From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #38 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Wednesday, July 22 1998 Volume 07 : Number 038 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** VG Su-27...anyone? re: VG Su27...anyone? Re: VG Su-27...anyone? Fast Walker? RE: Fast Walker? Re: Fast Walker? RE: Fast Walker? Re: RE: Fast Walker? Re: Fast Walker? NASA Establishes Near-Earth Object Program Office at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (fwd) India building Mach 7 Hyperplane? Re: India building Mach 7 Hyperplane? SR-71 update update Lockheed/Northrop merger B-2 and Stealth Aircraft Sighting{?} Alan Shepard, RIP *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 20:13:42 +0900 From: "James Matthews" Subject: VG Su-27...anyone? Doesn't anyone have any other feedback on this...I'm really interested in this. James. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 08:29:39 EDT From: CatshotKim@aol.com Subject: re: VG Su27...anyone? James, I posted earlier about this subject. My research in the home library turned up no reference to a VG prototype or variant of the SU-27. The book "Soviet X- Planes" covers the SU-27 prototyping effort without mentioning a VG attempt. Kim Keller ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 01:10:41 +1200 (NZST) From: Kerry Ferrand Subject: Re: VG Su-27...anyone? On Mon, 13 Jul 1998, James Matthews wrote: > Doesn't anyone have any other feedback on this...I'm really interested in > this. > > James. > I think the VG wing thing was Bill Gunston's theory based on some pretty crumby leaked US spy sat shots. The earliest prototype Su-27 had a completely different looking curvy wing jutting out from the lerx/blending.. from above it almost looks like they could move back to just about touch the horizontal tails ala F-14. K ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 09:41:00 -0400 From: "Colvin, Terry" Subject: Fast Walker? This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. - ------_=_NextPart_000_01BDAE7F.7EF2B2DA Content-Type: text/plain From: Sue Strickland >Greg St. Pierre wrote (snipped): >As long as broad statements are being made >about the UFO phenomenon,skeptics are >happy. This saves them from the unpleasant >task of analyzing each case for its individual >merits. It's time to publicly force the skeptics >to deal with the best quality sightings, not >"distant lights". Don't let them get away with >that anymore, guys! To all knowledgeable skeptics: Thanks Greg for pointing out the obvious. I think you brought up a good point. I'm one of those that may have been abducted from age 5 to 15, but I'd much prefer rational, logical explanations. Unfortunately, no one is providing either. The logic the FBI, CIA and other agencies use can play match-point to the dumb logic the ET's use. Funny thing, both groups expect us to swallow what they tell us, hook, line and sinker! Let's get wise. Those whose minds are closed to case studies limit many possibilities. I've got an interesting sighting to discuss. If there's someone able to respond to this, I would greatly appreciate it. In April, 1992 I was driving home from an evening class on a switch-back canyon road. An air-piloted vehicle paced (yes, paced) me (at 45-50 mph), along the canyon road cut-out to the left. The only light was from my headlights, which I purposely used to see inside the vehicle by dropping back, allowing the vehicle to get slightly ahead of me. The vehicle was just a bit longer and about 2 or 3 times the width of my truck. I concentrated on looking for wings. I could not see them, but on a couple of occasions, I noticed a red blinking light where a running light might be on an airplane. It had a see-through canopy stretching from the very front (windshield?) to 3/4 of the way back. I saw the shadow of 1 pilot and 1 other individual (who walked...yes walked...(gravity inside?) ...balancing himself between whatever was at his lower hip line). When I rolled the driver's window down, there was no sound, no hum, no whirling (I really thought it was a test jet from the AFB!) I really expected to see it a ball of flame around the last switch back. It was gone! I looked up, saw nothing but stars. When I got home and told my husband, he said, "Sue, are you sure you saw a plane?" I said, well if it wasn't a plane, it was a UFO, because it made no noise." He said, "But what jet do we have that could manuver through that canyon-cut going 45-50 mph, then shoot ahead just before the cut ended?" That was what stumped me. About 2 months later, I saw a small jet being transported down the highway (from Los Alamos direction to Albuquerque AFB?) Please, someone tell me I saw a little stealth jet manned by humans. See how easy it is to respond to something like that? It's so simple. Only thing is, it doesn't fit the reality of the case study, does it? My husband does not believe in UFO's, but he doesn't know how to explain this either, and he knows I don't lie. Anybody know anything about this? Please don't ignore this posting, as you ufologists seem to have so many answers. Thanks, Sue - -- - ------_=_NextPart_000_01BDAE7F.7EF2B2DA Content-Type: text/plain; name="Forward.txt" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Forward.txt" Content-Location: ATT-0-03A79C86F718D211BC4C00204840154B-F orward.txt - ---------------------------- Forwarded with Changes --------------------------- From: Terry W. Colvin [SMTP:fortean@primenet.com] at DISA2 Date: 7/12/98 8:26AM To: Terry Colvin at FHU2 Subject: Fast Walker? