they were in the driver's seat, flying boom it became. Now, the SAC folks are gradually retiring, and by the middle of the next decade there will be less than 200 bombers left. The B-52 and B-1 could easily adapt to "P&D", and it wouldn't be hard to keep around a few "boomers" to service the B-2. Keep in mind that there already is an adapter that allows USAF booms to carry the basket, so converting most tankers wouldn't be hard. During the transition or whenever you had to refuel an aircraft that still had to have the boom, you just take the adapter off. Arguments in favor: No other air service in the world uses the boom. If a USN or any other aircraft has a fuel emergency and there's no Navy tanker around, it can plug into any tanker from any country, get a drink, and later on get yelled at for making an "unauthorized" hookup (this happened in Desert Storm). If a USAF aircraft runs low and there's no USAF tanker around, all the crew can do is punch out. You can buddy-refuel with P&D. Virtually any aircraft can be cleared to carry a pod to refuel any other aircraft. You can multiple refuel simultaneously with P&D. It's relatively easy to add P&D reception capability to existing aircraft, even if the aircraft wasn't designed for it. Witness the F-16, C-130, etc. There are no stealth penalties for P&D, as long as it is designed into the aircraft from the start (that's why I don't think you could change the B-2;, There aren't that many F-117s, and USAF's going to retire them early anyway). For example, the naval F-22, A-12, A/FX and A/F-117X would all have used probe and drogue. Also, all JSFs built for anyone but USAF will use P&D. The F-22's still early enough along that the change can get made. It's probably safer since there's no rigid boom coming close to the cockpit. You can turn virtually any large aircraft into a P&D tanker, including already built ones. It's too expensive to convert surplus a/c into "boomers". Arguments against: P&D can't transfer fuel as fast as boom. The receiving aircraft has to do somewhat more work than in booming, but the tanker gets to do less. AF pilots would have to be retrained, but they probably can handle this. It isn't a USAF idea. I'd be curious as to other folks thoughts on this for the upcoming generations of a/c. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jul 97 02:57:52 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: F-22 and JSF refueling question First off, let me thank DrBob for his detailed response, an let me assure him that I didn't consider his well thought out response as "vitriol". On the contrary, his message was Exactly the kind of discussion and help I was looking for when I asked my question. Here's some thoughts and modification based on his response: On 7/18/97 9:48PM, in message > > > > No other air service in the world uses the boom. > > ===> Not true. French C-135FRs use the boom without the BDA to refuel the > E-3F for proficiency. Iranian 707 tankers carry the boom. Israeli 707 > tankers carry the boom. Turkish KC-135Rs carry the boom. KC-135Rs destined > for Singapore carry the boom. Saudi KE-3As use the boom. > > Aircrews from dozens of other countries are proficient in boom air > refueling: Luftwaffe F-4Fs refuel from USAF KC-135Rs using the boom. RoKAF > F-4s and F-16s routinely refuel from boom-equipped KC-135Rs. Indeed, this > is all part of "interoperability" and "compatability," a critical issue > facing NATO, especially with the admission of three new countries equipped > with Soviet designs. > This is a good lesson for me in using precision in framing a topic or question. By saying "No other air service in the world uses the boom", I'w focused the question on the boom itself (which can be used for both types with an add-on kit) rather than the whole refueling system, which could be described as "Boom and Receptacle", which I'll call B&R [not the ice cream!]. What I Should have said is, "No other air service selected B&R as a prime refueling system". There are a few other services that use B&R, but they do it because they are flying USAF model aircraft and if you want to refuel them, you've got to use USAF's method. Also, as far as I know, everyone (except USAF) picks P&D on new design tactical aircraft. If you buy a KC-something for your refueler, you'll get a boom, 'cause that's how USAF wants 'em built even for export. Often when the boom itself is carried,though, P&D is still the method used. In the case of France, they acquired their KC-135s because it was the only tanker available that could carry enough fuel and cruise fast enough to work with their fleet of bombers. However, they immediately had a basket put on the boom and operated that way exclusively (all French designs are P&D) until the arrival of the E-3F. The French, like all other operators of AWACS type aircraft except USAF, had a probe put on their E-3s as a standard fit. However, the receptacle for B&R was already