skunk-works-digest Saturday, December 20 1997 Volume 06 : Number 099 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: RE: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? SR-71 "replacement" (was FOAS/Other) Re: RE: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? Re: RE: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? Re: A-12 Pilot's Manual? RE: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #97 unreadable digest RE: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? Re: NASP a disguise for Aurora? Re: SR-71 "replacement" (was FOAS/Other) Re: NASP a disguise for Aurora Re: Problems/Japanese Stealth. Re: NASP a disguise for Aurora? RE: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? F-22 Raptor PS air launched 'wave rider' Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #97 unreadable digest *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 22:07:19 -0500 From: Frank Markus Subject: Re: RE: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? At 04:36 PM 12/17/97, you wrote: >Machrahanish is probably the base you're thinking of. There's another base: >West Freugh in Scotland that seems to be on the 'Most Likely To': list. Where are these two bases? In travelling around Britain, my impression has been that RAF bases are generally named after the nearest community -- no matter how tiny. So I decided to try looking up Machrahanish and West Freugh (also just plain Freugh) in the index of my copy of the (1994) Ordinance Survey Motoring Atlas ("Great Britain at 3 Miles to 1 Inch.") No joy for either. However, I see that there is a Macrihanish Airport on the A83 just before reaching Campbelltown. [Note that the spelling is identical but for and extra 'h' in the 'mac' and a single changed vowel.] During a vacation this past September, I made a circuit of the Kintyre peninsula. I must have passed this airport (or its access road) but I don't recall an RAF base (or signs for one) in that area. From previous postings to this list, I seem to recall that Machrahanish is distinguished by an exceptionally long runway. I'm not sure that there is enough flat ground on the Kintyre peninsula to permit that -- but, of course, I hardly know the place well. All of which leads me back to my original question, where are these two bases? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 15:43:23 +1200 From: Brett Davidson Subject: SR-71 "replacement" (was FOAS/Other) At 21:39 18/12/97 -0500, Steven Barber wrote: >I'm also not certain that an SR71 replacement would have to have the same or >high performance capabilities. If it was relatively invulnerable to air >defence systems, had the same range (or better), a longer loiter time & similar >sensor suite (or better), wouldn't that do as a replacement just as well? >Just playing Devil's advocate. Q, was designed as a stealthy, large payload, long range, loitering UAV. Its successors, DarkStar and Global Hawk have shared out various features from that list. They would seem to address some of the missions of the SR-71, though I feel that they are more "U-2 successors" in intent. If there is an SR-71 successor, it would have to fill the niche that exists between those vehicles and spysats: fast, invulnerable and as big as they are, they are fairly predictable. Maybe it would have to be, say, a (sub)orbital vehicle/"TAV" ... hmmmm, sounds like the supposed upper stage of "Brilliant Buzzard"... Also, the SR-71 was originally designated RS-71, for "Recon/Strike" - it was designed to be capable of carrying nuclear air-to-surface missiles. IF there is an SR-71 follow-on, perhaps one should consider the strike role - which is something that the current generation of UAVs is not aimed at. On the other hand, there is not always a direct replacement anyway - there are no new battleships, for example - and the strike role that the SR-71 was designed for may have been taken by cruise and standoff missiles that didn't exist in the 1950s, when the original requirement was drawn up. If I were an AF general and I were writing my letter to Santa, I guess that I would ask for a TAV recon/strike, maybe one that can also perform orbital maintenance/refuelling missions for advanced versions of Keyholes. Sounds like a beefed-up version of the Military Spaceplane that was vetoed