skunk-works-digest Friday, November 7 1997 Volume 06 : Number 086 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Mig 29 Sales to USA (Off-Topic) re: Abandoned Blackbird New Sukhoi In Other News...Eurostealth re: SR-71, U-2 and replacing the SR SR-71 Retirement Ignore this test message re: SR-71, U-2 and replacing the SR Re: New Sukhoi Re: In Other News...Eurostealth re: SR-71, U-2 and replacing the SR re: SR-71, U-2 and replacing the SR re: SR-71 Retirement Pave Hawks at Area 51 re: SR-71, U-2 and replacing the SR-71 Hypersonics (fwd) SR-71 Retirement Re: Hypersonics Re: (fwd) SR-71 Retirement RE: Hypersonics Re:Blackhawk EMF problems *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 16:31:30 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Mig 29 Sales to USA (Off-Topic) Sorry about the off-topic post, but, since there is a lot of talk about Mig's flying in Groom Lake... May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net "No. I am not dead because I refuse to believe that the afterlife is run by you (Q). The universe is not so badly designed." Capt. Jean-Luc Picard (ST TNG) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- MiG sales raise $40 mln for Moldova state budget 5 November 1997 Web posted at: 17:55 CET, Paris time (16:55 GMT) CHISINAU, Moldova (Reuters) - Moldova said Wednesday its sale of 21 Russian-made MiG-29C warplanes to the United States would raise $40 million for its state coffers. "The state budget will gain $40 million from the deal," Finance Minister Valeriu Chitan told reporters in the Moldovan capital Chisinau. He declined to say whether this was the total price paid for the 21 jets. Washington announced Tuesday it had bought the advanced warplanes from Moldova and brought them to the United States to keep them away from "rogue states, including Iran." Defense Secretary William Cohen told reporters Iran had sought to obtain the modern fighters capable of launching nuclear arms from the former Soviet state which is now one of Eastern Europe's young democracies. Moldova's Defense Minister Valeriu Pasat confirmed the sale, but categorically refused to name a price for the deal. "All the MiGs are gone. Not a single plane remained in Moldova," Pasat told Reuters. Asked about the price of the deal, he said: "It is a state secret." A high-ranking member of Moldova's parliamentary committee on defense and security said, on condition of anonymity, that half the price of the deal -- $40 million -- would be paid in cash and the rest would be paid in ammunition and other equipment. After the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991 Moldova declared all Soviet arms its own property. They included 31 MiG-29 fighters of an air regiment based at Marculesti 90 miles north of Chisinau. The regiment had been stationed in Marculesti since World War II. Alexandru Gorgan, military adviser to former Moldovan President Mircea Snegur, said that in 1994 four planes had been sold to Yemen. "If we had sold the planes at the very beginning, we would have got $450-500 million," Gorgon said. Due to lack of financing the condition of the planes had deteriorated over the years and they were now "too dangerous to fly them," he said. Gorgan, who was presidential military advisor till the end of 1996, said "many foreigners, including Iranians, used to come to Moldova to negotiate the purchase of MiGs. Cohen told a Pentagon news briefing Tuesday the United States had "credible information that a number of rogue states, including Iran, are attempting to buy available high-tech equipment and weapons in the aftermath of the break-up of the Soviet Union." "These MiG aircraft were on their shopping list," he said. He praised Moldova's government for selling them to the United States and said the cash-strapped country would receive surplus U.S. military equipment and humanitarian aid funds from the United States. He said the United States would re-assemble the MiGs and test them for capability, but that the main purpose in obtaining them was to keep them away from states which might use them to threaten America and its allies. In Moscow there was no immediate comment on the possible significance of the sale of the advanced, Russian-made planes to its old Cold War adversary. "Moldova is a completely different state -- what has this deal to do with Russia?" commented one Defense Ministry press spokesman. The MiG-29 C variant can carry a weapons payload of up to 6,600 pounds, allowing the planes to launch air-to-ground missiles which could, concievably, be armed with nuclear warheads. