skunk-works-digest Tuesday, January 20 1998 Volume 07 : Number 003 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: A&E's Investigative Reports on The USAF Re: A&E's Investigative Reports on The USAF Re: A&E's Investigative Reports on The USAF Re: A&E's Investigative Reports on The USAF Re[2]: A&E's Investigative Reports on The USAF Other patents... U-2 Altitudes.../Sr-71 Handling... Re: U-2 Altitude Max Re: U-2 Altitude Max Re: Have Blue Crashes Re: SEALS on guard. Re: Have Blue Crashes Re: SEALS on guard. Bill Park / Have Blue Re: Have Blue Crashes Re: U-2 Altitudes.../Sr-71 Handling... Re: SEALS on guard. Silverbug Re: Project 'Moby Dick' - Sources, Please Re: Why deny Area 51? HALO Document Re: U-2 Altitude Max Re: A&E's Investigative Reports on The USAF Re: Airplane? *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 11:36:08 -0500 From: Drew Menser Subject: Re: A&E's Investigative Reports on The USAF Seems like I saw somewhere where this contained pre-recorded flight info. (on tape, disc or some kind of media) which the on-board computers could use to fly mission even without pilot intervention. Drew John Stone wrote: > > But I do have a question, in the section on the F-117, all the pilots were > carrying a small aluminum Haliburton case with them to and from the > aircraft....and no one ever mentioned what was in it....at least I didn't > hear anyone on the show mention it...So what is in the case? > > Best, > > John > > John Stone > jstone@thepoint.net > U-2 and SR-71 Web page: > http://www.thepoint.net/~jstone/blackbird.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 10:12:47 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: A&E's Investigative Reports on The USAF >in the section on the F-117, all the pilots were >carrying a small aluminum Haliburton case with them to and from the >aircraft....and no one ever mentioned what was in it... It's for seeing over the dash. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 10:16:22 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: A&E's Investigative Reports on The USAF >in the section on the F-117, all the pilots were >carrying a small aluminum Haliburton case with them to and from the >aircraft....and no one ever mentioned what was in it.... Yes! It's for seeing over the dash, because phone books don't have handles! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 11:44:34 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: A&E's Investigative Reports on The USAF >John Stone: >But I do have a question, in the section on the F-117, all the pilots were >carrying a small aluminum Haliburton case with them to and from the >aircraft....So what is in the case? > Not much more than what looks like a VCR tape. It is carried to the plane and plugged into a flight computer. With the recent upgrades to the system, each pilot programs his entire flight on to the tape. It includes all waypoints, changes in altitudes and now does it in per time increments of 1 second. He can literally activate it on takeoff and it will bring the aircraft diving over the target. Tactics might require several aircraft to bomb the same target. And the planes are programmed to approach the target individually from different directions and at different altitudes but all within several seconds of each other. This ballet over the target can take place without any visual contact required by the pilots if programmed in advance. Actually 4 different missions can be loaded on to one tape. But it is a very time consuming task. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jan 98 14:04:40 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re[2]: A&E's Investigative Reports on The USAF Isn't that where they store the whiskey and soda for the long flights? :-) Greg Weigold ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: A&E's Investigative Reports on The USAF Author: at INTERNET Date: 1/14/98 10:12 AM >in the section on the F-117, all the pilots were >carrying a small aluminum Haliburton case with them to and from the >aircraft....and no one ever mentioned what was in it... It's for seeing over the dash. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:00:47 +0900 From: "Darryl Matthews" Subject: Other patents... Those patents are great...thank you. Also, I got some other patents that I'll hopefully put up on my page before this next post comes out. They're some really wierd aircraft. One looks like a stealth 'craft with tiny pivoting tips (IMHO)! James. ____________________ James Matthews. E-mail (family): matthews@tkb.att.ne.jp E-mail (private): james_matthews@hotmail.com Homepage: http://home.att.ne.jp/gold/tomcat21/index2.html ____________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:09:25 +0900 From: "Darryl Matthews" Subject: U-2 Altitudes.../Sr-71 Handling... This is just to expand on what Greg said about the U-2's altitude... "...You're in a hostile environment in a number of counts. At speed, temperatures get up to 500 degrees inside the aircraft and up to 1,200 degrees at the tailpipe...You're inside a pressure suit. That's to save your life. At 60,000 feet your blood would boil; at 70,000 feet your blood would evaporate..." -SR-71 Pilot. Also...I remember earlier on people discussed the SR-71 