by Mr C, actually - unless there's a black version already flying. And of course I'm trying to find ways of not mentioning "Aurora," which opens up a real can of worms. - --Brett ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 02:02:47 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: RE: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? At 08:54 PM 12/18/97 -0500, you wrote: >At 04:36 PM 12/17/97, you wrote: > >>Machrahanish is probably the base you're thinking of. There's another base: >>West Freugh in Scotland that seems to be on the 'Most Likely To': list. > >Where are these these two bases? > ========================================================================== Oh this is great. Now we have "lost" our secret bases in Great Britain. Whats going on over there? When we find one over here we put a fence around it and point fingers at it. If you guys are going to be serious about finding black airplanes and stuff then we need to quit losing track of their good hiding spots. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 12:02:53 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: RE: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? Frank wrote: Sorry for the typo. I'm going to stop posting things when I'm rushed. Machrihanish is indeed on the Kintyre Peninsula and the Campbeltown Courier, the local paper has carried a few articles on the base's link with a secret aircraft..presumed to be of US origin. The base is around 5 miles West of Campbeltown. I understand the base is now pretty well deserted although 500 airborne troops parachuted in during Ample Train earlier this year and in its prime it was guarded by US Navy SEALS. It has a very long runway...some say the longest in Europe. West Freugh is around 30 miles East of Machrihanish..as the crow flies, around 5 miles South of Stranraer overlooking Luce Bay. West Freugh is a very interesting base, with sat. ground stations..I believe it's the only UK facility with X-Band coms. to spacecraft. The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency has this base as one its centres. Interestingly, this and other bases where DERA operate from have been the source of quite a few triangular a/c sightings...just a wild coincidence I'm sure... Hope this helps >In travelling around Britain, my impression has been that RAF bases are >generally named after the nearest community -- no matter how tiny. So I >decided to try looking up Machrahanish and West Freugh (also just plain >Freugh) in the index of my copy of the (1994) Ordanace Survey Motoring >Atlas ("Great Britain at 3 Miles to 1 Inch.") No joy for either. However, >I see that there is a Macrihanish Airport on the A83 just before reaching >Campbelltown. [Note that the spelling is identical but for and extra 'h' >in the 'mac' and a single changed vowel.] > >During a vacation this past September, I made a circuit of the Kintyre >peninsula. I must have passed this airport (or its access road) but I >don't recall an RAF base (or signs for one) in that area. From previous >postings to this list, I seem to recall that Machrahanish is distinguished >by an exceptionally long runway. I'm not sure that there is enough flat >ground on the Kintyre peninsula to permit that -- but, of course, I hardly >know the place well. > >All of which leads me back to my original question, where are these two bases? > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 08:42:50 -0500 From: James Stevenson Subject: Re: A-12 Pilot's Manual? - --------------50FF3DA5ECCD063ED1BFBB17 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Do you mean the A-12 Avenger II or the original Mach 3 aircraft? Jim Stevenson Paul Suhler wrote: > Has anyone encountered a flight manual for the A-12 Blackbird? I've > heard of them for the YF-12A and the SR-71, but not the A-12. > > Thanks, > > Paul Suhler - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------- James P. Stevenson |E-mail:jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com Aerospace Planning Group, LLC |Office:301-254-9000 5600 Roosevelt St. |Home: 301-530-4241 Bethesda, MD 20817-6740 USA |FAX: 301-530-6923 - --------------50FF3DA5ECCD063ED1BFBB17 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Do you mean the A-12 Avenger II or the original Mach 3 aircraft?

