skunk-works-digest Monday, November 24 1997 Volume 06 : Number 090 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #89 Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #89 Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #89 Pop Sci article. Re: Pop Sci article. Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #89 New Blackbird article RE: Pop Sci article. Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #89 Pop Sci. Article RE: skunk-works-digest V6 #89 Re: FAA "vision of the future" re: Active Camoflauge re: Active Camoflauge re: Active Camoflauge Myrabo's Lightcraft re: New Blackbird article (fwd) Fastmover sighting during Roving Sands 97 in New Mexico *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 15:34:09 GMT From: abeaumont@canterbury.kent.sch.uk (Adrian Beaumont) Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #89 >David wrote:- > >Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 08:40:57 -0800 (PST) >From: David Lednicer >Subject: Penkovsky > > No, "The Penkovsky Papers" were not CIA disinformation. They were >very real and have been borne out by recent revelations from the former >USSR. > > As no Westerner has ever been able to closely examine the remains >of Power's airplane, we don't know exactly what caused it to go down. >Kelly Johnson, after examining all the pictures of the wreckage theorized >that the horizontal tail on one side came off from blast damage, causing >the aircraft to nose over. The rear fuselage then broke and the wings >eventually came off. Powers decided to not use his seat and bailed out >manually. He forgot to disconnect either his oxygen hose or radio cord >and struggled with it to quite a low altitude, before it snapped. > >- ------------------------------------------------------------------- >David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics"> I do not know for sure whether or not the information given by Penkovsky was disinformation or not - but it is worth looking at the writings of Peter Wright in "Spycatcher". It is a revelation. As for no Westerner ever being able to closely examine the remains of Power' U2. I do not agree! I have seen and examined great chunks of it in the Russian Air Force Museum at Monino on the outskirts of Moscow - and at the time I was in the prescence of about 30 university students from the UK. The metal is shown off with great pride by the Museum Guides...... There are many amazing aircraft there ranging from a Tu4 Bull B29 look-alike to every bomber I have ever heard of and a few I hadn't. There are aircraft like the E266, Mig25, a Tu144 Concorde look-alike and many helicopters. Also many preserved aircraft from the 1939-45 war. If anyone ever has a chance to visit that part of the world I strongly recommend a visit! Adrian Beaumont ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 19:28:37 -0800 From: George de Peyster Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #89 With reference to: From: patrick Date: Fri, 14 Nov 1997 11:34:49 -0800 Subject: U-2 Flights >A friend was recently listening to PINION flying over Northern California. >The pilot was heard requesting a flight level change from 96,000 to 24,000 >feet. PINION is the call sign used by U2 training flights originating from >Beale. It would be EXTREMELY unusual for a pilot to announce his altitude above 60,000 ft [FL 600} to ATC. In practice, Air Route Traffic Control Centers [ARTCs] neither talk to, nor control aircraft above FL 600. Additionally, [military] aircraft normally switch off the altitude repoting feature of their [radar identifying] transponders above FL 600, if they are on at all. George ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 21:18:31 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #89 At 03:34 PM 11/19/97 GMT, you wrote: >>David wrote:- >> As no Westerner has ever been able to closely examine the remains >>of Power's airplane, we don't know exactly what caused it to go down. >>Kelly Johnson, after examining all the pictures of the wreckage theorized >>that the horizontal tail on one side came off from blast damage, causing >>the aircraft to nose over. The rear fuselage then broke and the wings >>eventually came off. Powers decided to not use his seat and bailed out >>manually. He forgot to disconnect either his oxygen hose or radio cord >>and struggled with it to quite a low altitude, before it snapped. >> - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---------------- I heard a version the other day that claimed Powers had a flame out at his normal cruise altitude and had to either go to a lower altitude to initiate a restart or ended up at a lower altitude while attemping to restart thus coming within range of the missiles. Any truth to this? patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 20:05:18 -0500 From: "Timothy F. Poole, Jr." Subject: Pop Sci article. I am late on this? Has anyone read the November issue of Pop Sci? It has an article on the new Uninhabited Combat Air vehicle programs. Interesting how they note each vehicle makes it approach to the target area inverted to avoid detection of the seams of the wheel wells, internal bays, etc. Most interesting is the following reference: "For example, an electrically charged coating reportedly under development by the Air Force at its top-secret research facility at Groom Lake in Nevada would by itself reduce the effectiveness of enemy radar by as much as 50 percent. It would also make the craft invisible to the naked