handling characteristics. Here's what that same SR-71 pilot said: "...Subsonic, the SR-71 handles like a fighter. It's stable, handles great. But supersonic, it can get you into trouble..." I think its kinda strange how the book doesn't give a name. The 'book', btw, is "Wings" by Mark Meyers. ____________________ James Matthews. E-mail (family): matthews@tkb.att.ne.jp E-mail (private): james_matthews@hotmail.com Homepage: http://home.att.ne.jp/gold/tomcat21/index2.html ____________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 11:54:47 EST From: ConsLaw Subject: Re: U-2 Altitude Max In a message dated 1/14/98 04:45:15 PM, Gregweigold@pmsc.com wrote: > On the TODAY show this morning (1/14) they had a 5 minute report about > U-2's. They let one of the NBC reporters go up in a 2-seat version and > flew him around for a while. > They leveled out at 71,500 for a long flight, but then the reporter > mentioned something I found very interesting, he said that the USAF > rates the ceiling of the U-2 at 80,000, but that it can go MUCH higher > than that. > They also did a demo in an altitude simulator, after putting him in > the flight suit and hooking him up to the life support equipment, they > took him to a simulated altitude of 80,000. The glass of water in the > chamber with him boiled off almost immediately! Not all that > fantastic, but a neat demo anyway, I'd never really thought much about > the pressure/temperature effects at that height. > > Any comments on the statement that the U-2 can operate MUCH higher > than 80,000'? The reporter seemed to emphasize the much! > > Greg > Columbia,SC I have seen press reports listing the U-2's maximum altitude at about 90,000 ft. This conflicts with other things I've read. At one point I read that the U-2R's operating altitude is actually lower than earlier versions (described as 70k ft.) because of higher weight and no additional wing area. The second thing that I saw was in Bill Sweetman's Aurora book, a table where it described the flight speed and altitude envelopes necessary to bring sufficient specific air pressure into the engines to support combustion. According to the Sweetman table, the U-2 couldn't fly at lower than Mach 1 at 90,000 feet and still get enough air. The implication from the Sweetman table was that the SR-71 flew at Mach 3 at 80,000 ft because that's the sweet spot where there is enough air to support high-velocity combustion and enough lift to keep the plane up, but not so much drag as to make the thrust requirements unworkable. Steve Hofer conslaw@aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 01:14:27 -0600 (CST) From: jaz5@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: U-2 Altitude Max If anyone really wants to find out what the U2's maximum altitude is they should call the Air Force Public Affairs office at 703-695-0640. they will make inquireies and come back with an answer, which may range from the actual max altitude to the reply I got several years ago on another questions "Its classified." They are very helpful with requests for information. I'd do it myself, but I'm up to my eyeballs in projects. JZ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 18:02:00 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: Have Blue Crashes David Lednicer writes: > >"David" wrote: >> I don't remember reading about the Have Blue accidents at Groom until >> after the F-117 was announced. > You might want to go to a good library and hunt back through the >old issues of Flight International. They did VERY accurately report the >crash of the first prototype the week after it happened. They even had >the pilot's name (Bill Park) and they found the hospital that he had been >taken to. Additionally, Air International reported the first flight of >Have Blue (they called it a "prototype stealth fighter") within a month or >two after it happened. It's hands up on this one ! I still don't remember reading about it, but thanks for the references. If only security at Groom Lake was still so leaky... >From what Ben Rich says about Have Blue in his book, I'm amazed that this got out. KJ told him that the high level of classification would bury the project in red tape etc...yet the Aviation Press were told about the crashes...incredible. Thanks for putting me straight on this. David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 17:51:50 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: SEALS on guard. >patrick cullumber writes: >>Paul Heinrich wrote: >> The Navy SEALs part of this really sounds like an urban legend. Why >>would an elite US NAVAL commando unit be guarding a British airbase? >Me too. me too. I never liked this aspect of the rumor either. IMHO >(sorry, In My Humble Opinion) the SEALS (another acronym!) were trained for >hit and run missions requiring as few people as possible and usually near a >water environment for ingress and egress. I understand your misgivings re: SEALs at Machrihanish. From more than one source I understand the reasons for their presence. It has nothing to do with secret a/c, but I have no intention of going into those reasons. I assume the additional security that they brought would have made it even more attractive for the operation of classified a/c. The base was a forward operation location for anti-sub. and recon. a/c. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 11:30:37 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Have Blue Crashes At 06:02 PM 1/16/98, you wrote: >David Lednicer writes: >> >>"David" wrote: >>> I don't remember reading about the Have Blue accidents at Groom until >>> after the F-117 was announced. - --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Oddly enough DARPA entered into the HAVE BLUE contract with Lockheed as a white program. I have been told that at one point RCS testing on the HAVE BLUE was done at Helendale in broad daylight. Read: You can drive up to the fence and photograph the object in test. This part maybe urban folklore, as Peter Merlin calls it. When they realized how good a device they created someone suggested the program go black. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:33:18 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: SEALS on guard. >>Me too. me too. I never liked this aspect of the rumor either. IMHO >>(sorry, In My Humble Opinion) the SEALS (another acronym!) were trained for >>hit and run missions requiring as few people as possible and usually near a >>water environment for ingress and egress. > >I understand your misgivings re: SEALs at Machrihanish. From more than one >source I understand the reasons for their presence. It has nothing to do >with secret a/c, but I have no intention of going into those reasons. ===================================================== You will not find Navy Seals at Groom, Tonopah Test Range nor White Sands Missile Range. I suspect not at China Lake either. They just aren't needed in these low population density, desert locale's. Most of us know nothing about the geography of Macrihanish. I questioned the statement "SEAL's guard Bangor Nuclear Sub Base in Washington State." But its a logical conclusion. No they aren't checking passes at the main gate. But there is a large open water facility there. And close by coincidently is the Navys Torpedo Research Lab at Keyport, WA. One of the programs worked on there is recovering practice torpedoes using Sea Lions. And guess who trains and works with Seal Lions in other ways. So it is quite logical to have the SEALS in and out of the water at Bangor. Not sure if they are pulling guard duty on the dock but I would bet good money if you were to approach Bangor by water at night the first SEALS you saw would not be balancing beach balls on their noses. Tell us more about Macrihanish. Is it on the water with port facilities also? patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 17:35:02 -0600 From: Wayne Busse Subject: Bill Park / Have Blue Previously, David wrote: > You might want to go to a good library and hunt back through the >old issues of Flight International. They did VERY accurately report the >crash of the first prototype the week after it happened. They even had >the pilot's name (Bill Park) and they found the hospital that he had been >taken to. ____________________________________________________________ Lockheed Test Pilot Bill Park, was one tough son-of-a-gun. To my knowledge, he has punched out of a number of test aircraft. In 1964, he lost an A-12 (6939), on final to Groom Lake, and in 1966,while flying the M-21 (6941), lost the aircraft on its 4th launch of a D21, surviving a Mach 3 breakup. M-21 photo> http://www.lmsw.external.lmco.com/lmsw/images/D21LNCH.GIF Also I think there was an experimental U-2R take-off from an aircraft carrier, in the late 60's, that Bill Park was piloting. This guy had more lives than than Evel Knevel. Wayne - -- Wayne Busse wings@sky.net wbusse@johnco.cc.ks.us Wayne Busse wbusse@johnco.cc.ks.us wings@sky.net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 16:21:14 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Have Blue Crashes >> You might want to go to a good library and hunt back through the >>old issues of Flight International. They did VERY accurately report the >>crash of the first prototype the week after it happened. We all must remember that HAVE BLUE had a DARPA phase that wasn't black. The project didn't go black until after USAF was convinced that it would work. I'd have to go back and research the applicable dates, but I think that should be done before we waste much more bandwidth on this. So everybody that's interested, have at it. A related factoid is the Francillon 1982 edition of "Lockheed Aircraft Since 1913". He had one page in that book that discussed the HAVE BLUE aircraft. My suspicion is that Rene was interviewing his Lockheed source during the DARPA phase of the program and that's why he was able to find out about it. It's also interesting that on the same page he mentioned with even less information a Mach 6 manned aircraft that had been flown. It has never been hypothesised by an aircraft researcher that that program may also have been a DARPA program and non-black for part of its life. Just some thoughts, Larry ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 18:43:53 +0000 From: patrick wiggins Subject: Re: U-2 Altitudes.../Sr-71 Handling... Darryl Matthews wrote: > > This is just to expand on what Greg said about the U-2's altitude... > > your life. At 60,000 feet your