Jim Stevenson

Paul Suhler wrote:

Has anyone encountered a flight manual for the A-12 Blackbird?  I've
heard of them for the YF-12A and the SR-71, but not the A-12.

Thanks,

Paul Suhler

 
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
James P. Stevenson            |E-mail:jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com
Aerospace Planning Group, LLC |Office:301-254-9000
5600 Roosevelt St.            |Home:  301-530-4241
Bethesda, MD  20817-6740  USA |FAX:   301-530-6923
  - --------------50FF3DA5ECCD063ED1BFBB17-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 10:01:43 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: RE: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? On Wed, 17 Dec 1997, Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > >But, the Hyper-X is going to be test over the ocean and > >"hopefully" land in a tiny island. > > That will be the Western Test Range, and air-launch will be about 40 to 50 > miles west of NAWCWS Pt. Mugu (Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Station > Point Mugu), off the coast of California. The B-52 carrier will launch > from Edwards AFB, CA, though, and the Hyper-X and its first/second stage > Pegasus booster, won't land, but will splash down, depending on the tested > speed etc., about 700 nautical miles or so down the range. I don't think > that they plan to recover the vehicles, but it is possible. The third X-23A, > which was launched 04/18/1967 from Vandenberg on top of an Atlas SLV, was > recovered, off Kwajalein. Hello Andreas. Can you give me the reference of where you got this information please? I got the Hyper-X landing information from one of the engineer at GASL (where they will build the scramjet for Hyper-X). Also, the Hyper-X project will consist of four test and three aircraft if I am not wrong, therefore, they must recover at least one aircraft. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 13:04:48 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #97 unreadable digest George, The two WINMAIL.DAT attachments in Digest 6-097 were sent by: Gavin Payne Other Mime attachments, like a copy of the same email post in HTML format, are not very useful either, as sent for example by: Darryl Matthews But embedded in the digest, they should not produce any problems. It should also be quite easy to find (and maybe even remove) those lines in the archived digests (something I do usually with my archived digests). As soon as I can find the time (I will try to make it this year!), I will finish my Skunk Works Digest archive, and will send you a copy for web/ftp distribution. Currently, many are merged into bigger files and have a slightly different numbering system. If anyone wants a copy of digest 6-097 (without the embedded WINMAIL.DAT attachments), email me, and I will forward you a copy. - -- 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, 19 Dec 1997 13:08:01 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: RE: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? Wei-Jen Su wrote: >On Wed, 17 Dec 1997, Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: >>>But, the Hyper-X is going to be test over the ocean and >>>"hopefully" land in a tiny island. >>That will be the Western Test Range, and air-launch will be about 40 to 50 >>miles west of NAWCWS Pt. Mugu (Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Station >>Point Mugu), off the coast of California. The B-52 carrier will launch >>from Edwards AFB, CA, though, and the Hyper-X and its first/second stage >>Pegasus booster, won't land, but will splash down, depending on the tested >>speed etc., about 700 nautical miles or so down the range. I don't think >>that they plan to recover the vehicles, but it is possible. The third X-23A, >>which was launched 04/18/1967 from Vandenberg on top of an Atlas SLV, was >>recovered, off Kwajalein. >Hello Andreas. Can you give me the reference of where you got this >information please? >I got the Hyper-X landing information from one of the engineer at >GASL (where they will build the scramjet for Hyper-X). Also, the Hyper-X >project will consist of four test and three aircraft if I am not wrong, >therefore, they must recover at least one aircraft. The 'splash down' info is from an article in AW&ST, Vol. 147, No. 15, from October 13, 1997, on pages 66-67, titled: "Hyper-X Production Begins In Support of 1999 Flight Test". According to this article, there are four flights planned, and at least 4 vehicles (maybe even more) will be build: * 1 Mach 7 test vehicle (for the first flight, no recovery planned) * 1 Mach 5 test vehicle (for the second flight, recovery is possible) * 1 Mach 10 test vehicle (for the third flight, no recovery mentioned) * 1 Mach 10 test vehicle (for the fourth flight, no recovery mentioned) In addition (?), fully functional Mach 5 and Mach 7 test vehicles will be build (or at least used) for tests in NASA wind tunnels. But maybe those are the same as the flight articles, the AW&ST article is not very specific in this regard. AW&ST is usually quite accurate, but they had their share of blunders. It is possible that they were mistaken, or that the plans have changed. Maybe the GASL engineer can clear that up? I do recall the mentioning of landing a remote controlled/autonomous vehicle at an island a long time ago, but I couldn't find the reference. Maybe I mixed that up with another project though, like the X-37A, HyTech, LoFlyte or some other UAV. Actually, the X-37A designation might apply to the Hyper-X program itself, I really don't know. - -- 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, 19 Dec 1997 12:29:47 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: NASP a disguise for Aurora? Terry Colvin writes: >> The following is excerpted from http://www.ufobbs.com/txt4/3103.ufo under >> the subject denial and disinformation: >> >> "Janes Defense Weekly >> Vol 18, No 24/25, 12 December 1992. >> >> DISGUISED BY NASP >> >> Has the National Aero-Space Plane - NASP - provided a disguise for Aurora? >> At a conference in Orlando last month [November 1992] Heinz Pfeffer, head >> of the European Space Agency's directorate for space transportation >> systems, told JDW: "NASP is a cover for Aurora. There's no other reason >> that the industry would put $900 million into NASP. >> >> "Aurora has achieved its goals and NASP can be allowed to fizzle out." >> NASP's future is in doubt because Congress has not approved funds for >> developing a prototype." > Is this old news that is OBE (overcome by events)? It's more accurately described as 'never proven claim'. That Janes article you quoted from was the famous AURORA cover story issue that disclosed Chris Gibson's 1989 sighting. The main article was entitled "The Aurora File". Later in the month was Sweetman's follow-up piece in the Washington Post that caught the steamy response from then Air Force Secretary Donald Rice who denied that such an aircraft existed in anybody's inventory. Netting it out, nobody has proven the existence of AURORA let alone a NASP/ AURORA tie-in. The best evidence for AURORA are the few good sightings which started to appear in early August 1989 in California around 2-3AM (Gibson's own sighting was towards the end of August 1989 over the North Sea in daylight), which are just that, sightings of aircraft with unusual characteristics. Sightings have never proven anything. The evidence against AURORA are the denials of government officials and the continued lack of any anouncement. As far as many prople are concerned, this adequately disproves the existence of AURORA. And that's where it has stood ever since. As far as NASP being an AURORA cover program (assuming there was an AURORA say), the two programs would have some large differences. NASP attempted to build (and actually found out that it was too expensive to even attempt right now) a SSTO airbreather that relied on scramjet technology, which is still very new technology today. If you were some intelligence agency or the USAF funding an operational hypersonic vehicle (even one that could go SSTO), you'd never use scramjets as scrams are too experimental. Happily, you wouldn't have to. Good old turbojet/turbofan/ramjet/rocket technology would be quite adequate (this fact seems to be lost on many people these days who are trying to do private SSTO efforts - anyway, that's a different story). Also, scramjet SSTO airbreathers have their scramjets so integrated, technically, within their airframes, that you couldn't really hope to achieve much by taking a hypersonic ramjet program and seeing what you could do by hooking a scramjet up to it (say the idea being that perhaps you use AURORA as a testbed for SSTO scramjet). What all this means, I'm not quite sure. Personally, I don't buy a black shadow behind NASP. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 12:38:20 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: SR-71 "replacement" (was FOAS/Other) >Also, the SR-71 was originally designated RS-71, for "Recon/Strike" - it was >designed to be capable of carrying nuclear air-to-surface missiles. IF there >is an SR-71 follow-on, perhaps one should consider the strike role - which >is something that the current generation of UAVs is not aimed at. You mean like the B-12/B-71 !! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Dec 97 21:36:40 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: NASP a disguise for Aurora The problem with Henz' theory is that the timeframes don't match up. If Aurora exsists, its funding would have come a number of years ahead of NASP. Art ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Dec 97 09:44:29 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re: Problems/Japanese Stealth. - --simple boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There are several 32-bit compilers out there on the web that are free. I deal mostly with mainframe stuff these days so I'll check with our PC guys and see what I can find out. You can rename a large quantity of files using the * in a command; ie. c:>ren *.dat *.dar - would rename all files with a dat extension to a dar extension. If the files start with a common string you could do something like swd_vol*.* sw*.* which would remove the 'd_vol' from the file name.... just a thought. I'll try to get back to you today on 32-bit compilers. Oh yeah, I assume you are looking for C++, if anything else, let me know ASAP. Greg Columbia,SC _____________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Problems/Japanese Stealth. Author: "Darryl Matthews" at INTERNET Date: 12/18/97 5:30 PM OK people...well, I've started on this program that I've promised you all. One problem: I don't have a 32-bit compiler so the program would only accept 16-bit filenames...traditional style (swd_vol2.002, for example) which means renaming every skunkworks file you have (in my case that's 616+ and I've already renamed all by hand once!!). Any programmers out there who could help me...e-mail me personally so that we don't take up space on the digest... S K U N K Y S T U F F. Since I live in Tokyo I was wondering whether any of you know about Japanese stealth projects? I know about the FS-X - the joint US/Japan F-16 derivative. There is also, apparently, a completely indigeneous aircraft called the FI-X. Can anyone clue me on this? Thank you. James. PS: Please check out my homepage, and sign the guestbook! I need feedback! ____________________ James Matthews. E-mail (family): matthews@tkb.attnet.or.jp or matthews@tkb.att.ne.jp E-mail (private): james_matthews@hotmail.com Homepage: http://home.att.ne.jp/gold/tomcat21/index2.html ____________________________________ - --simple boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