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 19:43:02 -0800 (PST) From: Paul Suhler Subject: re: Abandoned Blackbird Art Hanley wrote: > That is actuallly the "Titanium Goose". It was a trainer built for the A-12 > program, which preceded the SR-71. It was supposed to go to a couple of > differnet museums, but the mnuseums' plans kept falling through. I'm not sure > of its current status. The student canopy from the Goose seems to have been removed and placed on article 131, which is now a gate guard at the Skunk Works. The legend on the canopy says "Kelly Johnson," which isn't quite appropriate, since he only flew in the Goose. I'd heard over a year earlier that 131 was also missing spikes, so maybe those also came off of the Goose. I met a Blackbird Airpark volunteer who was annoyed at the stripping of the Goose, since it was in good shape. The California Museum of Science and Technology, in LA, never got it together to have the Goose shipped down, so I don't know what the plan is. Paul ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 16:36:13 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: New Sukhoi >From Flight International, November 5-11. Photos of the S-27...er 37? (sorry, forgot) in flight. NOT to be confused with "Su"-series aircraft. This is heralded as a "fifth generation" fighter to follow on the Flanker family. It appears to be evolved from a high-agility demonstrator program. I can be considered a "rival" to MAPO-MiG's Article 1.42... only it has at least made it into the air. Sukhoi is trying to drum up interest among Russian top brass, but of course funding may be very hard to come by... A model was revealed some months ago and the actual aircraft resembles it very closely, with a few minor differences: It is a very large aircraft, approx 22.5 m long, with an approx 16.5 m span. It is recognisably a Sukhoi, obviously a sibling to the Flanker variants (almost the way a Mercedes always looks like a Mercedes, which is unusual for a pragmatic military design) - size, general proportioning, etc - but also very different. It's most distinctive feature is its planform - it's a forward-swept "trandem" layout. Immediately behind and below the bubble canopy are broad curved chines, almost like those on the latest Hornet; sprouting from those are trapezoidal canards, then the wing, forward-swept on comparatively high aspect ratio (for this type of aircraft) with sharply rearward-swept leading-edge root extensions. It is placed relatively far back. The tailplane is relatively small, and sharply swept back at about 70 degrees. Vertical fins are canted slightly outwards (rather than inwards, as on the model). There are two "stingers", rather than one, the right one being slightly longer. Canard, wing and tailplane are all on the same plane, as with other "trandem" designs. Unlike the Flankers, the wing is high and the inlets are large quarter-circles, rather than ramped. They are relatively far forward, under the canards. There may be supplementary intakes for takeoff on the dorsal region. As a consequence of this, it lacks the characteristic "swan" profile of the Flanker types and the MiG-29 variants. Nonetheless, it still looks quite slender, elegant even (albeit unusual). In keeping with stated Russian design philosophy, it does not appear to be heavily biased towards stealth, though it is quite curvaceous and sleek, so it probably is a reduced-signature design - the long inlet tunnels would shield the engines for example. Weapons carriage might be partially internal and it certainly must have enormous internal fuel tanks. Engines are big and thrust is probably vectored. Agility is the obvious bias. It's painted black, the radome is grey. My favorite colour is blue, a friend of mine has a cat called Sam. That's all the meaningless detail I can think of. Any comment on the design? I know that there has been some discussion here before about the virtues - or lack thereof - of canards.... Stealth versus agility? Production chances? - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 17:14:38 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: In Other News...Eurostealth Janes has a new site address, the easy to remember http://www.janes.com/ Erratum: the experimental Sukhoi is called the "S-37" after all. Janes Defence Weekly for 29 Oct reports that the Arsenal ship has been cancelled. No great loss? It was in decline anyway. Is the concept essentially worthy? In the same issue (I only read the newsbriefs couple of sentences, so most of this is from memory of earlier reports on the issue...): Dassault wants to build a stealthy strike aircraft prototype and wants British Aerospace to collaborate. This is interesting because of the complexities of British secrecy rules - a lot of British stealth tech was gained from America under the Anglo-American "special relationship" on the understanding that it is not to be shared with a third party (particularly not the French, some might say). London and Paris are said to be discussing the issue to find loopholes. Britain is