eye, since the coating allows the planes' skin color to change automatically to blend in against the background environment." Could this be the "ion" technology I saw discussed here earlier instead some type of gravimetric propulsion system? And how does it change the skin color to match the background? Specifically, wouldn't the background depend on the veiwers angle of perception. For example, the aircraft is flying at 10,000 feet during at dusk (visibility is 12+ miles). The enemy pilot flying towards the aircraft sees a red or pinkish sunset behind the aircraft due to the setting sun. So the aircraft changes it skin to match the color behind it. But, the AAA operator on the ground looks up and sees the aircraft against a relatively dark sky. So using the just under the tip of the nose of the aircraft as the reference point, it needs to look pinkish red to the pilot and dark to the ground observer, right? How does it do that? Timothy Poole We Do Computers 2, Inc. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 22:50:54 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: Pop Sci article. Timothy Poole wondered about the "electrically charged coating" mentioned in the quoted Pop Sci article. This coating probably refers to the infamous USAF/DARPA Project IVY, for an LCD-like material used to cover an airframe. Besides being able to change its hue/color (see LCD computer displays), the material can also change its electric probabilities to become radar attenuating, and might even be used as conformal radio and/or radar antennas. (Some of) those qualities are sometimes also referred to as "Smart Skin". The "gravimetric propulsion system" or electrostatic drag reduction system is something entirely different. To make an aircraft 'invisible' from all directions also requires sensors to measure the ambient light at the opposite side of the airframe. Similar to the active cancellation of sound waves (and to an even higher degree of active radar wave cancellation), this would require quite some computational power. But with the current availability of relatively cheap processor speed, I wouldn't be surprised to 'see' some invisible aircraft in the very near future, pun intended. - -- 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: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 23:03:44 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #89 David wrote: >As no Westerner has ever been able to closely examine the remains >of Power's airplane, we don't know exactly what caused it to go down. >Kelly Johnson, after examining all the pictures of the wreckage theorized >that the horizontal tail on one side came off from blast damage, causing >the aircraft to nose over. The rear fuselage then broke and the wings >eventually came off. Powers decided to not use his seat and bailed out >manually. He forgot to disconnect either his oxygen hose or radio cord >and struggled with it to quite a low altitude, before it snapped. and Patrick added: >I heard a version the other day that claimed Powers had a flame out at his >normal cruise altitude and had to either go to a lower altitude to initiate >a restart or ended up at a lower altitude while attemping to restart thus >coming within range of the missiles. Any truth to this? Other versions of the story include the supersonic downwash of an unarmed Su-9, scrambled to ram the U-2 (and at least two different pilots were named in different accounts). One of the more far-fetched ones is the "sabotage" story, advocated by all sorts of conspiracy buffs, including Jim Goodall. The story he relates (as printed in the recently mentioned Area 51 book) sounds like BS to me, especially considering the 'reasons' he gives, which all sound spurious (if not plain stupid) to me. OTOH, stupidity and government/bureaucratic decisions do often go hand in hand, so everything is possible. Jim Goodall's three reasons why the USA (apparently the CIA, or someone in the higher echelons of the CIA) sabotaged their own U-2 (on Francis Gary Powers' flight on May 1, 1960), are: * to give "the Russians a false sense of security to think that they could shoot down one of our U-2s" - as a result of that, U-2s or any other manned assets were never again purposefully flown over the USSR (at least as far as publicly known); - and just two and a half years later, on October 27, 1962, the same kind of SA-2 'Guideline' was used to shoot down Major Rudolph Anderson's U-2 over Cuba -- so apparently they could reach U-2s; * to allow "them to save face in the world community" - which kinda throws me off, because I didn't know the CIA was a PR organization of the USSR; :) * to ensure "the production of the Oxcart, or the A-12", which he claims was under scrutiny by "the few Congressmen who knew about Oxcart, or the Blackbird program (and who) were saying: 'Why are we funding this program when the reconnaissance platform in current operation (the U-2) is working just fine? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'" - Lockheed received a go-ahead for the A-12 program on January 30, 1960, with an order for 12 airframes, and the GUSTO and then OXCART program (aimed at replacing the U-2) was running since 1957, so why wait with the sabotage after the A-12s were ordered? - and I doubt (but of course don't know for sure) that Congress would have stopped the CIA at that time -- even though the Bureau of the Budget's questioning of parallel CIA A-12 and USAF SR-71 operations later led to the close-down of Oxcart. Besides those 2 CIA and USAF aircraft, 5 Taiwanese/CIA U-2s were shot down over the PRC (People's Republic of China) by the same type of SA-2 SAM. The incidents occured on 9 September, 1962, 1 November, 1963, 7 July, 1964, 10 January, 1965, and finally 9 September, 1967. At least 3 pilots, including Powers, survived those shoot downs and were captured. I don't see where a conspiracy is necessary to explain anything. - -- 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: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 23:11:34 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: New Blackbird article Even though I haven't received my Aviation Week for the last couple of weeks, the new Wings of Fame, Volume 8, was in the mail yesterday. The feature story is a very nice 64 page article on the Blackbird family titled: "Lockheed A-12/YF-12/SR-71", by Paul F. Crickmore. It covers: Project GUSTO, Project OXCART (A-12/A-12B), Project TAGBOARD and SENIOR BOWL (Q-21/D-21/M-21/MD-21), the Interceptors (AF-12/YF-12A/F-12B), and of course Project SENIOR CROWN (RB-12/RS-12/R-12/B-12/B-71/SR-71A/SR-71B/ SR-71C/YF-12C/SR-71A(BT)). It outlines Testing, Operations, Missions, Support Activities, Systems, Sensors, Projects, People, Dates, Accidents, as well as some Politics regarding the planes and their service with the CIA, USAF and NASA. Even though it does not contain much new information and recounts much of the things already published in his books, it is a nice compact version with much more illustrations. It features very many photos, some are even new ones, as well as several drawings. The only thing I did not like was that many (too many) of those photos are way too small. Appended is also a brief list of Blackbird operators, units and locations, and a list of all airframes (besides the D-21s), noting first flight and disposition, as well as a (small) photo of each but one (#966/2017) aircraft. Some noteworthy tidbits include: Area 51/Groom Lake is mentioned frequently by name; SR-71 serials are given as '64-179xx' (rather than '61-79xx'); the M-21s are described as "purpose-built, modified A-12s", even though they are listed in the appendix as "A-12s converted for Project Tagboard"; I believe, a couple of rather curious sentences at the end of the article will probably annoy some readers of this list, though: "It is now known that the widely speculated 'platform', supposedly named Aurora, was nothing more than uninformed hype and fiction that had its origin in a classified budget line item, used to hide funds for the maniacally expensive B-2 programme. The proposed replacement for the SR-71 was not a 'warp speed'-capable stealth platform (many aviation journalists fail to appreciate the ramifications of supersonic or hypersonic speed when applied to a 'stealth' platform), but a subsonic, highly stealthy unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)." - -- 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: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 07:28:50 -0500 From: "Szalay, John P (GEA, 022708)" Subject: RE: Pop Sci article. >Has anyone read the November issue of Pop Sci? >It would also >make the craft invisible to the naked eye, since the coating allows the >planes' skin color to change automatically to blend in against the >background environment." Sure sounds like a "modern" version of Project Yahoudi Greatly improved, either in reality OR in imagination John Szalay john.szalay@appl.ge.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 08:36:03 -0500 From: Tom Robison Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #89 Andreas regaled us with various theories as to why the sabotage of Powers' U-2 is so much eyewash, and I agree with him completely. However, there is one other conspiracy "possibility" I've never seen addressed. Recall that Powers was shot down just days before a major summit meeting 'twixt Eisenhower and Kruschev. The Powers incident caused Eisenhower no end of embarrassment and a severe loss of face and prestige world-wide. Could it be that someone with massive connections arranged the whole thing with the express intent of embarrassing Eisenhower, and/or increasing tensions between the US and Russia? Yes, that theory is probably as ridiculous as the others, but who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Tom Robison, tcrobi@most.fw.hac.com Airborne Communications Systems, Hughes Defense Communications, 1010 Production Rd. Fort Wayne, IN 46808 (219)-429-5589 Any opinions expressed herein are mine alone, and do not reflect the views or opinions of Hughes Defense Communications, Hughes Aircraft Corp., Hughes Electronics Corp., General Motors Corp., Raytheon Corp., God, or my wife. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 97 06:37:16 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Pop Sci. Article Tim, I have not read the article, but what it sounds like (once you strip away Pop. Sci.'s usual hype), is the "smart skin" that has been under development for some time. There's a very good chance that that technology will show up on at least some of the JSF models. It's designed to move IR "hot spots" out to the extremities as well. What is hoped is that it won't turn a plane invisible, but will divert, distort and deflect signals in the visual spectrum as well making it harder to track with optical tracking weapons (such as the USN's canceled AIM-9R) as well as be more difficult to acquire visually. You could kind of think of it as an early version of the suit the alien wore in "Predator". The technology has nothing to do with propulsion. I'll try and check the article out, you've got me intrigued. You know, one thing to keep in mind is that a lot of the magazines are sure getting worked up over a technology that so far has a pretty poor record... Art ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 09:08:41 -0600 From: ben williams Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V6 #89 > Yes, that theory is probably as ridiculous as the others, but who > knows > what evil lurks in the hearts of men? > - ------------------->>>This is a good point. When discussing black projects and the happenings of Groom Lake, it's probably good to always stay suspicious. Ben Williams ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 18:49:29 -0500 (EST) From: MELUMAN@aol.com Subject: Re: FAA "vision of the future" Press release: > "...said Michael Camardo, President of Lockheed Martin Technology Services. > "The ability of the Lockheed Martin team to leverage experience on the current > NISC program will help the FAA in meeting it's vision of the future." > The winning team includes TRW; SAIC; Arthur D. Little; Information > Spectrum Inc.; LB & M Associates, Inc., a small disadvantaged business; and > Automated Information Management, Inc., a woman-owned business. Another futile (but politically correct) attempt to salvage ATC ??? Below FL 600, Even the skunk works needs a functioning traffic control system. And how about the boys with SAIC? First they get a death grip on the internet - soon they'll have ATC by the short hairs. Does this move surprise anyone? Is FAA disadvantaged? Or perhaps, functionally challenged? - ----------------------------------------------- The implied opinions above, slightly off topic, accurately reflect the views of my employer, although he declines responsibility for them. meluman ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 97 02:07:52 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: re: Active Camoflauge I don't know if this got through because I got an error message from my ISP. Can't remember the exact title of the original message - --------------------------Forwarded Message------------------------------ Tim, I have not read the article, but what it sounds like (once you strip away Pop. Sci.'s usual hype), is the "smart skin" that has been under development for some time. There's a very good chance that that technology will show up on at least some of the JSF models. It's designed to move IR "hot spots" out to the extremities as well. What is hoped is that it won't turn a plane invisible, but will divert, distort and deflect signals in the visual spectrum as well making it harder to track with optical tracking weapons (such as the USN's canceled AIM-9R) as well as be more difficult to acquire visually. You could kind of think of it as an early version of the suit the alien wore in "Predator". The technology has nothing to do with propulsion. I'll try and check the article out, you've got me intrigued. You know, one thing to keep in mind is that a lot of the magazines are sure getting worked up over a technology that so far has a pretty poor record... Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Nov 1997 22:42:58 -0800 From: patrick Subject: re: Active Camoflauge >Tim, > > I have not read the article, but what it sounds like (once you strip away >Pop. Sci.'s usual hype), is the "smart skin" that has been under development for >some time. ===================> Dean Ing wrote a book 5 years ago about a black aircraft that was capable of doing all these things. Dean writes techno-thriller's ala Tom Clancy. In the book we developed this plane at a remote desert location (ok, so that isn't the highlight of the story!) and the Russians know that it is so awesome that they must obtain it at all cost. What is interesting about Ing's writing is he is an ex CIA guy. Oh the name of the book? I will have to rely on Mr. Univac for that minor detail. Larry, what was the name of that book? patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 97 11:04:57 EST From: "Jay Waller" Subject: re: Active Camoflauge I read it too. I think the name was "The Ransom of Black Stealth One" or something like that. In the book, the plane not only had the capability of blending in with the surrounding area, but it had preset patterns as well. One of them was called "Buzzard" and made the plane look like, well, a buzzard. It could then loiter about an area at a fairly low altitude without causing too much attention. It was designed as a recon platform only with no offensive capabilities. Sounded pretty wild at the time, but now............... Jay - ------------- Original Text From: patrick , on 11/23/97 10:42 PM: To: >Tim, > > I have not read the article, but what it sounds like (once you strip away >Pop. Sci.'s usual hype), is the "smart skin" that has been under development for >some time. ===================> Dean Ing wrote a book 5 years ago about a black aircraft that was capable of doing all these things. Dean writes techno-thriller's ala Tom Clancy. In the book we developed this plane at a remote desert location (ok, so that isn't the highlight of the story!) and the Russians know that it is so awesome that they must obtain it at all cost. What is interesting about Ing's writing is he is an ex CIA guy. Oh the name of the book? I will have to rely on Mr. Univac for that minor