skunk-works-digest Tuesday, December 9 1997 Volume 06 : Number 094 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Rolling an SR-71 (was Re: U-1) Re: Rolling an SR-71 (was Re: U-1) Re: New Scientist on Stealth Re: New Scientist on Stealth RE: Rolling an SR-71 (was Re: U-1) RE: Rolling an SR-71 (was Re: U-1) Re: Rolling an SR-71 (was Re: U-1) Re: Rolling an SR-71 (was Re: U-1) Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #93 FWD: SR-71 Info Needed Re: Rolling an SR-71 (was Re: U-1) Aurora=GR? An alternative thread Re: Rolling an SR-71 (was Re: U-1) Re; [2] Rolling and SR..... RE: skunk-works-digest V6 #93 Re: Aurora=GR? re: Re; [2] Rolling and SR..... RE: Re; [2] Rolling and SR..... Unsubscribe re: An alternative thread unsubscribe oops AF release on new B-2 FOAS Re: Aurora == Global Reach (GR)? *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 19:51:35 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: Re: Rolling an SR-71 (was Re: U-1) > >As to consequences to the aircraft, if you look over the the operating >limitations section of the dash-1, Paul: What is and where can I get the "dash-1"?? George ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 414 541 8579 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 800 816 2568 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com West Allis, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:10:03 -0800 From: "Winston Rogers" Subject: Re: Rolling an SR-71 (was Re: U-1) I have seen an SR-71 snap a 90 degree turn in a closed pattern. There is no reason why it would not roll. It is fact that almost any fixed wing aircraft will roll if positive Gs are mostly maintained. By mostly, I mean they may need positive Gs after a few seconds of negative Gs to restore oil, fuel and other pressures. Surely any high performance aircraft like the SR-71 will roll. Wisnton Rogers - ---------------------------------------- WinLyn@GetOnThe.Net http://web.getonthe.net/~WinLyn ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 12:23:29 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: Re: New Scientist on Stealth At 11:28 4/12/97 GMT, you wrote: >On Thu, 04 Dec 1997 18:16:01 +1200, you wrote: > >> >>The vanishing point >> >> >Brett: > >FYI, posting an entire article from a magazine is most likely a >copyright violation. In the future please refrain from doing this. >Portions are generally OK however. > Oops - you're probably right. I guessed that since it was displayed in full on the New Scientist website that it might therefore be in the public domain. - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 11:22:36 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: Re: New Scientist on Stealth >>FYI, posting an entire article from a magazine is most likely a >>copyright violation. In the future please refrain from doing this. >>Portions are generally OK however. >> > >Oops - you're probably right. I guessed that since it was displayed in full >on the New Scientist website that it might therefore be in the public domain. > >--Brett > No big deal, I just don't want some sue happy lawyer to come after you, me or this list for foolishness or to make a name for themselves. I'm a little more nervous than most of the time since there was just a local case over web "reposting" here...the reposter lost if you couldn't guess. I did enjoy the article though, thanks. George ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 414 541 8579 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 800 816 2568 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com West Allis, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 10:40:50 -0000 From: Gavin Payne Subject: RE: Rolling an SR-71 (was Re: U-1) As far as I can imagine, doing anything other than simple smooth turns at Mach 3 would cause extreme stress to the airframe. However with a titanium structure that gets stronger the more it is used, I can't see why an SR-71 wouldn't be able to do a few tight turns at an airshow, after all a B-52 can. Not that I know anything about what I'm talking about, but someone might understand me :) Gavin Payne - ---------- From: Winston Rogers[SMTP:winlyn@getonthe.net] Reply To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sent: 04 December 1997 23:10 To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: Rolling an SR-71 (was Re: U-1) I have seen an SR-71 snap a 90 degree turn in a closed pattern. There is no reason why it would not roll. It is fact that almost any fixed wing aircraft will roll if positive Gs are mostly maintained. By mostly, I mean they may need positive Gs after a few seconds of negative Gs to restore oil, fuel and other pressures. Surely any high performance aircraft like the SR-71 will roll. Wisnton Rogers - ---------------------------------------- WinLyn@GetOnThe.Net http://web.getonthe.net/~WinLyn ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 05:08:43 -0800 From: patrick Subject: RE: Rolling an SR-71 (was Re: U-1) >I have seen an SR-71 snap a 90 degree turn in a closed pattern. There is no >reason why it would not roll. It is fact that almost any fixed wing >aircraft will roll if positive Gs are mostly maintained. By mostly, I mean >they may need positive Gs after a few seconds of negative Gs to restore >oil, fuel and other pressures. Surely any high performance aircraft like >the SR-71 will roll. > >Wisnton Rogers >---------------------------------------- If you can slow roll a 707 you can slow roll an SR-71. Tex Johnson claims the plane is ignorant of the manoever while it is being performed. He put the Dash 80 into a shallow dive and then pulled it up and around always maintaining a steady 1 G rate on the aircraft. