To: skunk-works-digest@sparklist.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V6 #77 From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 11:33:49 -0500 (CDT) skunk-works-digest Monday, September 22 1997 Volume 06 : Number 077 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: F-22 First Flight Re: Discovery Channel speculation http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/LocationofU-2.html Inventory of U-2s seen at Beale Re: SR-71 Crash Re: Did somebody lean on the Discovery Channel? Re: Idle speculation about the F-117 crash in Baltimore F-22 serials (again) Some new books Military plane crashes - semi off-topic Re: Military plane crashes - semi off-topic Re[2]: Military plane crashes - semi off-topic crashes - semi off-topic Re: Military plane crashes - semi off-topic *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 8 Sep 97 10:26:58 GMT From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: Re: F-22 First Flight Tom, Your points are well made, but the F-22 situation is the tip of a new iceberg. Before, over the life of an aircraft, eventually some parts would no longer be made and we'd have to pay someone an enormous sum to do it custom or replace that subsystem with something newer. In the case of the F-22, the entire aircraft becomes a paperweight without those chips. We're not talking just subsystems, but the very things that make the F-22 the F-22. This is all flight controls, sensors, radar beam direction, engine systems, etc. There's never been a plane so computer integrated in everything as the F-22. For example, some of the production-standard systems that are critical to the one that's flying now we already have been informed by the manufacturers will not be available at the time we planned to order them for the production aircraft. Programming older chips will be a problem, and if we constantly change chips we'll have fun times then as well ("Announcing patch #6 to Service Release 4 which addressess the problems caused by installation of SR# 4 which was designed to solve the incompatiblity issues between the chips in the 2005 F-22s and the 2007 F-22s!"). We'll solve it, no doubt, but it does give one pause about "over-computerization". Art Hanley These thoughts, such as they are, do not represent the thoughts of my employers, if in fact they choose to have any ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 19:11:08 -0700 (PDT) From: "Louis K. Scheffer" Subject: Re: Discovery Channel speculation Dan Zinngrabe writes: > Lou Scheffer writes: > >>Actually, the evidence is much stronger. The track and altitude of the >>vehicle can be reconstructed from the seismometer readings. They know this >>works because they can reconstruct the shuttle speed, track, and altitude. >>When they apply the reconstruction to the unknown objects (which seem to >>travel in pairs), they find they are going Mach 2-3, at a relatively >>low altitude (20,000-40,000 feet), and coming from over the ocean and >>heading for Nevada. They also know it's not a fighter - the signature is >>of a larger vehicle, although not so large as the shuttle. >(this is something to be addressed on the Aurora website) >The "recontructed" altitude and possibly even speed readings are most >likely incorrect if the aircraft/object tracked was indeed designed to >cruise at supersonic or hypersonic speeds. [...] >The shuttle and SR-71 tend to have much "rougher" >booms of a greater magnitude and ground-level pressure than a modern >supersonic/hypersonic aircraft would- so for a given seismometer reading, >using caltech's figures, an Aurora could actually be travelling lower and >faster than previously thought. I think only the computed size of the target might be affected by the aerodynamics of the vehicle. The other terms are computed only from the propagation times of the boom in air, which is independent of the vehicle aerodynamics. Imagine a plane dragging a large cone behind it with the plane at the apex. The cone is the shock wave, and where it intersects the ground is where the boom is heard at any given instant. At that given instant, there will be some roughly hyperbola shaped path along the ground where the boom is being heard. This hyperbola moves along the path of the plane with the same speed of the plane. Los Angeles is pretty densely covered with siesmometers, so these booms can be tracked in quite a bit of detail. Then: - the speed of the plane is the speed of the boom's progress across the ground. The plane's aerodynamics have nothing to do with this. - the altitude of the plane (and a double check on the speed) are determined from the shape of the boom at any given instant of time. The opening angle of the cone is determined by the ratio of the plane speed to the speed of sound, and the radius of curvature at the leading edge is determined by the altitude. Once again these effects are independent of the plane's aerodynamics. - the size and shape of the plane is determined by the magnitude and shape of the boom at one place. This is strongly affected by the aerodynamics, and presumably a better design would lose less energy in the wake, and hence be bigger than the boom would suggest. So I think the size estimate might well be wrong, but the speed and altitude should be correct. -Lou Scheffer ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 17:03:44 -0700 From: "Michael J. Poirier" Subject: http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/LocationofU-2.html I have returned from the airshow Saturday at Beale AFB in California and wanted to share what was observed. The whole ramp area of this normally closed airbase was open to foot traffic, and the following aircraft were visible (20 SEP 1997): Tail location designator (my guess, with help from (bldg-hangar) http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/LocationofU-2.html) - ------ ------------- -------------- 80-091 1046-M U-2RT 80-078 1045-N U-2ST 68-337 1045-O U-2R (apparently not destroyed; now an 'S'?) 