blood would boil; at 70,000 feet your blood > would evaporate..." -SR-71 Pilot. Several years back a guy was attempting to set the world altitude record for parachuting when his pressure suit sprang a leak. The gondola was immediately cut away in an attempt to get him down to breathable air. He only lived a short time. News reports said that his blood had started to boil inside his body. - -- Patrick Wiggins Hansen Planetarium Education Department email: p.wiggins@m.cc.utah.edu WWW: web.state.ut.us/bbs/space voice: 801.531-4952, fax: 801.531-4948 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 16:22:48 -0800 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: SEALS on guard. >>>Me too. me too. I never liked this aspect of the rumor either. IMHO >>>(sorry, In My Humble Opinion) the SEALS (another acronym!) were trained for >>>hit and run missions requiring as few people as possible and usually near a >>>water environment for ingress and egress. >> >>I understand your misgivings re: SEALs at Machrihanish. From more than one >>source I understand the reasons for their presence. It has nothing to do >>with secret a/c, but I have no intention of going into those reasons. >===================================================== >You will not find Navy Seals at Groom, Tonopah Test Range nor White Sands >Missile >Range. I suspect not at China Lake either. They just aren't needed in >these low population density, desert locale's. Most of us know nothing >about the geography of Macrihanish. My understanding was that a small contingent of 2 SEAL platoons were stationed at Macrihanish because of it's strategic location for launching raids against Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap targets in the event of a major conflict in Europe- the SEALs' primary missions in a European East-West conflict would be to disrupt port facility operations and conduct reconaissance against ComBloc ports.... The SEALs at MAc. aren't specifically tasked with base security, though it's always nice to have an extra pair of eyes and ears around. Most US bases have both a armed forces security detail and a civilain contractor, like Groom. And China Lake *does* have SEALs, though they are tasked to the surface warfare center and SDV development groups. Several years ago I ahd the opportunity to talk to a few friendly SEALs who had been stationed at Mac., and they didn't report being a part of any security detail other than the standard stuff. Nowadays SEALs are rarely guarding anything as their primary mission- for a number of reasons, like NIS and civilian contractors handle that sort of thing, and the number of threats to US port facilities have greatly diminished. Dan _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Knowledge is a virus. I n f e c t s o m e o n e y o u l o v e . Dan Zinngrabe http://members.macconnect.com/~quellish/3d/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 01:02:44 +1300 (NZDT) From: Kerry Ferrand Subject: Silverbug I realise its not a good idea to mention U*O in these parts but here's something that might be interesting to list members that just lurks at a UFO site: starting at http://ufo-world.simplenet.com/head.html are scanned pages of a 1955 USAF technical report on "project Silverbug" an old AVRO supersonic VTOL flying disk study..a bit different than the more famous AVRO effort (Airocar?). Oddly it says its was recently declassfied on the cover, whilst inside it states its an unclassified report (classified at a later date?)..oh well some interesting stuff in there, of historical interest if nothing else. Kerry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 01:21:33 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: Project 'Moby Dick' - Sources, Please John, There were a couple of times that (black) balloon projects were discussed here on the Skunk Works list over the years, with a high in November 1994. Besides Moby Dick (Skyhook, Genetrix, Gopher, etc.) and Mogul, some manned projects, including Man High, and WWII projects, like the Japanese balloon bombs, were also mentioned. You can find those threads in the following digests: 5-148a, 5-164, 5-165, and 5-168. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 01:22:29 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: Why deny Area 51? Samuel Sporrenstrand wrote: >I saw a program on TV the other night about the U-2 project. >There they showed the films from the 50'ies when the aircraft was tested >and first flew. But the funny thing was that they said that the location >was Area 51 aka Dreamland, Paradise Ranch. (I don't really remember which >expression they used) Is this usual? Cuz on normal swedish documentaries >they only stick to known facts... Then that seems to have been a normal Swedish documentary, because they did stick to the known facts. :) - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 13:47:13 +0000 From: "Stephen O'Brien" <11506@aquinas.ac.uk> Subject: HALO Document In "Flight International" dated 1-7 November 1995, there was an article on HALO. It said that HALO had been referred to in an unclassified document. Does anyone know what that document was? And where can I get a copy? Stephen O'Brien, Manchester, England ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 