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------_=_NextPart_000_01BDAE7F.7EF2B2DA-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 09:43:00 -0400 From: "Colvin, Terry" Subject: RE: Fast Walker? This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. - ------_=_NextPart_000_01BDAE7F.7F167620 Content-Type: text/plain Donald Ledger replied: Hi Sue, There are many out there that have a profound faith in the ability of the aeronautical community to engineer aircraft that could explain away UFO sightings. I am not one of them. When it comes to being able to come close to the capabilities of most UFOs the defence establishment is still having trouble getting out of its own way using jets to motivate their vehicles. There is nothing else. Now you have to ask yourself, and this should be your prime question, "...why is some government agency [if it does have some type of new "drive"] out flying this aircraft around near a public highway in such a manner as to make it visible to the general public?" Beyond all else, this question has to be answered first "if" you support the theory that what you saw was a man made vehicle. The "new" stealth as opposed to the "old"? The "old" F-117A is really a turkey of an aircraft that is very noisy, slow and clumsy. It has the ability to avoid radar detection the same as a fiberglass yacht does. It just goes faster than the yacht. Ask me if I have any respect for that machine. It works well against any opposing force that has ancient radar technology, or none. As for "new" stealths. By whom, the same people who gave you the F-117A? Remember how the public got wind of the latter. It crashed out in the desert somewhere during test flights in the late 70s. It has continued to do that ever since. It doesn't need an enemy to bring it down, it does that quite nicely on its own. You mentioned that the UFO was flying down the highway at about 50 mph. A Cessna-172 will stall out of the sky at 52-54 mph with full flaps deployed, and is noisey enough, for instance, that you would hear it quite well. Just to eliminate the ultralite possibility, there is none built that would be roomy enough to allow a passenger to get up and walk around. Prop driven aircraft usually generate most of their noise from the prop, not the muffled engine, though that is loud enough. You usually get new technology following out of the old, but in this case you have to ask yourself, in the last 20 years has the aerospace industry had the time to extrapolate from a poorly designed, unweildly, noisey, and slow aircraft to the one you saw in the canyon? And if so, again why was it flying down a public highway during testing? Hope this helps eliminate some possibilities for you Sue. Don Ledger - -- - ------_=_NextPart_000_01BDAE7F.7F167620 Content-Type: text/plain; name="Forward.txt" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Forward.txt" Content-Location: ATT-0-06A79C86F718D211BC4C00204840154B-F orward.txt - ---------------------------- Forwarded with Changes --------------------------- From: Terry W. Colvin [SMTP:fortean@primenet.com] at DISA2 Date: 7/12/98 8:28AM To: Terry Colvin at FHU2 Subject: Re: Fast Walker? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------_=_NextPart_000_01BDAE7F.7F167620-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 10:40:26 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Fast Walker? >In April, 1992 I was driving home from an evening class on a >switch-back canyon road. An air-piloted vehicle paced (yes, >paced) me (at 45-50 mph), along the canyon road cut-out ... >I saw the shadow of 1 pilot >and 1 other individual (who walked...yes walked...(gravity >inside?) ...balancing himself ... This is unallowed by the sacred charter, however I cannot resist making a wild ass (pardon me) speculation which I will probably deny later. I wonder if it is possible to lucid dream and drive at the same time? This isn't even a hypothesis, much less an explanation. It's just a silly idea that may have some merit for investigation sometime. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 14:39:54 -0700 From: patrick Subject: RE: Fast Walker? At 09:43 AM 7/13/98 -0400, you wrote: >Donald Ledger replied: > >The "new" stealth as opposed to the "old"? The "old" F-117A is >really a turkey of an aircraft that is very noisy, slow and >clumsy. It has the ability to avoid radar detection the same as >a fiberglass yacht does. It just goes faster than the yacht. Ask >me if I have any respect for that machine. It works well against >any opposing force that has ancient radar technology, or none. > >As for "new" stealths. By whom, the same people who gave you the >F-117A? Remember how the public got wind of the latter. It >crashed out in the desert somewhere during test flights in the >late 70s. It has continued to do that ever since. It doesn't >need an enemy to bring it down, it does that quite nicely on its >own. > - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------ Sorry....not on my watch! The F-117 design was a radical new design for technology for its time. The Skunk Works built a wonderful design based on the 2 dimensional technology they created. Had they waited 5 years for the capability to design a 3 dimensional low observable aircraft we would have never seen a plane anything like the F-117. On one hand I am happy to say the plane is not a turkey that crashes on its own. It has seen 6 crashes and on the other hand, sadly all due to human error. 