80-085 1044-P U-2S 68-331 1044-Q U-2S 80-064 1043-R U-2ST 80-080 1043-S U-2S 80-079 1042-T U-2S 80-065 1042-U U-2ST 80-071 static display U-2S 80-076 "fly-by" plane U-2R (now an 'S'?) 61-971 "fly-by", then static SR-71 Three of the old SR-71 hangars were open, the others were closed. Most base personnel appeared non-evasive when asked what they are now used for: storage & transient aircraft. Unfortunately, the logistics of getting tens of thousands of cars onto the base was obviously not thought out, and many people spent three to four hours driving the five miles from Marysville to Beale (I went early & it took only 90 minutes). The SR-71 did a Mach 1+ flyby at high altitude, then did about 3-4 low altitude flybys before landing, then parking on a ramp no more than twenty feet from the crowd. It very impressive to watch all of the tasks to be done immediately after a flight, including cooling the tires, immeditely lubing the engines and of course sopping up all of the dripping fuel. Some pictures I took can be found at http://members.cruzio.com/~mpoirier/jpg.index ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 17:10:06 -0700 From: "Michael J. Poirier" Subject: Inventory of U-2s seen at Beale This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------B8D23E1D732DC0D38FDFA89E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I apologize for the last message; a premature 'send' (and a lesson to not use the subject line as a clipboard!) There was one U-2 that I could not get a look at; it was parked out near the north end of the runway, far from the public areas. Could it have been standing by for an unscheduled sortie, should one have been requested during the show?? - --------------B8D23E1D732DC0D38FDFA89E Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <3425B5DF.A0C20789@cruzio.com> Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 17:03:44 -0700 From: "Michael J. Poirier" Reply-To: mpoirier@cruzio.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.01a (Macintosh; U; PPC) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Skunk Works list Subject: http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/LocationofU-2.html X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have returned from the airshow Saturday at Beale AFB in California and wanted to share what was observed. The whole ramp area of this normally closed airbase was open to foot traffic, and the following aircraft were visible (20 SEP 1997): Tail location designator (my guess, with help from (bldg-hangar) http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/LocationofU-2.html) - ------ ------------- -------------- 80-091 1046-M U-2RT 80-078 1045-N U-2ST 68-337 1045-O U-2R (apparently not destroyed; now an 'S'?) 80-085 1044-P U-2S 68-331 1044-Q U-2S 80-064 1043-R U-2ST 80-080 1043-S U-2S 80-079 1042-T U-2S 80-065 1042-U U-2ST 80-071 static display U-2S 80-076 "fly-by" plane U-2R (now an 'S'?) 61-971 "fly-by", then static SR-71 Three of the old SR-71 hangars were open, the others were closed. Most base personnel appeared non-evasive when asked what they are now used for: storage & transient aircraft. Unfortunately, the logistics of getting tens of thousands of cars onto the base was obviously not thought out, and many people spent three to four hours driving the five miles from Marysville to Beale (I went early & it took only 90 minutes). The SR-71 did a Mach 1+ flyby at high altitude, then did about 3-4 low altitude flybys before landing, then parking on a ramp no more than twenty feet from the crowd. It very impressive to watch all of the tasks to be done immediately after a flight, including cooling the tires, immeditely lubing the engines and of course sopping up all of the dripping fuel. Some pictures I took can be found at http://members.cruzio.com/~mpoirier/jpg.index - --------------B8D23E1D732DC0D38FDFA89E-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 08:47:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: SR-71 Crash I sent this on Monday, 09/15/1997, but it wasn't included in the latest digest, so here is a repost: JZ asked: >Does anyone have information about an SR-71 that crashed in a lake in >the northwest (before the plane was made public)? Supposedly the pilot >escaped in the air, and the air force subsequently recovered the plane >from the lake. The SR-71's first flight was 12/23/1964, five months after its first public announcement on 07/25/1964, which makes the story quite impossible. Also, the SR-71 has two crew members, and that would also rule out any USAF SR-71. You are probably talking about a