03:05:16 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: U-2 Altitude Max Steve Hofer wrote: >The second >thing that I saw was in Bill Sweetman's Aurora book, a table where it >described the flight speed and altitude envelopes necessary to bring >sufficient specific air pressure into the engines to support combustion. >According to the Sweetman table, the U-2 couldn't fly at lower than Mach 1 >at 90,000 feet and still get enough air. I wouldn't read too much into that sketch of a table, especially considering that it also indicates that the minimum speed (to "lift the vehicle or make air-breathing work") at about 50,000 ft. would be Mach 1, and all kinds of aircraft fly above 50,000 ft. but below Mach 1. This table might be true for 'Aurora-type' very-low-aspect-ratio aircraft and ramjet-type engines, but is in no way absolute. Anyway, the notion that the U-2's altitude (even of the earlier, lighter versions) might be 'way' above 80,000 ft. sounds as unbelievable as the frequently heard rumor that SR-71s can fly faster than Mach 4. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 03:03:03 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: A&E's Investigative Reports on The USAF John Stone wrote: >But I do have a question, in the section on the F-117, all the pilots were >carrying a small aluminum Haliburton case with them to and from the >aircraft....and no one ever mentioned what was in it....at least I didn't >hear anyone on the show mention it...So what is in the case? This case contains the EDTM (Electronic Data Transfer Module), a cartridge that is plugged into the aircraft's on-board mission computer, a Lockheed Martin (formerly Loral and before that IBM) AP-102 computer, which is based on the Space Shuttle computer, and which replaced the original three Delco M362F mission computers in the OCIP-I (Offensive Capability Improvement Program 1). The cartridge contains the complete mission, including precisely timed way points and target coordinates, which basically allows for a complete mission to be flown, hands-off by autopilot, from take-off to landing, including target acquisition and weapons release. The pilots don't program their own missions -- that is done by the mission planners, which of course are pilots too, using sophisticated ground-based mission planning computers and programs -- but if the EDTM has a problem or last minute changes are necessary, the pilot can enter data directly into the on-board computer via a keypad in the cockpit. The Lockheed-developed Mission Planning System, which includes such features as threat avoidance and de-conflicting of several (near) simultaneous attacks by different aircraft of the same target within a couple of seconds, was the blue print for the B-2 mission planning system, and similar programs are now also used or planned for various other attack aircraft. - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jan 98 13:30:54 GMT From: "Terry Colvin" Subject: Re: Airplane? ____________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ Subject: Re: Airplane? Author: pkfrye@ix.netcom.com at smtp-fhu Date: 1/5/98 8:16 PM Hi Terry, I went to the web page, but could find nothing that was even close. Here is the best I can do. It looked like two Concorde SST's flying at about 500 feet above the tgerrain.. They were either swept wing or delta wing far back with what seemed a long fuselege in front of that. As I say, they reminded me of the Concorde. If I remember correctly there wre large intakes like the F-15 and the delta was rounded like the concorde. Thanks. Pat Terry Colvin wrote: > > ____________________________ Forward Header __________________________________ > Subject: Re: Airplane? > Author: skunk-works@netwrx1.com at smtp-fhu > Date: 1/2/98 3:42 PM > > Terry Colvin wrote: > > > > Please courtesy copy me on your suggested modern aircraft photo sites > > when you reply to Patrick. > > > > Terry > > colvint@fhu.disa.mil > > > > ______________________________ Forward Header > __________________________________ > > Subject: Airplane? > > Author: pkfrye@ix.netcom.com at smtp-fhu > > Date: 12/31/97 11:50 AM > > > > Hi Terry, > > > > Would you know of a web site that shows pictures of modern aircraft? I > > saw two planes yesterday fly over my house that I did not recognize. > > I'm thinking that they may have been the new YF-22 (is that the > > designation). I am not up on the latest, but I do like watching jets > > and do have an interest in them and sort of know what is around and I > > don't think these guys fit anything. Thanks and I hope your holidays > > are great. > > > > Peace and regards, Pat > > I didn't really understand the *forward* part there, so I'll just write > the address to whoever wants it. > > http://www.degeer.norrkoping.se/~samues5h/ > 'If it by any chance doesn't work today, it'll work tomorrow' - Samuel S; 1998 > > Best regards // Samuel Sporrenstrand > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > \ / *URL: www.aircraft.base.org > _\_/_ *E-Mail: alltech@swipnet.se > *----/_(.)_\----* *Contact: Samuel Sporrenstrand > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #3 ******************************* 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