skunk-works-digest Wednesday, January 28 1998 Volume 07 : Number 005 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** :) Antigravity Controversy Re: F-117 course tape Re: skunk-works-digest V7 #4 Resending missing posts... New F-117 book from Jane's Found on the Web Re: F-117 course tape Re: New Book on "Smart Weapons" Re: F-117 course tape *************************************************** Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 23:29:36 -0500 (EST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: :) On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, Darryl Matthews wrote: >they started the tail reduction for the X-31, or have the funds run out? They finished with the study of tail less X-31 already years ago. I believe it was the last thing that was done with the X-31 before it was retired. I suggest you to start reading Aviation Week & Space Technology if you wants to keep up to date in aviation news (no offense of course). Sorry about the late response... MIB is playing with my e-mails again and I wasn't receiving the Skunk Works regular list. Only the digest. May the Force be with you Su Wei-Jen E-mails: wsu02@utopia.poly.edu wjs@webspan.net "What's the difference between God and pilots? God doesn't think he's a pilot." Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 21:49:38 -0800 From: "Keith Woodard" Subject: Antigravity Controversy Hi Folks, This is somewhat off-topic, but I'm hoping at least someone here might have the expertise to help with a controversy regarding black-budget "antigravity" aircraft. A week or so ago, a posting on UFO Updates said, in part: > What these witnesses describe is a triangle shaped object about > 1000 feet in the air that was immense in size. Many of the > witnesses estimated the object to be over 20 blocks long! Many > got out of there cars to watch it fly by as it was moving very > slowly at this point. Some even reported that the object was so > low there headlights reflected off of it. It obviously was using > some sort of anti-gravity propulsion. ************************************* I responded with: ************************************* Have you read about the secret military "flying wing" called the "Blimp?" Art Bell's first UFO sighting, that forever changed the character of his show, answers to this description. He says the craft was definitely "floating" through the air. According to the Federation of American Scientists (http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/blimp.htm): ********************************** ********************************** "A very intriguing aircraft was been reported in the late 1980s. Some observers claim to have witnessed a vast black flying wing, estimated at between 600 and 800 feet in width, passing silently over city streets in California. The craft moved so slowly one observer claimed that he could jog along with it. The aircraft reportedly executed bizarre maneuvers in which it stopped, rotated in place and hovered vertically, pointing its thin trailing edge toward the ground. This vehicle's unlikely gyrations suggest that it is distinct from the other sightings, and could be a lighter-than-air craft pushed by slow- turning propellers." ********************************* ********************************* [Me again:] Even if it's not lighter-than-air, it seems possible that a large cross-section-to-mass ratio, ultra-light materials, and advanced aerodynamic contours could enable a heavier-than-air craft to float in the observed manner. My point is that a craft behaving this way would not necessarily need an antigravity device. ***************************** Mark Cashman and I then entered into this exchange: ***************************** [Mark:] I think a brief moment of thought will suggest what happens to this "vehicle" in any kind of wind. Flip, turn, roll, catch wing on tree, crash... Don't forget the Hudson Valley sightings had several under very windy conditions, including the Indian Head nuclear power plant. [Keith:] > Are you talking lighter-than-air, or ultralight as well? [Mark:] Either way is a problem in some of the weather conditions under which these sightings have occurred. A balloon with a hundred or more foot lighter than air wing would be incredibly hard to maintain in any sort of wind because the slightest pitch up or down or lateral would drastically increase the surface area available for the wind to affect. Because these transitions would be very rapid and probably chaotic, I would tend to doubt that even fly by wire systems would do well. An ultralight has similar problems. All it takes is a brief look at an ultralight coming in for a landing to realize that even with a mere 20 foot wingspan, the ultralight can have serious control problems in even mild crosswinds. But many of the observations of large boomerang type objects have been of things 100 feet or more across, with the objects at altitudes which fall readily into the stereo vision range. Obviously those would be even more unstable. [Keith:] > It won't take much for me to fold on this issue because I have no > engineering aptitude at all, and I know zilch about aviation. Is > that generally true of gliders, that they can't handle any kind > of