CIA A-12, which were unacknowledged during their entire service life (and many years after that), and which are single seat planes. Five A-12 were lost: 1 off the Philippine Islands, 1 barely in Utah (somewhere in the "Great Salt Lake Desert", south of Wendover), and three at or near Area 51/Groom Lake, Nevada. If you look at John Stone's excellent Timeline (of the U-2 and Blackbird families) at the 9th SRW home page at: www.beale.af.mil/aircraft/timeline.htm or the information at his private homepage at: www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html you will find each and every A-12 (and M-21, YF-12, SR-71, etc.) listed, including every (known) accident. I don't think any Blackbird of any version crashed into a lake from which it was later recovered, but I might be wrong. Blackbird crashes were in: * California (7 + 1 (M-21) somewhere in the Pacific) * Nevada (4) * New Mexico (2) * Texas (1) * Utah (1) * South East Asia (4) Only (maybe) California, Nevada and Utah could possibly qualify as being "in the northwest", but besides "Groom Dry Lake" (Area 51), "Rogers Dry Lake" (Edwards AFB), and the "Great Salt Lake Desert" (Utah) -- which are all relatively shallow :) -- I don't think there were any other lakes involved. I would say the story is an urban legend, based on the first Blackbird crash, of A-12, Article 123, USAF Serial '60-6926', on 05/24/1963, piloted by Ken Collins. He ejected safely, and the aircraft crashed "50 miles west of the Great Salt Lake" or "10 miles south of Wendover" in Utah, near Nevada. As far as I am concerned, it is only a matter of time, until Pete Merlin will find the exact crash site. :) Or it was actually a UF* that crashed. But we don't use that word around here anymore. :) - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 08:54:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: Did somebody lean on the Discovery Channel? Louis K. Scheffer wondered: >I recently got a chance to see the Discovery Channel special on the U2 >and SR-71. At the end, they asked the usual "Is there a successor?" >question, and had a quick interview with someone at Caltech who reported >the sonic booms picked up by siesmometers. All he said was that they had >observed several sonic booms, always at the same time of day, on the same >day of the week, so they did not think it was a natural event, and that >the signature was different from the shuttle and the SR71. [...] >I would have thought the Discovery channel would be eager to play up one of >the most solid pieces of evidence that other large, unknown, supersonic >programs exist. Instead, they deliberately seemed to court ambiguity - >for example, a fighter on a schedule could reproduce the evidence as far >as the Discovery show goes. Do you suppose someone "asked" them to tone >down the evidence? The Discovery shows are most often quite ambiguous and seldom free of errors or misconceptions. But they usually have good footage, which compensates for some of these shortcomings. As far as the booms go, the Discovery Channel interview made it sound like the location and flight path of those aircraft was 'off the coast' of California, apparently parallel to the coast line, and not inland towards Nevada. The official explanation for those booms -- USN F-14s flying supersonic off the coast -- sounds so much more convincing, under those circumstances. I am not sure if we are talking about the same show, though, so don't crucify me, if I am wrong. :) Does anyone have evidence (preferably first hand) of the dates, times and locations of the seismic events, related to sonic booms and fast moving aircraft? A table of these events (with a list of sources) would make a very nice post to this list, and a great addition to any Skunk Works related web page! - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 08:55:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: Idle speculation about the F-117 crash in Baltimore Wei-Jen Su joked (I hope): >Maybe a very stupid comment... but, did the USAF consider that the >F-117 crash is not a accident?? Meaning a new type of weapon. There is a >lot of new non-lethal weapon been test, like Microwave, vortex-shock wave, >etc. Knowing that the F-117 will fly by in a airshow... easy target... Sorry, Wei-Jen Su, now we have to shoot you... - -- The MIB - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 08:58:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: F-22 serials (again) Last week's AW&ST (Vol. 147, No. 11, Sep. 15, 1997) has a special on the F-22 program and a report on the F-22's first flight. The report contains quite a few good pictures of that first flight. On a couple of those pictures, the tail number is clearly visible as "91 001", which corroborates Schulk Schulke's observation of "91 001" on the tail and "91-4001" on the data block. OTOH, according to Jim Rotramel and Jay Miller , who are both usually right in such cases, the serial number of the first EMD F-22A is '95-4001'. During the latter part of its flight test program, the second YF-22A showed the USAF serial "87 701" on its tail, but was actually assigned the serial "87-0700" (according to Jay Miller). The first YF-22A, which was displayed this year at the airshow at Nellis AFB, NV, (and which never received a USAF serial, also