detail. Larry, what was the name of that book? patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: 24 Nov 97 12:42:23 EST From: CULLY@svr81trw.kee.aetc.af.mil (CULLY, George Mr) Subject: Myrabo's Lightcraft For those interested, the 17 Nov 97 edition of Air Force Times (p. 40) has an article and two photos of Myrabo's Lightcraft, one of them a time-lapse of the flight. The test vehicle is 5.7" in diameter, made of polished aluminum, and weighs "about as much as 42 paperclips." The in-door free-flight on 1 Oct reached 14 feet in two seconds, with the craft revolving "several thousand" rpm, and the 10 kw laser pulsing at 10 times/sec. The experiments have been underway "since last year," and are budgeted at less than $1M. An out-door test is set for this month, and Myrabo hopes to reach an altitude of 1-1.5 kilometers within 18 months. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Nov 97 13:35:22 GMT From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: re: New Blackbird article Andreas, Why do you always get your Wings of Fame and World Airpower Journal so much sooner than I do (on the other hand, Aviation Week has been coming to me like clockwork: Nyah, nyah). Art Hanley If you think this appears to represent the views of my employers, you're wrong. Just remember, appearances can be deceiving ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 00:50:59 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: (fwd) Fastmover sighting during Roving Sands 97 in New Mexico On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 16:34:36 -0500, "Meinrad J. Eberle" wrote: [Hi George: Here's to the Fastmover report. Please be so kind as to post it to the Skunk Works Mailing List, ok? Many thanks....Meinrad] Fastmover sighting during Roving Sands 97 in New Mexico: Date: Monday, 4/21/97 Location: Roswell Industrial Air Center (RIAC), New Mexico Circumstances: Roving Sands exercice still going on, with Red Forces aircraft having returned to RIAC around 9:30 PM that night. Time of sighting: 9:51 PM. Aircraft typ: Unknown Fastmover producing long contrail, no exhaust flames of any sort visible. Object's heading: SW to NE. Object's lighting: Three lights visible, arranged in an isosceles triangle-pattern: One red beacon slowly turning in front, one yellowish light under each wingtip. Object's shape: No outline discerned. Object's speed: The Fastmover witnessed at RIAC that night was flying faster than any aircraft they had ever seen before, including several SR-71 Blackbirds that Douglass had witnessed on numerous occasions. "It was a very fast mover...not as fast as a satellite that had passed over earlier, but very fast for an aircraft. Through a night vision lens, a very hot exhaust trail could be easily seen". -Douglass Night sky: CAVU. Visibility: 100+ miles Witnesses: Steve Douglass, Terry Whittaker, Ken Hanson, Meinrad Eberle, Clay Hichens and his three Australian crewmembers of Discovery Channel's UltraScience program. Photographic evidence: Checking the scanner tapes after returning back home from Roving Sands, Steve Douglass heard a callsign he had never come across before: It sounded like ASTRID, but was garbled and could also have been ASTRA or ASTRO. Sighting report in regard of two other spyplanes that appeared just after above-mentioned Fastmover's overflight: Date: Monday, 4/21/97 Location: Roswell Industrial Air Center, New Mexico Timeframe: 10:00 - 10:10 PM. Sighting details: Shortly after 10 PM, a U-2 flying_considerably_slower than the Fastmover appears in the nightsky. Object's heading: On about the same track as the Fastmover's. Object's lighting: Arrayed similar to a "Flying Cross". Between 10:10 to 10:20 PM, just after the U-2's appearance, an SR-71 Blackbird is sighted on the same course/heading as the other two recon craft of earlier that night: It flew faster than the U-2, but_considerably_slower than the Fastmover. Witnesses of U-2 and SR-71 sighting: See Fastmover report. Photographic evidence: No still pictures of video footage taken (during all three sightings of that night, only binoculars were used). Taped evidence: Checking the scanner tapes after returning back home from Roving Sands, Douglass clearly heard the call signs PINON and ASPEN: While PINON is a standard U-2 call sign, ASPEN is [most likely] used for the "Medium Fastflyer" SR-71. Compared to the U-2 and the SR-71, the Fastmover really zipped through the sky. Of that "trio of spy colleagues", the U-2 was the one that flew the lowest that night. The other two were way up higher. None of the three was trailing a sonic boom: In an email sent to author on 11/4/97, Bill Sweetman commented on that fact as follows: "Boom energy runs out with the square of the distance (at least): Although there is no experimental data to speak of, it is said that a very high-flying object, at well over 100,000 feet, would not make a boom on the ground". Due to budget reasons, the witnesses could not afford a radar to determine the exact altitude of the trio;) [Although unconfirmed so far, the purpose of the three spyplanes being sent out that night might have been the comparison of resulting recon data sets: Which craft brings back clearer, sharper radar images, photos or infrared scans. Lots of work for some lab folks the following morning, for sure. ME] Meinrad Eberle Switzerland, 11/22/97 ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #90 ******************************** 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