wind? It surprises me a little, because I've seen HANG > gliders do okay in strong winds. And it seems like the huge size > of these things might afford some stability, not to mention all > manner of advanced stabilization systems they might have > developed. [Afterwards, I thought maybe a larger size would be less stable at the same mass because the wind can act on a longer moment arm. - K] [Mark:] Hang gliders ride the winds. There is some ability for a hang glider to remain stable in specific areas of updraft (near ridges, for instance), but in a strong 40-50 mph wind I suspect that a hang glider would be hard pressed to do anything but go with the flow. The trade-off is weight/power vs. surface area. Now these aircraft, if they existed, would have a wing area easily as large as a 747, but at that weight, using conventional power plants to produce the energy needed to stay in the air at the reported altitudes, they would make a sound like thunder. Once we get that far, we have to then say, well, they don't need that much power because they're lighter. But as they get lighter, the wind becomes more effective against their surface area and they become less stable in winds. [Keith:] > The other thing is that the Board of Sponsors of the Federation > of American Scientists includes half the country's living Nobel > laureates, so I wouldn't think they'd put this forward if it > didn't make at least a modicum of sense. You're probably much > more knowledgeable than I about this, so tell me what you think. [Mark:] Well, I'm not going to try to knock at people who have demonstrated their knowledge and their ability in various fields, except to say that a true judgement of the practicality of this sort of aircraft in the flight regimes required to account for sightings such as the extensive Hudson Valley reports would fall to aeronautical engineers. I'm not one of those, but I do have a keen amateur interest, and the "giant flying wing" sets off my BS detector whenever its proposed as an alternative for sightings like those in the Hudson Valley. [End of exchange] ***************************** My question, should you decide to accept it: is Mark's reasoning correct? Thanks very much, Keith Woodard Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 04:02:04 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: F-117 course tape At 01:42 PM 1/27/98 -0800, you wrote: >> 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. > > I don't know nuthin' 'bout this, but it could be that the course >tapes are actually an important part of the stealthiness of the F-117. >Remember that the principal, er, principle in stealth as we know it is >to direct energy away from the threat radar or other sensor; absorptive >materials play a secondary role. Another way to say this is that the >bistatic radar cross-section diagram of the stealthy airplane has deep >nulls which are intended to be oriented toward the (mostly monostatic) >threat radar receivers -- but it also has peaks where the energy from >the radar is sent. > > For the redirection trick to work, the locations of the threat radars >must be known (a job for pre-mission ELINT and real-time ESM) and the >flight path crafted so that, at a given point, the rcs nulls are pointed >at the radars and the peaks go off in some hopefully harmless direction. >So I suspect that the course tapes, in addition to getting everyone on >target at the right time, contain a lot of ELINT-derived twists and >turns designed to keep the defender's radars in the dark. > ====================================== You are correct in several ways. Due to the necessity of a flightpath that required all these changes they had the foresight to give the 117 a flight management computer. And it is precise. One pilot while flying a training mission discovered in flight that he had inadvertently programmed what amounted to a snap roll. I am not sure if the path is an actual function of the null of the rcs. This may be an ideal condition. If the flight path is to take a plane through a seies of radars I suspect they are more concerned with actual distance rather than direction. Depending on the radar threat (power, frequency, geographic location) it may be prudent to fly closer or further while gingerly picking ones way through the minefield. Now actual angles of the117 surface are designed to incorporate forward scatter (away from the radar's source) and the sidelobes of the signals too are scattered. One effect of this is as the plane is constantly in motion about its different axis, its RCS is also changing in amplitude and this is evidently disruptive to the receiver portion of the radar. But I am not a radar expert and would encourage those who are to comment here. Once again, the plane is not invisible to radar. But it severly limits the effective range of a radar which allows the aircraft to work "invisibly" in these fringe areas other aircraft cannot. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:36:05 EST From: MELUMAN Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V7 #4 Winmail.dat? Winmail.dat? UNREADABLE ----- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 10:42:43 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Resending missing posts... I sent the following two posts to the Skunk Works list on 01/19/1998, but they apparently didn't make it to the list, and weren't included in either of the last two digests, so here they are again. - -- 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: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 10:49:15 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: New F-117 book from Jane's After 90 days, Zenith sent me a card saying that the new Jane's book about the F-117, that I had ordered in September, was still not available, and that they have cancelled my order. So I went online and ordered the book from Amazon.com, which sells it 30% cheaper ($12.60 instead of $18) and had it available right away. Actually, it arrived just 3 days later. I also saw the book a couple of days ago in our local Borders book store. Jane's advertisement, as published at Amazon Book's web page, is as accurate as the rest of the book: >Jane's puts readers into the cockpit of the most advanced military aircraft >in history, the F-117 Nighthawk. Dubbed the "Stealth Bomber" due to its >sophisticated materials and design, the F-117 is virtually invisible to most >radar, giving it an unprecedented ability to strike deep behind enemy lines, >then return to base all without ever being seen! Only recently declassified, >this is the very jet fighter that played a pivotal role in Operation Desert >Storm, slipping past Iraqi radar on more than 1,000 missions to pound Saddam >Hussein's military and infrastructure without taking a single hit. >Now with F-117 Stealth Bomber, the first book in Jane's exciting new At The >Controls series, readers can strap themselves in for "hands-on" training in >this advanced strike aircraft. Readers will learn how to take off and >maneuver, how to use the stealth technology and even how to recognize, evade >and attack enemy aircraft and air defenses! Every function, every high-tech >instrument is included, along with a special 30-inch, fold-out section >showing the cockpit layout, technical details and much more. More than one >hundred illustrations and photos show the plane and its adversaries in >action, making this a tremendous book for military buffs, aircraft fans or >anyone who yearns to fly one of today's hottest planes. The title and front cover are slightly different than the ones advertised in the Zenith catalog, though. Zenith's title was: "How To Fly and Fight In the F-117 Nighthawk", as part of the new "At The Controls" series by Jane's. The real (final ?) title is: "How To Fly and Fight In the F-117A Stealth Fighter", and it's the second (rather than first) title in the "At The Controls" series by Jane's. Also, the originally shown title photo (as seen in the Zenith catalog) has given way to (an acceptable, but not great) drawing of an F-117A by Iain Wyllie. The book in general is a disappointment and includes (as far as I am concerned) not a single shred of new information, no new photos (besides reversing one), and the (approximately 15) drawings that are new, were mostly copied from otherwise well known photos. Contrary to the advertisement the foldout shows only a typical WAPJ (World Air Power Journal) 3-view drawing of an F-117 with some additional text -- which for some strange reason ends in the middle of a sentence -- and not a cockpit layout. The drawing is identical to the one published in WAPJ, besides some different markings (depicting Ship 809 instead of Ship 795). Some captions, though, are quite mixed up or plain wrong. The only cockpit views in the book are 2 (old) photos of the pre-OCIP-II (Offensive Capability Improvement Program 2) cockpit layout, and a drawing which is basically identical to one of the two photos (which shows the simulator, rather than a real plane). The book does not help at all with the serial number mystery, but includes several errors, which are quite puzzling. The author, Jon Lake, who is probably a better editor (WAPJ) than author, states for example that the official name (the so-called Popular Name) of the F-117 is "Stealth Fighter" and not "Nighthawk" "(which was nearly adopted as the type's official name)". That is in conflict with 'official' USAF fact sheets, calling the aircraft F-117A Nighthawk, and ACC (Air Combat Command)'s announcement that the F-117A was officially named "Nighthawk" on June 24, 1994, at Holloman AFB, NM, (as reported in Skunk Works Digest Vol. 5, No 134, from 07/14/1994, by Dean Adams ) and elsewhere. The book seems to rely heavily on Robert F. Dorr's article: "Lockheed F-117: The Black Jet", which was first published in WAPJ Volume 19, Winter 1994, and which is also available as a separate publication. This article predated the official naming of the F-117A, 3.5 years ago, and that may be the reason why Jon Lake got that fact wrong, too. This older publication also has a better cockpit photo (also pre-OCIP-II) including better, if sparse, instrument descriptions, and as far as I am concerned, Jon Lake's book did not explain a single instrument beyond very generally mentioning a few of them. I don't know where the ridiculous idea comes from that the red anti-collision lights above and below the aircraft a removable 'bolt-on' items, but I have