3 as a result of spatial disorientation by the pilot and 3 due to improper reassembly of the aircraft before flight. Very noisy, slow and clumsy? Yes it is not a quiet aircraft at all, I agree. It is not slow in the sense it was designed as a subsonic aircraft. And as far as clumsy this too is a bad label. It uses an F-16 flight computer for a fly by wire system and in fact is plenty agile for its mission. The term "Wobbly Goblin" was attached to this plane only because of its first crash when no. 785 attempted an acceptance flight with some of the cables connected incorrectly to the flight control computer. And once again for the umpteenth time. It was never designed to completely avoid radar detection. It was an exercise in low observability. The goal was to reduce the RCS at every single opportunity. In fact the LO design engineers gave their design to the aerodynamicists who were instructed to make the design fly. patrick cullumber patrick@e-z.net ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 23:16:57 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: RE: Fast Walker? Can I ask why you posted this to the SW list Terry. For some reason the point of it escapes me for the moment. >Donald Ledger replied: >The "new" stealth as opposed to the "old"? The "old" F-117A is >really a turkey of an aircraft that is very noisy, slow and >clumsy. It has the ability to avoid radar detection the same as >a fiberglass yacht does. It just goes faster than the yacht. Ask >me if I have any respect for that machine. It works well against >any opposing force that has ancient radar technology, or none. Oh, I get it - now we know that Iraq has ancient or no radar technology and that all Ben Rich et al needed to do was build the F-117a out of GRP to achieve LO. Here's me thinking that multi-spectral LO was a real Pandora's Box of problems, I had no idea it was so easy. I know it's been slow here but do we really need this ? Best David ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 17:44:10 -0700 (PDT) From: dadams@netcom.com Subject: Re: Fast Walker? > I think you brought up a good point. I'm one of those that may > have been abducted from age 5 to 15, but I'd much prefer > rational, logical explanations. Unfortunately, no one is > providing either. WHAT does it take for certain people to understand that this is not the place for posting their UFO religious debates??? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 01:01:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: NASA Establishes Near-Earth Object Program Office at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (fwd) For those of you interesting in the asteroid/meteor collision. May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu "No matter where you go, there you are." U.S.S. Excelsior NCC-2000 - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 13:36:17 -0400 (EDT) From: NASANews@hq.nasa.gov To: undisclosed-recipients: ; Subject: NASA Establishes Near-Earth Object Program Office at Jet Propulsion Laboratory Donald Savage Headquarters, Washington, DC July 14, 1998 (Phone: 202/358-1727) Mary Beth Murrill Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA (Phone: 818/354-5011) RELEASE: 98-123 NASA ESTABLISHES NEAR-EARTH OBJECT PROGRAM OFFICE AT JET PROPULSION LABORATORY A new program office to coordinate NASA-sponsored efforts to detect, track and characterize potentially hazardous asteroids and comets that could approach Earth will be established at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, CA. NASA's Near-Earth Object Program Office will focus on the goal of locating at least 90 percent of the estimated 2,000 asteroids and comets that approach the Earth and are larger than about 2/3-mile (about 1 kilometer) in diameter, by the end of the next decade. "These are objects that are difficult to detect because of their relatively small size, but are large enough to cause global effects if one hit the Earth," said Dr. Donald K. Yeomans of JPL, who will head the new program office. "Finding a majority of this population will require the efforts of researchers at several NASA centers, at universities and at observatories across the country, and will require the participation by the international astronomy community as well." "We determined that, in order to achieve our goals, we need a more formal focusing of our near-Earth object tracking efforts and related communications with the supporting research community," said Dr. B. Carl Pilcher, science director for Solar System Exploration in NASA's Office of Space Science, NASA Headquarters. "I want to emphasize that science research solicitations and resulting peer reviews, international coordination, and strategic planning regarding future missions will remain the responsibilities of NASA Headquarters." In addition to managing the detection and cataloging of near-Earth objects, the new NASA office will be responsible for facilitating communications between the astronomical community and the public should any potentially hazardous objects be discovered as a result of the program, Pilcher said. JPL was selected to host the program office because of its expertise in precisely tracking the positions and predicted paths of asteroids and comets. No significant additional staff hiring at JPL is expected at this time. A fact sheet describing NASA's research and spacecraft missions related to asteroids and comets is available on the Internet at the following address: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/facts/HTML/FS-023-HQ.htm -end- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 20:06:55 -0600 From: Brent Clark Subject: India building Mach 7 Hyperplane? According to a news brief in Popular Mechanics (Aug, 1998), India has completed two critical tests of the engine for it's new "Avatar" Hyper plane. According to the article, the plane would takeoff like a conventional airplane using a turbofan jet engine, and then transition to a scram jet type powerplant. The "scram jet" would accelerate it to Mach 7 and an altitude of 19 miles. According to a spokesman the Avatar would be used to deploy communications satellites and be used as a "fast spy plane". Did I miss something in my Aviation week? Do they (India) have this level of technology? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 17:07:59 +1200 (NZST) From: Kerry Ferrand Subject: Re: India building Mach 7 Hyperplane? On Wed, 15 Jul 1998, Brent Clark wrote: > According to a spokesman the Avatar would be used to deploy > communications satellites and be used as a "fast spy plane". > Did I miss something in my Aviation week? Do they (India) have this > level of technology? > first reports of this thing came out about a month before the recent Indian nuclear tests..(AP stories etc)-seemed to alternate between describing it as a peaceful sat launcher and a spyplane. The day after the N-tests there was a wire story that mentioned the idea of sticking a nuclear warhead in it and using it as a hypersonic cruise missile. The info I've read makes it sound like they want to make a cross between the MiG-25 and the X-15- a big twin engined fighter-like aircraft which also has a rocket in the rear for that extra kick. I don't think its impossible for them to build it..they have a rapidly advancing space and missile program, world class software engineers and possibly Russian aerospace consultants on tap. K ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 98 02:27:01 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: SR-71 update update Still no word on where the $39 million went to. The aircraft can be flyable in under 20 days. Factoring in the time to reintegrate and test the sensors as well as requalify the remaining pilot and RSO, operational capability could be reached in 6 weeks. Operational capability would be lost in January, though, as both the pilot and RSO are retiring. Figuring in new crew selection between now and January and training/checkout, operational capability would probably be reestablished in March. The next SR that was to be restored, 968, is still at Edwards where it had been moved to just prior to the veto. If it is still to be restored, that would be put off for a bit. Given the standdown, priority would be given to reacquiring operational capability (the SATCOM would be installed as part of bringing the program back up). Even if the program's money is restored, none of this will take place should AF and Co. succeed in talking Congress out of funding the program for FY99. There would be no point bringing the system back by the end of August only to shut it down again 30 days later. Should there be no FY99 appropriation, you can expect that unless NASA grabs one of them a move will be made to send 967 and 971 to DM where they will undoubtedly be damaged and rendered unflyable to prevent any chance of the planes ever coming back. More importantly, barring Congressional action forbidding it, any sensors/ECM that can't directly be plugged into a U-2 most likely will be quietly destroyed. This will eliminate any reason for the SR to ever be brought back, no matter what happens in the world. This is why the next couple of months are so critical. Without a FY99 appropriation (the entire year's budget would be less than one half the cost of one of the "Little Fighter that Couldn't"), the program is over. But hey! Don't not to worry; 7 to 10 years from now we may be able to field some UAVs that won't be able to cover as much territory or produce as much product, that will be equipped with what are apparently going to be less capable sensors! Art ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 19:52:11 -0700 From: ryankirk@juno.com Subject: Lockheed/Northrop merger Here's a few key quotes from today's WSJ. LOCKHEED MARTIN CANCELS MERGER AFTER TALKS WITH PENTAGON FAIL Conceding defeat in one of the largest antitrust cases brought by the U.S., Lockheed Martin Corp. abandoned its proposed $8.3 billion merger with Northrop Grumman Corp. The Pentagon said the two companies together would be too concentrated, both vertically as suppliers to each other's programs and horizontally across product lines, especially in defense electronics. After a 5 p.m. board meeting Thursday, Vance Coffman, Lockheed Martin's chief executive, issued a statement. "Continuing the litigation [for a merger] at this point is simply not in the best interests of Lockheed Martin's customers, shareholders or employees," he said, also citing "concern over the litigation with our principal customer," the U.S. government. In a telephone interview, Mr. Cofman said that the company had come to its conclusion over the previous 48 hours. "We have probably looked at over a dozen formats for how to satisfy the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense," he added. None worked. Another person familiar with the matter said that Lockheed had proposed a number of "structural separations: of the businesses that were at the heart of the government's antitrust concerns. But the