there. Since they can flow fuel faster with B&R, and they already had boom-equipped tankers, they figured if the mission was just to refuel E-3Fs, why not just use B&R? If the mission is to refuel tactical aircraft as well, they use the basket. I always thought the Iranian tankers were built as two-point hose and reel, I didn't realize there was a boom there as well. That would make them like the KE-3s, two P&D, one B&R. > > ===> Not entirely true. There are "hard" and "soft" baskets, and there are > some difference which make international "bagging" somewhat more complex. > > No argument. It's more complex, but possible, and greater standardization among them is definitely desirable. A USAF aircraft without a USAF tanker around, unless it's very lucky, doesn't have a refueling option, and that's my concern. > > > ===> Yes, but wave good bye to your stealth characteristics when > configured as a tanker. Moreover, the disadvantage of buddy refueling is > that an A-4 carrying a buddy pack still has the range limits of an A-4, > thus, the strike range is limited by the maximum range of the > tanker-configured aircraft. That's one reason why you'll never see a > K/A-18 Hornet! > Actually, I wasn't thinking of stealth on the tanker, which is an intriguing thought; more later. Strike range is always limited by the range of the tanker-configured aircraft, but a A-4 that takes a drink from another A-4 can go a lot farther than an A-4 that can't. One of the many unsung roles of the A-7 was as a tanker because it sipped fuel sparingly and could carry a lot of tanks. One of the ways the F/A-18E/F "Wonder Hornet" is supposed to fly some of the mission they claim it'll fly is by launching two of them, one with bombs and one just carrying fuel to transfer to the other one. Something that'll depress you DrBob (it depresses a lot of people), is that the replacement for the KA-6 is in fact the KF/A-18E/F (AAARRRGGGHHH!), which results in a substantial reduction in refueling capability for the Navy. > > ===> Usually. It depends upon the size of the receiver. Mirage IVs, for > example, until they retired recently, did NOT simultaneously refuel. You > can't simultaneously refuel C-130Js or VC-10s. Moreover, in an emergency > you CAN simultaneously refuel from a boom-equipped airplane. During the > Vietnam War a KC-135 refueled a buddy-equipped receiver which itself > refueled a probe-equipped receiver. For those that are interested, the incident the DrBob is recalling was a F-8 that was streaming fuel from a hit. He plugged into a KA-3, which kept feeding him fuel so he could stay lit 'till he got to a friendly base. The KA-3 was already beyond bingo on its own fuel (that particular plane couldn't draw on its own giveaway fuel) and was in state of fuel emergency itself. I believed it even flamed out with the F-8 still plugged in. Fortunately, the nearest tanker was a KC-135 that happened to have a basket on the boom. He picked up the KA in the descent while the F-8 was still plugged in, gave enough fuel to the KA to get it home and all three made it. > > > > It's relatively easy to add P&D reception capability to existing > > aircraft, even if the aircraft wasn't designed for it. Witness the F-16, > C-130, > > etc. > > ===> Yes, witness the Israeli F-4Es with the "bolt-on" probes. > Note that USAF bitterly opposed probe-equipping F-16s, said it would hurt performance and didn't want the a/c manufacturers to support the effort, so the Israelis went and did it on their own. > > > > There are no stealth penalties for P&D, as long as it is designed > into > > the aircraft from the start (that's why I don't think you could change the > B-2), > l > . > > ===> Provided the _tanker_ is not already stealth configured. Imagine a > KF-22 as part of a stealth SEAD package. Unless the hose and basket were > carried internally, the pod would radiate to the degree that it would > nullify the stealth capabilities. Moreover, if the hose and basket _were_ > internal, and were streamed out only during a/r, there would be a notable > radar signature associated with not only the basket (a stealth basket, > maybe?), but I would be genuinely curious to learn about the function of > stealth capability in a two-ship tight formation. Are the radar > cross-sections in that close self-defeating? > > This is a fascinating concept. I was referring to the fact that there is no stealth penalty for the receiving aircraft to use P&D vs. B&R. The tanker, though.... O.K., assuming one can think of a case where you'd need to do stealthy refueling important or common enough that it's worth the money to develop such a capability, would B&R or P&D be easier to "stealth"? I'd think it's easier to totally retract a flexible hose than a rigid boom. Any thoughts folks? > > > ===> This is generally meaningless. Since 1956, only four KC-135s have > been lost in air refueling collisions. Granted, more receivers have been > lost, some