according to Jay Miller) was marked as "86 022", a serial actually belonging to a C-5A. Does anybody know why F-22s always seem to wear wrong serial numbers? Is this a case of deception and concealment, or just incompetence? - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 09:00:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Some new books The latest Zenith Books catalog still lists Paul F. Crickmore's newest SR-71 book "Lockheed SR-71: The Mach 3 Blackbird" with the surprisingly inaccurate caption: "Full details on the design and development features of this unique aircraft. Color photographs capture the Blackbird in action, its giant engines, airframe components and more. All the information you've been looking for since it first streaked across Soviet skies." Softbound, 8.25 inch by 9 inch, 128 pages, 120 color illustrations, price: $10.95, inventory number: 125209AE, available: 09/15/1997. They also advertise another new book, "How To Fly and Fight In the F-117 Nighthawk", by Jon Lake, published by Jane's, with the following hyped-up text: "Fly one of today's hottest planes! Take command of the most technologically advanced fighter ever created with this lavishly illustrated volume from Jane's, the world's number one authority on military aircraft. Strap in for "hands-on" training in this advanced strike aircraft. Learn how to take off and maneuver, how to recognize, evade, and attack enemy aircraft and air defenses." Softbound, 7.75 inch by 10.25 inch, 96 pages, 120 black & white and 30 color illustrations, price: $18.00, inventory number: 125796D, supposedly also available 09/15/1997, but they said "in the middle of October", instead. Another book, that they advertise as new, is the "Codeword Dictionary" by Paul Adkins. They advertise it as: "Get the inside scoop on secret government activities, which forces were involved, when they happened and much more with this complete alphabetical listing of all military and law enforcement codewords from 1904 to the present. Filled with descriptions of missions such as Operation Overlord, Torch, Magic, the Manhattan Project, Just Cause and Desert Storm, plus lesser-knowns like Accolade, Eureka, Argument, Pluto, Rainbow and others. A unique look inside "codewords"." Softbound, 7.75 inch by 10.25 inch, 96 pages, 120 black & white and 30 color illustrations, price: $18.00, inventory number: 125796D, also available: 09/15/1997. I ordered the first two books, and picked up the Codeword book some time ago. I doubt that SR-71s "streaked accross Soviet skies" and F-117s "attack enemy aircraft" (if they are not parked somewhere), but the Codeword book does not contain a "complete alphabetical listing of all military and law enforcement codewords from 1904 to the present". Actually, it doesn't even come close. I would not recommend the Codeword book at all! You won't find such important and well known codewords like "Oxcart", "Tagboard" or "Big Safari". The book contains many WWII operations and Nuclear Tests, as well as many other codewords, but the descriptions of those codewords are very brief. Most acronyms and codewords for locations are not included at all. Instead of listing "Senior Bowl", "Senior Crown", "Senior Trend", and all the other "Senior" projects, the two entries for "Senior" are: "SENIOR (U.S.) A reserved first word for the programs and projects of the U.S. Air Force. SENIOR TREND was the program that developed the F-117 Nighthawk aircraft." "SENIOR SURPRISE (US 91) The official name for the extremely long-range bombing missions aimed at Iraq using B-52 bombers based in the U.S. The air crews preferred the more colorful name SECRET SQUIRREL." The entries for 'HAVE' and 'PAVE', for example are as incomplete/incorrect and quite useless: "PAVE (U.S.) A reserved first word used to designate the programs and projects of the U.S. Air Force. These development programs often produce aircraft or other equipment that then inherit the name of the program that produced it. An example is PAVE LOW, a highly modified transport helicopter used to covertly insert special operations forces far behind enemy lines. PAVE HAWK is a similar helicopter optimized to recover downed airmen. PAVE KNIFE was an early laser target-designation device." "HAVE (U.S.) A reserved word that designates the programs and projects of the U.S. Air Force's System Command. This command is responsible for the development of many items of equipment that inevitably keep the name under which they were developed." IMHO, you can find more and better information on the internet, for free! The only connection I have to Zenith Books, is that of a customer. I give them quite a little bit of money, and they send me those nice books. :) - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 09:17:26 -0400 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com (GREG WEIGOLD) Subject: Military plane crashes - semi off-topic Anybody got any thoughts on what might be going on with all of the military plane crashes in the last week or so? Could it be that manpower cutbacks are showing up in lack of routine maintenance? Or non-skilled people doing the maint.? Or maybe low-quality fuel containing contaminants? Insufficient pilot training or lack of fully qualified pilots for routine flights? Too much time in