currently investigating a Tornado interdictor-strike variant follow-on (which may be a UAV) called the "Future Offensive Aircraft." This will almost certainly require an international partner, and it has been suggested that a JSF variant, or even a version of the F-22 might be used. There is, however, a lot of support for a European program, with France as the obvious partner. Stealth is certainly not an American monopoly - the laws of physics are the same everywhere, and the modern originator of the scientific approach to stealth, Ufimtsev (???) is Russian (currently teaching at UCLA, I believe). Early practical work on the concept dates back to WW II and the Horten flying wings, and even earlier WW I German bombers with cellulose cladding to render them partly transparent. The company that is now called Daimler-Benz Aerospace took a stealth fighter design to the manned windtunnel model stage in the early 80s. Therein might be the way around the restrictions.... And where does the legendary "HALO" / "Silent Vulcan" fit in all this? - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Nov 97 06:36:07 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: re: SR-71, U-2 and replacing the SR Larry, All you points are well made. Speed also means respnsiveness, greater coverage (SR in 33 minutes can recon the amount of territory Global Hawk will need 33 hours to do), surprise and economy (fewer assets from farther away can do more). Global Hawk is not stealthy, BTW. Neither of the big UAVs, if they work (not a given, considering how poor our record is with UAV programs), will be able to carry the variety of sensors, and maybe not even as good a sensors as the SR or U-2. Greg, They'll get the sensors out one way or another. Remember, USAF didn't mothball the SRs before, despite Congressional orders to do so--they just parked them and ordered everyone to leave them alone to rot. The people who hate the SR are never going to acknowledge that they're needed, they'd lose face. Now the President has a lot of "Karma" invested in the veto, and unless he has a face-saving out he'll oppose any return. I doubt if you'll see a big push beyond the next few moths by proponents of the Blackbird to restore it, because even if they succeed, all he's got to do is line-item it again next year. This also makes it hard to get anyone to be willing to work on the program, becuase the risk of being unemployed come next Oct. 1 is too great. It's not that they couldn't be brought back, I just don't think there'll be another effort. My fear at this point is that USAF might order them cut up just in case (no, I have no info that that is about to happen), once NASA decides what parts of the program it wants. Art ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 08:47:33 +0000 From: 11506@aquinas.ac.uk Subject: SR-71 Retirement If memory serves right, when the SR-71 was first retired, it was seen as proof that the USAF (or whoever) had "something" to replace it. When they were reactivated, it was seen as an indication that there were problems with the replacement. Maybe the problems have been solved.................. Stephen O'Brien, Manchester, England ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 01:14:05 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Ignore this test message Ignore this test message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 01:43:16 -0800 From: patrick Subject: re: SR-71, U-2 and replacing the SR Fights on, I'm in! I think we are looking at the wrong end of the problem. We all want to see the Blackbird fly but only because we think its a neat thing. Well the CIA, the National Reconnaisance Office and the National Security Office and I presume the Defense Intelligence Agency have all turned their back on the SR-71 long ago. And these were the customers who the plane was built for. When they chose not to budget money for the SR-71 it became for all practical purposes obsolete. If Bill is happy with the info he gets from the NSA everyday and the NRO is considered to be doing a good job flying their satellites and keeping everyone informed with what they want then its over. Congress can budget money and the AF can be forced to keep the planes flight worthy but without a mission to fly for the Intelligence Agencies, what is the point? patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net patrick@zoo.e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 23:29:12 +1300 (NZDT) From: Kerry Ferrand Subject: Re: New Sukhoi try http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/5634/s-37.html for some pictures of the s-37 aka S-32 online On Thu, 6 Nov 1997, Brett Davidson wrote: > >From Flight International, November 5-11. > > Photos of the S-27...er 37? (sorry, forgot) in flight. NOT to be confused > with "Su"-series aircraft. > > This