OK people...well, I've started on this program that I've promised you all.  One problem:  I don't have a 32-bit compiler so the program would only accept 16-bit filenames...traditional style (swd_vol2.002, for example) which means renaming every skunkworks file you have (in my case that's 616+ and I've already renamed all by hand once!!).
Any programmers out there who could help me...e-mail me personally so that we don't take up space on the digest...

S   K   U   N   K   Y         S   T   U   F   F.
Since I live in Tokyo I was wondering whether any of you know about Japanese stealth projects?  I know about the FS-X - the joint US/Japan F-16 derivative.  There is also, apparently, a completely indigeneous aircraft called the FI-X.  Can anyone cluee me on this?

Thank you.

James.
PS:   Please check out my homepage, and sign the guestbook!  I need feedback!
____________________

James Matthews.
E-mail (family):    matthews@tkb.attnet.or.jp or matthews@tkb.att.ne.jp
E-mail (private):  james_matthews@hotmail.com

Homepage:  http://home.att.ne.jp/gold/tomcat21/index2.html
____________________________________

- --simple boundary-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 04:38:42 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: NASP a disguise for Aurora? On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, Larry Smith wrote: > up to it (say the idea being that perhaps you use AURORA as a testbed for > SSTO scramjet). > > What all this means, I'm not quite sure. Personally, I don't buy a black > shadow behind NASP. Larry, I am quite agree with you of Aurora being a testbed for future hypersonic vehicle. From a Aerospace Eng. point of view, the Aurora spotted in North Sea looks pretty small for a long range hypersonic vehicle (assuming this is the specification to reamplace the SR-71). Or at least they come out with some very exotic fuel. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 04:43:28 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: RE: HALO/FOAS at Groom Lake? On Fri, 19 Dec 1997, Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > I do recall the mentioning of landing a remote controlled/autonomous vehicle > at an island a long time ago, but I couldn't find the reference. Maybe I > mixed that up with another project though, like the X-37A, HyTech, LoFlyte > or some other UAV. Actually, the X-37A designation might apply to the > Hyper-X program itself, I really don't know. Hmmm... maybe MIB visit you recently to clear you mind up ;) Sorry, I couldn't resist. If I get the chance to meet engineers at GASL again, I will ask and let you know. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 04:55:54 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: F-22 Raptor I just want to know if any of you got the F-22 Raptor simulator from NovaLogic. Well, I couldn't resist and open my gift from Santa and as Dave Ferguson (Director of Flight Operations for Locheed Martin Skunk Works) said: "For anyone who ever dreamed of flying the real F-22 Raptor, this simulations is as close as it gets". The graphic and flight simulation are the most reallistic that I have ever played. The flight data are very similar to the one from YF-22. I "zoom up" to around 72,000 feet and got a max. speed of Mach 3.62 (I empty the entire fuel tank doing that), of course, I don't know if the real F-22 will melt at that speed. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 00:45:18 +1300 (NZDT) From: Kerry Ferrand Subject: PS air launched 'wave rider' A little gasp from the past.. Many years ago when the "Aurora" stories were still fresh, I remember reading a copy of "Popular Science" in a local library..they had a cover story (I *think* it was a cover) about a new secret, hypersonic spyplane that was said to be operating. Interestingly their idea of the aircraft was quite different of what became popular later - their article and related illustrations showed a small, narrow manned aircraft carried to high altitude within the belly of a C-5 (or mabye C-141B) and then launched out the back on something like an inflight-refuelling boom. It then used some wonder propulsion system to reach Mach 6 and do its spying biz...the craft looked like a blunt nosed cross between the D-21 and the X-15 and described as a wave rider shape. I havn't seen the article in years..I'm just wondering where did PS get this idea from? reports of such shapes being loaded into C-5s? or some similar contractor's pie-in-the- sky concept at the time? Wasn't long til they changed to pushing the now familar "Aurora" speculative design. Kerry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Dec 1997 13:11:11 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V6 #97 unreadable digest On Fri, 19 Dec 1997 13:04:48 -0500 (EST), you wrote: >But embedded in the digest, they should not produce any problems. It should >also be quite easy to find (and maybe even remove) those lines in the >archived digests (something I do usually with my archived digests). > Same here so the archives are fine. >As soon as I can find the time (I will try to make it this year!), I will >finish my Skunk Works Digest archive, and will send you a copy for web/ftp >distribution. Currently, many are merged into bigger files and have a >slightly different numbering system. > GREAT! >If anyone wants a copy of digest 6-097 (without the embedded WINMAIL.DAT >attachments), email me, and I will forward you a copy. > or FTP it from http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works 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 ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V6 #99 ******************************** 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