read this claim before. They are of course, like all the UHF/VHF (Ultra/Very-High Frequency) and ILS (Instrument Landing System) blade antennas and the air-refueling receptacle, retractable in flight. If he can't get such obvious things right, how accurate might be the rest? Contrary to many other books, this one does not include an index, glossary or footnotes. Interestingly, Jon Lake seems to have misunderstood several things printd in earlier (and generally better) articles/books (even though some too were partially inaccurate), which resulted in an even worse mixup of the facts. The only 'adversaries' depicted in the book are a couple of bombed-out Iraqi aircraft shelters and a Tu-16 Badger seen through the IRADS (Infra-Red Acquisition and Detection System). Several contradicting facts are stated like: "During the war as a whole, the force flew 1,271 combat sorties and over 6,900 combat flying hours, carrying 2,567 bombs to their targets. These scored 1,669 direct hits, and 418 misses, though there were also 480 no drops due to weather." Later he writes: "And during Desert Storm, almost nine out of ten bombs dropped by the F-117 hit with similar accuracy..." But a ratio of 1,669 to 418 is 4 to 1, not 9 to 1, or less than eight out of ten, rather than "almost nine out of ten". The ratio was actually lowered to less than 50% by some GAO report in 1996, if I remember correctly. All of this seems to me a typical case of copying statements from various sources, without actually checking, questioning or understanding their meaning. One little tidbit that I found interesting, is that the book contains a photo of our (Skunk Works list subscribers) resident Groom Lake history specialist and aerospace historian, archeologist and writer, Peter W. Merlin , attending the delivery ceremony of the last F-117A. :) If you collect all and any F-117A stuff (as I do), order the book from Amazon Books, but if you only want new and accurate information about "How To Fly and Fight In the F-117A Stealth Fighter", don't waste your money on this one, but maybe watch the AW&ST/Discovery video "Nighthawk, Secrets of the Stealth" instead. Or sign up with the USAF, you may be able to see the real thing after a couple of years. :) The aforementioned WAPJ publication "Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk" by Robert F. Dorr is a much better general history of the aircraft, and costs only $9.95, if you can find it. - -- 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: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 10:50:51 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Found on the Web The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, has been put on the net by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs at: http://www.la.osd.mil/con_rpt/ Even though the format is quite cumbersome -- each of the several hundred document pages converted to its own web page file, without the option to get the whole document at once, to search for something, or any cross-links -- it nevertheless contains several Skunk Works related items, including some information on: * U-2 (Senior Year/Senior Ruby/Senior Spear/Senior Glass/SYERS/ASARS): - 29b6.htm - 29ba.htm - 9aea.htm (7 times) * SR-71: - 2df6.htm - 40ca.htm (7 times) - 895e.htm (7 times) * RQ-3 (DarkStar, Tier III-, HAE-UAV): - 29ba.htm - 29e6.htm - 3d5a.htm (7 times) - 3d62.htm (7 times) - 9ad2.htm (7 times) * X-35 (and X-32, JAST = Joint Advanced Strike Technology): - 274a.htm - 29f2.htm - 3d2e.htm (7 times) * F-22 (Raptor): - 29d6.htm - 3ce6.htm (7 times) - 3cf6.htm (7 times) - a146.htm (7 times) * X-33 (and VentureStar, RLV = Reusable Launch Vehicles): - 291e.htm - 29ce.htm * JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile): - 28f6.htm * Quiet Knight (LPI/D = Low-Probability of Intercept/Detection avionics): - 299e.htm * Pacer Coin (C-130 reconnaissance/INTEL version): - 26b2.htm - 2a46.htm * Senior Scout (C-130 INTEL/reconnaissance sensor package/mission): - 2a46.htm - 2a4a.htm * AC-130U and MC-130H Combat Talon II (SOF C-130s): - 8a4e.htm (7 times) - 9afa.htm (7 times) And some non-Skunk Works, but related things: * F-16 (reconnaissance mod.): - 29e2.htm - 3cea.htm * NF-16D VISTA (Variable stability In-flight Simulator Test Aircraft): - 2936.htm * DARO/DARP (Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Organization/Projects): - 2dc2.htm - 556e.htm (7 times) - 895e.htm (7 times) - 99e6.htm * ARL (Airborne Reconnaissance Low, or O-5, or RC-7B): - 25ce.htm - 81f2.htm (7 times) * RC-135 (Rivet Joint/Combat Sent/etc.) - 26b6.htm - 895e.htm (7 times) - 896e.htm (7 times) - 899a.htm (7 times) * RQ-1 (Predator, Tier II, MAE-UAV) - 26ce.htm - 29ba.htm - 29e6.htm - 89ae.htm (7 times) - 89be.htm (7 times) * RQ-2 (Pioneer UAV) - 26de.htm - 29ba.htm - 29e6.htm - 89a2.htm (7 times) * RQ-4 (Global Hawk, Tier II+, HAE-UAV) - 29ba.htm - 9ab6.htm (7 times) * UAVs (in general): - 29ba.htm - 29e6.htm - 3d5a.htm (7 times) - 3d62.htm (7 times) - 9a02.htm (7 times) And many more things. Those documents don't include much real, technical or specific information, but some are quite enlightening, describing either what the systems/projects are used for in general terms, how many are planned/envisioned, how