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Dec 97 09:00:06 EST From: keller@eos.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Rolling an SR-71 (was Re: U-1) Winston Rogers wrote: >I have seen an SR-71 snap a 90 degree turn in a closed pattern. There is no >reason why it would not roll. It is fact that almost any fixed wing >aircraft will roll if positive Gs are mostly maintained. By mostly, I mean >they may need positive Gs after a few seconds of negative Gs to restore >oil, fuel and other pressures. Surely any high performance aircraft like >the SR-71 will roll. I'm a bit skeptical of this. Given this discussion, I now have the dash-1 in front of me. The angle of attach limits are: 6 degrees with manual inlet above FL 750 (70,000 ft) 8 degrees supersonic 10 degrees subsonic, above FL 250 14 degrees subsonic below FL 250 Keep in mind that as a highly swept delta winged planform, The Old Sled probably has the L/D of a manhole cover. The best load factor limits are -0.2 to 3.5 g's below Mach 2.0 and FL 500 at between 80,000 and 90,000 lbs gross weight. Pretty much -0.2 to 2.5 g's most everywhere else below Mach 2.0. This more restrictive than a commercial airliner, isn't it? I thought those went to four g's. I wasn't able to find anything on whether the SR-71 has an inverted fuel system. Finally, the exact wording of the prohibition on aerobatics: Prohibited Maneuvers: Stalls, spins, inverted flight and intentional inlet unstarts are prohibited. George Kasica asked: >What is and where can I get the "dash-1"?? To be precise, it's Air Force Technical Order SR-71A-1, thus the name "dash-1." It's the (mostly) now-declassified Pilot's Manual for the SR-71. As I understand it, the declassified, commercially published version is without some sections on the electronic countermeasures and recon systems, as some of those systems are still in the active Air Force inventory. The dash-1 itself is about two inches thick of heavy technical reading on every bit detailed minutiae you'd care to know about the SR-71. I got my copy from Zenith Books. The pricetag is US $99.00, which, as Mary Shafer correctly pointed out, is a bit of a ripoff, even at the size of the thing, since, as a commercially reproduced reprint of a now out of print government document, it's now publicly copywrited, and the printing cost is probably not more than thirty or fourty dollars. I don't know if Zenith Books is still selling it, and I don't have any phone # or addresses (Web or otherwise) for Zenith handy. Maybe Andreas or someone else can provide it. The ISBN# is 0-87938-658-4. I just pulled it up on Amazon Books web site (www.amazon.com, a good place to buy books, IMHO), and they say it's out of print, but might be able to get a copy in one to three months. - --Paul ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 09:24:55 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: Rolling an SR-71 (was Re: U-1) On Fri, 5 Dec 1997 keller@eos.ncsu.edu wrote: > >What is and where can I get the "dash-1"?? > > about the SR-71. I got my copy from Zenith Books. The pricetag is US > $99.00, which, as Mary Shafer correctly pointed out, is a bit of a > ripoff, even at the size of the thing, since, as a commercially > reproduced reprint of a now out of print government document, it's now > publicly copywrited, and the printing cost is probably not more than > thirty or fourty dollars. I don't know if Zenith Books is still > selling it, and I don't have any phone # or addresses (Web or > otherwise) for Zenith handy. Maybe Andreas or someone else can > provide it. The ISBN# is 0-87938-658-4. I just pulled it up on > Amazon Books web site (www.amazon.com, a good place to buy books, > IMHO), and they say it's out of print, but might be able to get a copy > in one to three months. Try the National Air and Space Museum bookstore in Washington D.C. if you can't find a copy of the book. I got it from them. Just check their webpage for the phone number. 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) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 17:07:49 +1100 From: "Andrew See" Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #93 > strangely angled facets, says Spilman, who is well versed > black art. Earlier this year, Vosper Thorneycroft unveiled= > Sea Wraith II, a stealth ship designed by a team under Spilman.= At the risk of venturing a little off topic, does anyone know what the purpose of the Sea Wraiths are? What type of role has it been designed for? I would have thought that if they needed a stealth ship, a submarine would fit the bill. Oh, and is it armed? If so, with what? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 18:14:04 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: FWD: SR-71 Info Needed >From: Airborn102 >Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 19:43:36 EST > >Also, I am doing a term paper on the SR-71 and the effects the cold war had on >its development. I would appreciate any information you could send me or if >not send, at least tell me where some information can be obtained. thank you, >Dan Ryan ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 414 541 8579 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 800 816 2568 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com West Allis, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Dec 97 16:14:15 GMT From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: Re: Rolling an SR-71 (was Re: U-1) While it might be theoretically posible to roll an SR-71 if you could keep positive g on all the time, why would you ever want to? This is a plane designed to go very high, very fast, and the systems really aren't designed for aerobatics. Why risk it? Regarding the $99.00 price of the Dash-1, 3 times isn't that much of a markup for a limited interest item. Consider the cost you pay to buy a CD of a popular musical artist, relative what it cost to actually make that disk. Art Hanley Once again, do not make the mistake of believing that whatever I droned on about above has anything to do with I am authorized to drone on about. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 07:47:23 -0700 From: "Michael J. Poirier" Subject: Aurora=GR? I haven't seen this conclusion drawn, but it seemed possible. Could Aurora actually be the subscale version that was to have been tested for GLOBAl REACH ?? I'd like to know if there is some detail I'm missing that might disprove this. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 11:59:08 -0500 From: Ron and Louise Crawford Subject: An alternative thread Inasmuch as the SR-71 discussion seems to be er....uh..on a roll, I would like to post a somewhat different query. Can anyone suggest some references on the limitations of air- and space-borne recce systems? Background on the question. The underlying issue is the extent an erstwhile or active adversary could mass and move assets with relative impunity from detection. A lot of variables involved there, but I believe we need such a discussion to understand the applications of emerging systems in their proper perspective. This becomes a more important question in a world where the critical targets probably won't be the deployments of mech army corps or activity around strategic naval, air, and missile bases. Historically, we have had ample evidence that battalion and smaller gound force formations are relatively easy to move and concentrate without detection. The same appears true for weapons such as mobile artillery and missile units. Most of the published discussions appear to focus on a limited set of issues - how rapidly and safely we can get sensors or people to a particular site, what resolving power we can apply, and how continuously we can maintain the oversight. How much is our theoretical capacity tempered by limited resources, large areas to be monitored, dispersion, active and passive countermeasures, ambiguity of the infomation we obtain, weather, terrain, unrelated human activity, speed of movement, and so on? And what does that add up to in terms of how systems can and should be used? And where they may not work or actually lead us astray? Anyone interested in batting this one around? Ron Crawford ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 09:22:43 +0200 From: John Stone Subject: Re: Rolling an SR-71 (was Re: U-1) Paul and all, Paul Keller wrote: >To be precise, it's Air Force Technical Order SR-71A-1, thus the name >"dash-1." It's the (mostly) now-declassified Pilot's Manual for the >SR-71. As I understand it, the declassified, commercially published >version is without some sections on the electronic countermeasures and >recon systems, as some of those systems are still in the active Air >Force inventory. The dash-1 itself is about two inches thick of heavy >technical reading on every bit detailed minutiae you'd care to know >about the SR-71. I got my copy from Zenith Books. The pricetag is US >$99.00, which, as Mary Shafer correctly pointed out, is a bit of a >ripoff, even at the size of the thing, since, as a commercially >reproduced reprint of a now out of print government document, it's now >publicly copywrited, and the printing cost is probably not more than >thirty or fourty dollars. I don't know if Zenith Books is still >selling it, and I don't have any phone # or addresses (Web or >otherwise) for Zenith handy. Maybe Andreas or someone else can >provide it. The ISBN# is 0-87938-658-4. I just pulled it up on >Amazon Books web site (www.amazon.com, a good place to buy books, >IMHO), and they say it's out of print, but might be able to get a copy >in one to three months. I heard that the price barely covered the printing costs, which is kinda hard to believe! Also there was a rumor going around that they might reprint it. But f there not making money on