simulators and not enough real stick time? IMHO, I would think the only thing that could be a common thread would be lack of, or improperly performed, routine maint. If there IS a common thread. Any thoughts or comments? Just to head off any flames, I know we have the best equipped and best trained air force in the world, but could the latest rounds of cutbacks have undermined that temporarliy? Greg Columbia,SC ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 10:42:13 -0500 From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: Military plane crashes - semi off-topic Greg wrote: > Anybody got any thoughts on what might be going on with all of the > military plane crashes in the last week or so? Could it be that > manpower cutbacks are showing up in lack of routine maintenance? Or > non-skilled people doing the maint.? Or maybe low-quality fuel > containing contaminants? Insufficient pilot training or lack of fully qualified pilots for routine flights? Too much time in simulators and not enough real stick time? There was a full moon last week... Tom Robison, tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com Airborne Communications Systems Hughes Defense Communications, 1010 Production Rd. Fort Wayne, IN 46808 Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone, and do not reflect the views or opinions of whoever might own me at the moment. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 11:54:00 -0400 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com (GREG WEIGOLD) Subject: Re[2]: Military plane crashes - semi off-topic Implying were-pilots ? ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Military plane crashes - semi off-topic Author: Tom Robison at INTERNET Date: 9/22/97 10:42 AM Greg wrote: > Anybody got any thoughts on what might be going on with all of the > military plane crashes in the last week or so? Could it be that > manpower cutbacks are showing up in lack of routine maintenance? Or > non-skilled people doing the maint.? Or maybe low-quality fuel > containing contaminants? Insufficient pilot training or lack of fully qualified pilots for routine flights? Too much time in simulators and not enough real stick time? There was a full moon last week... Tom Robison, tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com Airborne Communications Systems Hughes Defense Communications, 1010 Production Rd. Fort Wayne, IN 46808 Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone, and do not reflect the views or opinions of whoever might own me at the moment. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 11:28:03 -0500 From: Tom Robison Subject: crashes - semi off-topic > Implying were-pilots ? Well, some pilots are a little weird... perhaps the oxygen mask is solely to cover up the additional facial growth during full-moon periods. - ----- Heard on Discovery last week... "Never ask a man if he's a fighter pilot. If he is, he will have already told you, and if he isn't, you'll hurt his feelings." (in the interest of being politically correct, I tried to make the above statement genderless, but it just didn't translate properly. Insert She in place of He if you feel the need.) Tom Robison, tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com Airborne Communications Systems Hughes Defense Communications, 1010 Production Rd. Fort Wayne, IN 46808 Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone, and do not reflect the views or opinions of whoever might own me at the moment. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 10:33:09 -0600 From: Earl Needham Subject: Re: Military plane crashes - semi off-topic At 09:17 AM 9/22/97 -0400, GREG WEIGOLD wrote: > Just to head off any flames, I know we have the best equipped and best > trained air force in the world, but could the latest rounds of > cutbacks have undermined that temporarliy? > > Greg > Columbia,SC No. The fact is, if maintenance is not done properly, it doesn't get accepted by the inspector. We have PLENTY of those. ;-) The two crashes I immediately think of are the C-141 near the African Coast and the F-117 at Baltimore. I heard on teh news that the C-141 crashed due to a mid-air collision with another airplane, but we all know about the media in these reports. The films of the F-117 crash sure look like material failure of som etype or another. After all, the plane flew TO the airshow with no problems. Only during the air show routine did the aileron (flaperon?) come off. And it didn't come loose because it wasn't mounted properly. Witness the plume of fuel from the wing after the thing came off. It took part of the wing with it. Earl Needham, KD5XB Clovis, NM Conquistador Council, BSA ICQ #925486 mailto:KD5XB@AMSAT.ORG Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia, Pi Chi '76 Spambot Bait: root@localhost postmaster@localhost admin@localhost abuse@localhost spam@primenet.com ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #77 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "skunk-works-digest-request@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 local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to 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 viewing by a www interface located at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R. Kasica Listowner