much they cost or which political ploy is associated with them. - -- 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: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 10:55:17 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: F-117 course tape Allen Thomson wrote: [...] >So I suspect that the course tapes, in addition to getting everyone on >target at the right time, contain a lot of ELINT-derived twists and >turns designed to keep the defender's radars in the dark. and Patrick Cullumber responded: >I am not sure if the path is an actual function of the null of the rcs. >This may be an ideal condition. If the flight path is to take a plane >through a seies of radars I suspect they are more concerned with actual >distance rather than direction. Depending on the radar threat (power, >frequency, geographic location) it may be prudent to fly closer or further >while gingerly picking ones way through the minefield. [...] >Once again, the plane is not invisible to radar. But it severly limits the >effective range of a radar which allows the aircraft to work "invisibly" in >these fringe areas other aircraft cannot. For a pretty good example of this 'threat range reduction through stealth' method, see the two graphics on page 95 of the book "Stealth Fighter Pilot", by D.M. Giangreco. The mission planning software, as well as the OCIP-II (Offensive Capability Improvement Program 2) cockpit with moving map display, shows all (known) thread radars and their individual range, especially tailored to the (calculated or estimated) position and configration of the aircraft, which might affect its RCS. The B-2 and F-22 have similar systems. - -- 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: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 11:01:47 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: New Book on "Smart Weapons" Brent Clark wrote: >While browsing through the Barnes and Noble bookstore, I noticed a book >titled "Smart Weapons Top Secret History of Remote Controlled Airborne >Weapons". >Looking through the book I thought it would be of interest to >subscribers of this newsgroup. There are some interesting photos and >articles of various projects including the D-21 Drone, X-36, the >Predetor UAV, F-24, Darkstar ect. The development of various projects >at Groom Lake are mentioned. and "James P. Stevenson" asked: >O.K. Now you have my curiosity up. What is the F-24? This book is obviously based on the tv show with the same name (or maybe vice versa), which aired a couple of months or so ago on Discovery/TLC or A&E/History Channel, and is interesting but also quite inaccurate. None of the stuff mentioned is secret (or better, has not been secret for quite a while), and a lot is just copied straight out of other publications or from the internet. Actually, some downloaded very low-res jpegs and gifs are reproduced as page-filling pictures. Their "F-24 Delta" is a fictitious (and absolutely incorrect) designation given by the author(s) to a speculative unmanned aircraft (UCAV = Uninhabited Combat Air Vehicle), supposedly tested at Groom Lake and now fielded at Tonopah, designed and used for SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) missions. They show several photos of the "General Dynamics/Lockheed A-12" mock-up and photo montages with models, and call it "F-24 Delta". Of course, assuming the vehicle exists, and furthermore assuming that the vehicle has received a standard USAF MDS (Mission Design Series) designation, it most likely would not have been designated F-24, but either xxM-1xx (in the Missile series) or possibly AQ-5A or RQ-5A (in the new UAV series). At least they don't claim that the M-21 had a crew of three, as they did in the tv show (even though they use "M-12", and included several other small errors in the D-21 paragraphs). Besides some messed-up photo captions and 'misplaced' photos, most errors are regarding the ever so frequent and cryptically mentioned "Area-51", which according to this book, not only includes Tonopah and the Tonopah Test Range, but also lies "adjacent" to "Indian Springs Air Force Base", "which is on the edge of the test facility known as Area-51." Apparently, the complete Nellis Air Force Range, most likely including the Nevada Test Site, has been renamed "Area-51" -- I suspect another publicity stunt of some Nevada politician, like naming Route 375 the 'Extraterrestrial (Alien) Highway'. :) Of course, I didn't read the whole book, and there are probably many other errors to discover. But, what the heck, it is worth 8 bucks. - -- 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: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 14:49:32 -0000 From: Gavin Payne Subject: Re: F-117 course tape I think that the fact that the Nighthawk's stealthiness being what it is not just down to the direction it faces relative to a radar. If the aircraft was in an air-combat situation or being attacked then deviations in flightpaths could be expected. It would a serious design flaw if a manually steered Nighthawk only offered minimal radar protection. Gavin Payne End of skunk-works-digest V7 #5 ******************************* 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