it, why? Best, John John Stone jstone@thepoint.net U-2 and SR-71 Web page: http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 08:26:28 +0200 From: John Stone Subject: Re; [2] Rolling and SR..... Hello all again, Just got the latest Wings of Fame (Vol. 8) and on page 83, in the midst of the very nice article by Paul Crickmore on the A-12 family. There is an interesting paragraph...... "The run ended in noatably depleted fuel state. Ted urgently contacted the tankers which were orbiting near the island of Crete and asked that they head east to meet the thirsty "Habu". As BOYCE 64 descended, "Stormy" caught sight of the tankers 30,000 ft (9145m) below and executed what he described loosely as "an extremely large variation of a barrel roll" and slid in behind the tankers "in no time flat"." So the SR can do what is loosely described as a "extremely large barrel roll"....... BTW, it's a very nice article with a few new pictures, but no new info at least as I can see. There is one small mistake which states that #961 is already in Chicago for the museum there but as we all know it's at the Kansas Cosmosphere Museum! Best, John John Stone jstone@thepoint.net U-2 and SR-71 Web page: http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 09:49:25 -0500 From: "Szalay, John P (GEA, 022708)" Subject: RE: skunk-works-digest V6 #93 > > strangely angled facets, says Spilman, who is well versed > > black art. Earlier this year, Vosper Thorneycroft unveiled > > Sea Wraith II, a stealth ship designed by a team under Spilman > > >At the risk of venturing a little off topic, does anyone know > what the purpose of the Sea Wraiths are? > > What type of role has it been designed for? I would have thought > that if they needed a stealth ship, a submarine would fit the bill. > > Oh, and is it armed? If so, with what? According to the website http://defence-data.com/mbaee/pagen8.htm " Sea Wraith II can accommodate an EH101 or equivalent helicopter and carries more powerful armament. The ship has double the surface-to-air missile capability of its smaller sister, Sea Wraith I, with 32 missiles in two dispersed sites. The addition of a 127mm gun mounting on the foredeck provides conventional NGS in addition to the 160mm artillery rocket shore bombardment and Millennium air defence weapons. " ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 09:51:38 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Aurora=GR? Michael J. Poirier wrote: > > I haven't seen this conclusion drawn, but it seemed possible. Could Aurora > actually be the subscale version that was to have been tested for GLOBAl REACH > ?? I'd like to know if there is some detail I'm missing that might disprove this. Well, if you go by the sightings, Aurora/pulser/whatever is approximately 110 feet in length, which is a little large for a subscale demonstrator. Nonetheless, it's highly likely that the two progrmas (aurora and GR) were closely linked, and probably managed through the same office. Dan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Dec 97 11:12:55 GMT From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: re: Re; [2] Rolling and SR..... Note that in John's descritpion of BOYCE 64's flight, the center of rotation would probably be outside the aircraft (i.e. rolling about a point while in descent), as opposed to the classic roll about the aircraft's own axis. This maneuver would insure positive g at all times. Art Hanley An opinion by any other name would still not reflect those of my employers ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 14:37:36 -0500 From: "Szalay, John P (GEA, 022708)" Subject: RE: Re; [2] Rolling and SR..... > , > >Note that in John's descritpion of BOYCE 64's flight, the center of >rotation would probably be outside the aircraft (i.e. rolling about a >point while in descent), as opposed to the classic roll about the >aircraft's own axis. This >maneuver would insure positive g at all times. Much the same as Tex's roll with the prototype airliner. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 16:56:36 -0500 From: "C. W. Clark" Subject: Unsubscribe unsubscribe ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Dec 97 15:02:06 GMT From: ahanley@usace.mil Subject: re: An alternative thread Ron, I can give you some input to your question. Based on what unclassified information is known from historical experience watching the former Soviet Union, I believe you'll find that although satellites did many wonderful tings, they never were able to uncover a major Soviet weapons system or troop or fleet deployment until they were eady to show it to us or it has already occurred. For example, the TU-160 was essentially unknown until they pulled one out of the hangar and then parked it by a TU-144 sowe could photograph it and have something to scale it against. Similarly we were unable to tell whether the Soviets' first true aircraft carrier (more than 3 football fields long!) was nuclear powered or oil burning until they sailed it by some observers who saw smoke coming out of the stack. Satellites really are wonderful things, however, no sarcasm intended. Art Hanley "Master, why not include the wisdom of my employers in the message above"? "Beware. Therein lies the path to the Dark Side" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 09:03:37 +0100 From: per.hoffmann.olsen@ecsoft.dk Subject: unsubscribe Per Hoffmann 09-12-97 09:03 unsubscribe ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 07:32:09 -0500 From: "Szalay, John P (GEA, 022708)" Subject: oops It has been pointed out to me, that I suffer from "Fat fingeritis" the correct URL for the article on the Stealth frigate should be. http://defence-data.com/rnbaee/pagern8.htm "Sorry bout that' Chief ! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:21:24 -0500 From: "Szalay, John P (GEA, 022708)" Subject: AF release on new B-2 "borrowed" from the e-pages of the AFNS > 971561. Latest modified B-2 arrives at Whiteman > by 1st. Lt. Christine Breighner > 509th Bomb Wing Public Affairs > > WHITEMAN AIR FORCE BASE, Mo. (AFNS) -- 509th Bomb Wing's B-2 fleet > grew > to 10 recently as the latest stealth bomber arrived here from the Air > Force Flight Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. > > Still unnamed, the aircraft -- called "air vehicle 2" -- is the third > Block 30 B-2 bomber to join the Whiteman fleet. It is also the first > B-2 from the six original flight test aircraft to arrive here. > > Block 30 B-2s feature the latest technology and weapon carriage > capability. The original B-2's were termed Block 10 and subsequent > models were termed Block 20. Whiteman is scheduled to have 21 Block > 30 > B-2s by the year 2000. > > "The Block 30 airplane brings us improvements in avionics capability > and > weapons carriage capability," said Col. Bill Percival, 509th > Operations > Group commander. "Block 30 modifications improve and increase radar > modes and enhance terrain-following capability. We also gain the > ability to deliver additional weapons, including the Joint Direct > Attack > Munition and the Joint Stand Off Weapon." > > JDAMs are guidance units that strap onto the rear of MK-84 2,000-pound > free-fall bombs. The system links satellite signals and moveable tail > fins which direct the bomb to a target. JSOWs are also precision > weapons, whose initial capability is scheduled for fiscal 1999. > > The B-2 can carry 16 JDAMs or eventually 16 JSOW munitions. > > "We're excited about increasing our number of Block 30 jets," said > Percival. "The pilots are trained and ready to use these aircraft. > AV-2 is just beautiful -- it gets us a little closer to full > operational > capability." > > The first Block 30, the Spirit of Pennsylvania, arrived at Whiteman in > August. The second, the Spirit of Louisiana, arrived Nov. 10. > > The B-2 stealth bombers are capable of delivering conventional and > nuclear munitions anywhere on the globe. Their combination of low > observability, large payload capacity, near-precision munitions, and > long range gives the bombers a unique ability to penetrate > sophisticated > defenses and threaten an enemy's war-making capability. > > The B-2 is an integral part of the Air Force's bomber force, which > also > includes the B-1B Lancer and the B-52H Stratofortress. (Courtesy of > Air > Combat Command News Service) > & AFNS ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 13:11:58 +0000 From: 11506@aquinas.ac.uk Subject: FOAS I've read that the BAe's Future Offensive Air System is to replace the Tornado GR 4, but why: surely the Eurofighter is to do that? If FOAS becomes operational in 2010, then Eurofighter will only have been in service about eight years. Is there an explanation for this? Stephen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 09:51:43 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Aurora == Global Reach (GR)? Michael J. Poirier wrote: >> I haven't seen this conclusion drawn, but it seemed possible. Could Aurora >> actually be the subscale version that was to have been tested for GLOBAl REACH >> ?? I'd like to know if there is some detail I'm missing that might disprove this. Dan responds: >Well, if you go by the sightings, Aurora/pulser/whatever ... > is a little large for a subscale demonstrator. >Nonetheless, it's highly likely that the two progrmas (aurora and GR) were >closely linked, and probably managed through the same office. Well, I personally doubt that as what became GR started as a NASA Langley program to study hypersonic configurations. In fact, some of the people that worked on what eventually became GR were anxious to get going in hypersonics and start flying something instead of just studying it to death. If they were part of something that was already flying, I don't think you would have seen some of the studies that were done before Langley funded the competition that eventually begot GR. In my opinion, the only way to get a secret system disclosed, besides waiting until the political motivation for the system is no longer present, is to design, build, and fly something superior. I dont currently buy some of the rumors floating around about GR. But that is just my opinion. Larry ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #94 ******************************** 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