by collisions with the boom, but this is still a function of > training and proficiency than of design. In addition, the basket has a > nasty habit of causing lots of damage as it whips around, or occasionally > breaks off and gets stuck. Wasn't talking about the tanker, just remarking that a rigid boom poking the canopy would probably do more damage than a (relatively) softer basket, although those aren't puffballs. > > > > > You can turn virtually any large aircraft into a P&D tanker, > including > > already built ones. It's too expensive to convert surplus a/c into "boomers". > > ===> I doubt that very much. Ask the Israelis who converted their 707s > into boom equipped tankers and have been trying to sell them ever since. > The Israelis, bless 'em., will try anything. . Again, I should have been more precise and stated that it is "more", rather than "too" expensive. The large majority of 707 conversions are to P&D, but there are a few "boomers" to accommodate USAF model a/c. For example, the Netherlands bought two commercial DC-10s and put B&R (for their F-16s) as well as P&D on them. > > > > > > Arguments against: > > > > > > > > > I found that receiver air refueling with a boom is easier in bad weather > and turbulence than with a basket and probe. Unquestionably. > On night one of DESERT STORM, only one (1) Italian Tornado completed its air > refueling because of turbulence and bad weather. The rest aborted. In that case, the Italians, who are good pilots, were attempting to hook up from the basket and hose of a KC-10, which in the past has had a reputation for being one of the more difficult aircraft to plug into, P&D, on the centerline. The 10 makes its own turbulence. USAF has done a lot of work to improve the situation. There were plans to install a P&D pod on each wingtip, but I understand that's been slowed due to wing fatigue. As a sad and ironic note, the only Italian Tornado to make that hookup and continue on with the mission was lost. > With the boom, you have two > people working to make the connection and keep it. This is especially > important as fatigue sets in. Imagine a B-2 crew, as one did this past > week, setting a 44-hour record flight. Isn't is nice to know that the > boomer will help with that last refueling when you're pretty puckered out? > To some folks minds, flying 20+ hr flights (because of where you're going to base B-2s) is a limitation, not an asset. Like I said, there will be a need for B&R for the B-2, and a few other aircraft for their entire life. We'll have enough tankers for that easily (just take the basket off the boom). What I'm wondering, though, is should future USAF aircraft, notably F-22 and JSF be equipped for B&R? > > > > AF pilots would have to be retrained, but they probably can > handle this. > > ===> Yes, some of them would have to be retrained. That would take about > 20 minutes. Seriously, it is not a big problem. In fact, if proponents of > the basket are right, any idiot can use it. DrBob! It was a joke! Honest! Squids are always doing that! Sorta like the AF describing Navy S.O.P.: "If it moves, salute it. If it doesn't, paint it. If it's already gray, chip it". > > > It isn't a USAF idea. > > ===> You know, this is the REAL issue. The Air Force did consider probe > and drogue for the F-16 and F-15 very recently. See AW&ST 19 Sep 94, 67; > AW&ST, 6 Nov 95, 69. When the KC-10 was undergoing initial testing, the > folks at Wright-Patt and Edwards were testing a program called HOSE REEL. > They put a hose in the aft boat tail on the starboard side of NKC-135A > 55-3127, making it capable of refueling both probe-equipped and > boom-equipped receivers on the same flight. The USAF and SAC demurred on > the program as it threatened the KC-10 as cheaper and more effective. Look > at the current MPRS on the KC-135R (I think 62-3499 is the first USAF R > model so equipped, the French have been for a year or so). A great idea > and gaining in popularity, and it finally addresses the whole problem: the > need to refuel ANY kind of receiver, large or small, in any weather > conditions, at any speed. It takes TWO to be most efficient, and until the > USAF admits that we will see the same problems now as in 1949 when the > probe versus boom issue was so acute. > > The KC-10 does have both on the centerline, I thought. Anyway, this has been kinda long. I really appreciate the input and new information; I'm going to use it when I frame this issue elsewhere. I wonder how others feel: Is there any compelling reason for USAF to retain B&R on future aircraft, starting with the F-22 and JSF or UAVs, for that matter, since they'll probably be air-refueled in the future? Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 03:23:47 -0700 From: DIDDLEYB@webtv.net (JV. MORLET) Subject: Tell me about these skunk words!! I don't care what Joe Babby says, he just an idiiot. Tell me about the system...... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 15:09:52 +0000 From: Jim Rotramel Subject: Boom vs. Probe & Drogue Refueling When the F-16 was first coming on line, SAC put its foot down, telling TAC that they had to fix its external lighting because it was unsafe to refuel at night. To make a long story short, the cheapest fix was for TAC to buy the lights that now protrude from the back of the tip of the KC-135's vertical tail. These lights provide the boomer with 'moonlight' illumination whenever he wants it. In this light, I think the best thing to do is make the tankers capable of both methods. Having spent a number of years on the 'receiving end', I think most Air Force crews prefer the boom. I've watched enough movies of drogues misbehaving because of weather or pilot incompetance to be glad (usually) to have a boom. Also, don't forget that the Navy HAS to use the P&D method because no one has figured out how to put a boom-equipped aircraft on a carrier. The KC-10s already swing both ways, as they all have a drogue fitted in the fuselage. Two years ago, I saw one at an air show at NAS Norfolk fitted with two additional drogue pods outboard of the engines--I don't know if this is a standard capability, but someone is obviously addressing the issue. Also, one of our F-14 crews from Pax recently went to Wichita to test a similar system for the KC-135. This is kind of like the cockraoch-human, pc-Mac questions. Just because one kind is more numerous than the other doesn't mean its better. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 15:11:54 -0500 From: drbob@tconl.com (Robert Hopkins) Subject: F-22 and JSF refueling >What I Should have said is, "No other air service selected B&R as a prime >refueling system". >There are a few other services that use B&R, but they do it because they are >flying USAF model aircraft and if you want to refuel them, you've got to use >USAF's method. Also, as far as I know, everyone (except USAF) picks P&D >on new >design tactical aircraft. This raises one of the most important questions about air refueling: why did the Soviet Union do so very little about air refueling for so long? Yes, I know that there were tanker versions of the Badger, the Bison, and eventually a dedicated tanker (the Midas), but these were not essential to Soviet airpower doctrine. They were all probe-and-drogue, too. This is crucial to understand because the Soviets, like the Americans, needed to refuel heavy bombers en route to the United States. Why did they choose the probe and drogue? We don't know for sure. We do know that the Soviets seldom relied upon air refueling for their heavy aircraft. Was it because the probe and drogue was unsatisfactory for heavy fuel transfers? The British did incorporate probe-and-drogue refueling for their V-bombers, but these were medium bombers rather than the "heavies" like the B-52. (There was both a tanker and probe-and-drogue configured B-47, by the way, much like the V-force, which fizzled out due to lack of USAF support). > > I always thought the Iranian tankers were built as two-point hose and >reel, I >didn't realize there was a boom there as well. That would make them like the >KE-3s, two P&D, one B&R. Iranian tanker 747s were also boom equipped, but did not have wingtip pods. > >A USAF aircraft without a USAF tanker around, >unless it's very lucky, doesn't have a refueling option, and that's my concern. An excellent point, which should not find itself buried in the issue of probe-and-drogue versus boom. The ultimate issue is the boom-to-receiver ratio, or basket-to-receiver ratio. The Air Force, thanks largely to SAC's inability to get a 1 for 1 replacement for the KC-135, had to settle for the KC-10 (which was bought PRIMARILY to support MAC cargo operations and satisfy a critical U.S. cargo shortfall), and buy only 60 of these airplanes. Advocates argued that this meant that each KC-10 was equal to 2.5 KC-135s, and therefore were great "force multipliers." This was intellectual sleight of hand and deeply disingenuous. The KC-10 had only one boom, and if three empty F-15s arrived at the same time for gas, guess how many could refuel at once? Putting baskets on the wingtips helps, but you're still limited by the number of dedicated tankers on station. Sadly, the same problem arises with the KC-135R, as a 1.8 KC-135A. > Actually, I wasn't thinking of stealth on the tanker, which is an >intriguing >thought; more later. Strike range is always limited by the range of the >tanker-configured aircraft, but a A-4 that takes a drink from another A-4 >can go a >lot farther than an A-4 that can't. A good point, but take a look at Operation BLACK BUCK, the RAF effort to strike the Falklands/Malvinas with a Vulcan. It took 11 Victor tankers to get 1 Vulcan to the target, as tankers refueled each other to have the fuel for the lone bomber. If you have to fly the tanker as part of the strike package due to unavailbility of forward basing, then