real sticking point turned out to be the defense-electronics operations formerly owned by Westinghouse Electric Corp. that Northrop Grumman had acquired for $3 billion in 1996. The U.S. had pointed to that business, among others, back in March when it challenged the merger. But Besthesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin, which was negotiating on behalf of itself and Northrop Grumman, refused to sell the business. The ferocity of the U.S. suit shocked Lockheed and Northrop officials, who had assumed that their proposed merger continued the spirit of the Pentagon's own encouragement in 1993, under former Defense Secretary William Perry, that defense contractors consolidate in a post-Cold War environment of declining defense budgets. However, the U.S. court case indicated that both companies had fundamentally misread a change in thinking at the Pentagon under Defense Secretary Cohen, and particularly under JacQues Gansler, the new acquisitions chief, who shared growing Justice Department concerns about the possible drawbacks of stifled competition in the defense industry, especially if these two companies married. Fears that the two companies might exclude other suppliers were at the heart of the U.S. argument. But Lockheed Martin and Northrop responded to the suit by saying that not only would they continue to be competitive, but that as "merchant-suppliers," they would depend too heavily on the business of rivals Boeing and Raytheon to resort to such tactics. Lockheed, with revenue exceeding $28 billion a year, and Northrop, at $9 bilion, saw more than $1 billion in cost savings for themselves and taxpayers if they had tied the knot. "There's no doubt we would have been stronger with Northrop," Mr. Coffman said Thursday. One Pentagon official dismissed the possibility that Northrop might be acquired by a foreign company, saying that the U.S. would likely block such a move because of Northrop Grumman's expertise in stealth and electronics technologies. _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 13:36:16 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: B-2 and Stealth Aircraft Sighting{?} Posted by : Dave Pigott At 10:21 pm +0100 21/7/98, wrote: >Have you sighted the triangular/boomerang/delta/v-shaped UFO? Would you be >willing to sign an affidavit? If so, please e-mail CAUS the date, time and >place of your sighting with a brief description of what you saw. > >Peter A. Gersten, Executive Director Hi Peter, Yes, I have seen a triangular UFO - only I now believe that I have turned my sighting into an IFO. In August 1991 my ex-wife and I were staying in Wells, Nevada (northern part of the state) and were taking our Great Dane, Tuxedo (may he rest in peace), for a walk. It was late dusk, and as we walked down a little quiet back road, this craft came over with apparent slow motion, and absoluteley no noise. It was black, triangular, with lights on the underside (I don't recall the configuration now - it was 7 years ago!), and about the size of a 4" object held at arms length. It rolled a full 360 and then banked right and away. The sighting lasted no more than 10 seconds, but we both witnessed it. I have to say we stood there in awe for a while and looked at each other and said, "Jeez, a UFO!" When I got home to Boston, I contacted a friend of mine who was a military pilot (serving at the time, in civilian life now) and asked him what he thought it could be. He stated cattegorically that it was a stealth aircraft. I pressed him on various aspects of what I witnessed, but all he was prepared to say was that everthing that we witnessed pointed to a particular aircraft. Further investigations on my behalf have lead me to believe that he was correct. It may well have been a B2, which is rumoured to utilise electro-gravitic(*1) lift as well as the more traditional jet engines. If it has EG, then that would explain the slow movement and silence, if it does not use EG, then the normal stealth anti-sound technology would be utilised. I've stood 100 ft from an SR71 using anti-sound, with the engines running, and you could only just hear it. Dave (*1) If anyone is interested in further details on EG technology, I'd be happy to supply the paper from Wright-Patterson (provided to me by a member of this list) which are from a UK based research group in 1956. The original EG proposal was put forward in 1925. This is not new technology, but the investment required to make it real (achieving a material with a dielectric constant of 50K, only 6K had been achieved at that time] with a potential difference of 50MV was the limiting factor back then) meant that the military black-budget is about the only place it would get done. The commercial outfits investigating it at the time (and there were a lot of big names involved) were hopeful of solutions within a short time frame, at least less than a decade. A prototype aircraft was designed in 1954, and at the time of the report it was close to completion. They do point out that a lot of the material is covered by military secrets, and so they couldn't reveal all the detail. - -- MZ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 18:19:22 -0400 From: "The Writer's Friend" Subject: Alan Shepard, RIP Alan Shepard, the first American in space, died today in California. He was 74. Godspeed, Al.... Phil ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #38 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "majordomo@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