is heralded as a "fifth generation" fighter to follow on the Flanker > family. It appears to be evolved from a high-agility demonstrator program. > I can be considered a "rival" to MAPO-MiG's Article 1.42... only it has at > least made it into the air. Sukhoi is trying to drum up interest among > Russian top brass, but of course funding may be very hard to come by... > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 10:40:45 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: In Other News...Eurostealth Brett Davidson wrote: >Britain is currently investigating a Tornado interdictor-strike variant >follow-on (which may be a UAV) called the "Future Offensive Aircraft." >This will almost certainly require an international partner, and it has >been suggested that a JSF variant, or even a version of the F-22 might be >used. There is, however, a lot of support for a European program, with >France as the obvious partner. To reflect the wider the scope of the investigation, its name has been modified from the one you cite to Future Offensive Air System (FOAS) which as you say will include UCAVs. Lockheed Martin and BAe seem to be getting ever closer (JSF), so it would surprise me if they didn't get together for an FOAS proposal or two. IMHO, the problems associated with more than one partner are clearly illustrated in the EF2000, the budget for which, according to a recent article by a research associate at the Centre for Defence Studies at King's College, London has leapt from £20 billion to £42.5 billion. UK's share is an estimated £15 billion which makes EF2000 the most expensive MoD procurement programme in history. Hmmm... >And where does the legendary "HALO" / "Silent Vulcan" fit in all this? According to a report I received a while ago..accompanied by a sketch. A small(ish) triangular a/c with one vertical tail fin and a rounded nose was seen by several witnesses near a UK airbase. It was silver in colour except for dark red stripes on the wings..no it wasn't an EF2000 :) I imagine data from this programme will be included in the FOAS study. The so called, Silent Vulcan seems to have become scarcer lately, though a woman I interviewed a few months ago described a classic sighting of a large triangle than hovered and hummed. Her sighting was backed up by several other witnesses in other parts of roughly the same area, so a flight path is emerging. She saw it near the Home Secretary's home in Kent. My money's on a Special Ops / Surveillance LTA hybrid, probably of US or maybe US/UK origin. Can anyone think of any reasons not to make an airship triangular like the Aereon ? D ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Nov 97 8:39:09 GMT From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: re: SR-71, U-2 and replacing the SR Patrick, Without going into commentary here, CIA (who has repeatedly said it loves the bird), NSA and DRO are not allowed to fund the SR-71, only USAF is. Note alos, that the SR' revival involved a tactical mission, not necessarily in two of thes three organizations' roles. Another Aviation Week quote without comment: "Theater commanders have asked to use the SR-71 for real missions only to be denied by the Air Force"". Art Hanley "Boris, Is opinions above those of his employer?" "Hoo-boy, Natasha; Not even Moose and Squirrel would believe that". ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 12:41:21 -0500 From: Tom Robison Subject: re: SR-71, U-2 and replacing the SR This week's Aviation Week has an editorial denouncing the loss of the SR-71, and also denouncing the loss of airborne nuclear sampling cqapability with the retirement of the last sampling-capable WC-135. Appears to me that the Air Force wants to fly only their newest "zoomy" airplanes. Anything older than 10 years, "send it to Davis-Monthan!" Tom Robison ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 6 Nov 97 8:34:50 GMT From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: re: SR-71 Retirement Stephen, One of the reasons the SR was brought back was that apparently the replacement wasn't even close to operational when the SR was retired, and subsequently was abandoned. I fear you are giving too much credit in your reasoning for the new retirement. It's worth noting the words of the current issue of Aviation Week (note I am quoting them and not commenting from here): "And the SR-71 would keep pressure on the stumbling drone programs by providing an alternative that they have yet to meet. Perhaps this is the source of the Pentagon's ongoing hostility". Art Hanley My employers' have very definite opinions, which they'll promulgate at a moment's notice. What's written above, though has nothing to do with them. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 18:02:21 -0800 From: Lee Watters Subject: Pave Hawks at Area 51 Hi all... > The Pave Hawks have been patrolling the border of Area 51 since 1993, with > manysightings, and at least one incident of the "Hawk" actually putting its > skids down onto a large bush two people were cowering under. > The Groom Lake snoopers were shaken, but not injured. I know one of the people > personally, and it happened. It also happened to me. Girlfriend and I were on Freedom Ridge (while it was still accessible, obviously) late one afternoon. We had played cat-and-mouse with the white Jeep guys all afternoon and were heading back toward the road. As we crested the ridge, we came face to face with the sucker. At eye level. Way too close for comfort. It hung there long enough to get me back in touch with a higher spiritual power real fast. Then it blew over our heads, low enough that we could feel it, and crossed the border. Thank heavens we had the presence of mind not to stumble backwards inside the perimeter. Very effective piece of deterrent hardware. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 97 04:46:37 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: re: SR-71, U-2 and replacing the SR-71 Patrick, From here I can comment. There're actually two issues involved with the questions you raise. One is the SR's mission in the late '90s. Although it still was planned to fly some of the missions of the type it flew in its first career (N. Korea, for example), its role was also expanded to ba a tactical recon asset as well, and the Intel agencies you mentioned are not involved in that. It would be under the control of a theater commander. The problem here is that when those commanders ask for it, they can't get it because of opposition among the power brokers. Regarding the intel agencies, including NRO, right now the UAV folks are ascendant. The SR is not a UAV, so it is immediately suspect (they also don't like the U-2. Personally, I feel they are concerned because the UAVS programs may be in more trouble than we think. They feel by getting rid of the SR, they get rid of a temporary alternative and force more effort to go into their projects. If Global Hawk or Darkstar get into (more) trouble, while the SR's around there's the chance that someone might say, "Let's step back for a moment and reconsider our plans, we'll temporarily assign some more mission to the SR until we get this sorted out. Maybe we'll have to cancel something and rethink this". With no SR, the response has to be, "Well, it's this or nothing, so let's keep plugging at it". Of course, successful SR ops mean losses of face for those who opposed it, a factor not to be underestimated. There is ample precedent for this. The F-14D was abandoned and upgrades have been postponed in order to make sure there is no alternative to the F/A-18E/F. The usual reason given for the battleship's retirements is cost, but there was another factor at play: A lot of high-tech folks want to have medium range fire support done by missiles, and in many cases that's the way to go. However, for a good number of missions, the 16" rifle on the BBs can do the job better, and they're a Lot cheaper. They can reach out and touch you (with rocket assist) in excess of 62 miles, and they pack a wallop no conventional missile can match. Granted there were only 4 BBs, but how often do you have to invade someone and need fire support? The carrier and missile folks lobbied hard to get rid of the BBs because as long as they were around they were an alternative to the new programs the high-tech guys wanted. It's not coincidence that as the BBs were striken, a lot of money was spent cutting up the stored supply of barrels for the 16" guns to Insure they would never come back. When the V-22 was canceled, even Cheney's own folks and study groups he hired said he was wrong, but he wouldn't go back on his decision because of the loss of face it would entail. The V-22 wasn't reinstated until after he was no longer Secretary of Defense. My point in all this is that what happened to the SR-71 was classic Washington (or any large corporation, actually), not military necessity or economy. The user's of the SR's product were not the ones who killed it. By the way, I firmly believe that UAVs are the future for recon (although I wish we had a high speed large payload one under development), but the future isn't here yet. Art P.S. I'd love to be able to eat crow on this if there actually is a usable replacement system operating, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of such, more's the pity. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 11:36:44 +0000 From: 11506@aquinas.ac.uk Subject: Hypersonics Has anyone else seen some of the data on the planned UAV attack aircraft? I saw a report saying that they would be able to fly at Mach 15 using a new engine! The idea is for them to be able to reach anywhere in the world in 15 minutes! Stephen O'Brien, Manchester, England ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 12:01:18 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: (fwd) SR-71 Retirement Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 16:34:40 -0800 To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com From: patrick Subject: re: SR-71 Retirement Art- I have no insight to what really happened to the SR-71. Or for that matter what is happening. You say Theater Commanders ask for it but the AF officially doesn't want it. This confusion can only add to its demise. It still seems to me that the higher up the pyramid of power you go the more influence one is able to exert. Now ultimately the President can put a lot of pressure in many ways to get what he wants. It appears that he and the NSA are quite content with the information they are receiving from the NRO and the CIA. Logic tells me this is the level of power which decides whether the Blackbird flies or not. If this group feels that satellite imagery and intercepts do an adequate job then I am suggesting the plane is obsolete. Neither you, me, Larry, nor Aviation Week make decisions like those that are done when NSA briefs Clinton every morning. So unless you can convince them they need the SR-71, then discussion here is purely academic. Now to make it more interesting/confusing, the Senate last week passed a simple bill to reinstate all the cuts Clinton red lined from the 98 budget for the DoD. And we all have opinions on how aware they are of reality. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 05:16:34 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Hypersonics At 11:36 AM 11/7/97 +0000, you wrote: >Has anyone else seen some of the data on the planned UAV attack >aircraft? I saw a report saying that they would be able to fly at >Mach 15 using a new engine! The idea is for them to be able to reach >anywhere in the world in 15 minutes! >Stephen O'Brien, Manchester, England > ============================= I think you would have to double your speed to go anywhere in the world in 15 minutes. Unless you know a short cut I am unaware of. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 05:28:47 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: (fwd) SR-71 Retirement Art- Your points are well taken. Maybe the Flying Wing could be added to your list of "scrapped weaponry". Thanks for your insight. patrick patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 11:34:18 -0500 From: "Szalay, John P (GEA, 022708)" Subject: RE: Hypersonics > : Re: Hypersonics > > At 11:36 AM 11/7/97 +0000, you wrote: > >Has anyone else seen some of the data on the planned UAV attack >>aircraft? I saw a report saying that they would be able to fly at >>Mach 15 using a new engine! The idea is for them to be able to reach >>anywhere in the world in 15 minutes! >>Stephen O'Brien, Manchester, England >> >============================= >I think you would have to double your speed to go anywhere in the world >in >15 minutes. Unless you know a short cut I am unaware of. > >patrick cullumber > patrick@e-z.net IIRC: even low-earth-orbit sats have an orbit time of around 93 min. +- depending on alt. and they have a 17,000MPH +- speed. ALL depending on orbit altitude , of course.... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Nov 1997 14:10:24 -0600 From: Wayne Busse Subject: Re:Blackhawk EMF problems Lee Watters wrote: > Hi all... > > > The Pave Hawks have been patrolling the border of Area 51 since 1993, with > > manysightings, and at least one incident of the "Hawk" actually putting its > > skids down onto a large bush two people were cowering under. > > The Groom Lake snoopers were shaken, but not injured. I know one of the people > > personally, and it happened. > > As we crested the ridge, we came face to face with the sucker. At eye > level. Way too close for comfort. It hung there long enough to get me > back in touch with a higher spiritual power real fast. > > Then it blew over our heads, low enough that we could feel it, and > crossed the border. Thank heavens we had the presence of mind not to > stumble backwards inside the perimeter. > > Very effective piece of deterrent hardware. Probably good thing you weren't carrying a CB radio.Might have been considered a hostile act. Blackhawks used to fall out of the sky when exposed to radio transmissions in certain frequencies. Seems the fly-by wire systems would perform uncommanded attitude changes. Don't know if changes have been successful. Wayne ps: I know that Hawks don't have skids. Just a slip of a vietnam era vet with Hueys on the mind. - -- Wayne Busse wings@sky.net ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #86 ******************************** 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