you simply must have a large tanker capable of carrying lots of gas instead of having a fleet of teeny airplanes to refuel each other in waves throughout the mission. >One >of the ways the F/A-18E/F "Wonder Hornet" is supposed to fly some of the >mission >they claim it'll fly is by launching two of them, one with bombs and one just >carrying fuel to transfer to the other one. Something that'll depress you >DrBob >(it depresses a lot of people), is that the replacement for the KA-6 is in >fact >the KF/A-18E/F (AAARRRGGGHHH!), which results in a substantial reduction in >refueling capability for the Navy. Yes, I am depressed. >> ===> Yes, witness the Israeli F-4Es with the "bolt-on" probes. >> > > Note that USAF bitterly opposed probe-equipping F-16s, said it would hurt >performance and didn't want the a/c manufacturers to support the effort, >so the >Israelis went and did it on their own. I haven't seen evidence that the Israelis have bolt-on probes on their F-16s. I would be happy receive any such proof. Don't forget that other countries have utilized bolt-on probes, notably Iraq and Libya with their MiG-23s and MiG-27s. Iraq has used the Mirage F.1 as a buddy tanker, especially in the anti-shipping role. > This is a fascinating concept. I was referring to the fact that >there is no >stealth penalty for the receiving aircraft to use P&D vs. B&R Perhaps some of our techno-lurkers can shed light on this: if you bolt a probe on an F-117 what happens to its RCS? My guess is the probe would have to be retractable in order to avoid defeating the aircraft's overall stealth signature. >> > AF pilots would have to be retrained, but they probably can >> handle this. >> >> ===> Yes, some of them would have to be retrained. That would take about >> 20 minutes. Seriously, it is not a big problem. In fact, if proponents of >> the basket are right, any idiot can use it. > > > DrBob! It was a joke! Honest! Squids are always doing that! Sorta >like >the AF describing Navy S.O.P.: "If it moves, salute it. If it doesn't, >paint it. >If it's already gray, chip it". Agreed, and no offense taken. My good friends in the Navy have always understood that Air Force pilots are not necessarily better, just smarter (would you trap at night on a bouncing deck? Then again, I've landed at Shemya....) :) Is there any compelling reason for USAF to retain B&R on future >aircraft, starting with the F-22 and JSF or UAVs, for that matter, since >they'll >probably be air-refueled in the future? Absolutely. In fact, it would make sense to have both the ARR (air refueling recptacle) AND a retractable probe. KC-135s and KC-10s will be around for another 20 years, and just as you correctly observe that it is stupid to omit a probe, so too would it be dumb to omit the ARR. Incidentally, the USAF initially approved the probe-and-drogue as the official system. Ordered all airplanes to be so configured. Curt LeMay, previously head of ARDC where the tests were done, said that the conversion from boom capable to strictly probe only could proceed slowly in order to keep SAC's mission unaffected by new equipment and training requirements. SAC continued to receive receiver equipped B-50s, and the rest, as they say in my profession, is history. Dr Bob ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 15:10:52 -0500 (CDT) From: drbob@creighton.edu Subject: Re: Boom vs. Probe & Drogue Refueling Jim makes several good points about the KC-10 and KC-135 with boom versus basket. I think it's fair to say that whether the receiver is stealthy or not, tankers that can provide both types of refueling are the best choice. and BOTH is a realistic option. Dr Bob ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 20 Jul 1997 22:58:05 -0100 From: "Thomas A. Medford, Jr." Subject: subscription request "subscrib skunk works" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 09:00:00 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lednicer Subject: AC-130U I thought Rockwell had the contract to create AC-130Us, not Lockheed Ontario> Also, last I knew, Lockheed Ontario is/was not part of the Skunk Works. All of the Skunk Works was at Burbank and is now at Palmdale. The boxes over the exhausts of AC-130s date back to the Vietnam war. The idea is to mix some cool freestream air with the engine exhaust before dumping it and letting the world see it. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 09:05:26 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lednicer Subject: Refueling It is interesting to note that the Israelis modified their F-4Es to be probe and drogue back when they only had p&d refuelers (KC-97s and KC-130s, c.1973), but also modified their E-2Cs to be p&d when they had boom tankers (707s, c.1986). However, they never modified their F-15s or F-16s to be p&d. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #64 ******************************** 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