From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #74 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 Tuesday, November 17 1998 Volume 07 : Number 074 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** RE: FWD: (UASR) Stealth/Unusual Plane Sighted RE: FWD: (UASR) Stealth/Unusual Plane Sighted Ft. Huachuca SR-71 wingtips FW: NASA SR-71's Un OVNI en El Paso, TX Re: Un OVNI en El Paso, TX RE: FWD: (UASR) Stealth/Unusual Plane Sighted RE: FWD: (UASR) Stealth/Unusual Plane Sighted Re: Un OVNI en El Paso, TX RE: FWD: (UASR) Stealth/Unusual Plane Sighted Re: Un OVNI en El Paso, TX Re: Un OVNI en El Paso, TX RE: FWD: (UASR) Stealth/Unusual Plane Sighted Re: B-1 references SR-71 Production Resumed RE: FWD: (UASR) Stealth/Unusual Plane Sighted F117 used for recon? Re: SR-71 Production Resumed RE: F117 used for recon? *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:11:40 -0000 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: RE: FWD: (UASR) Stealth/Unusual Plane Sighted Good old B1-Bs, they'll sort him out! It'll be the first time they will have been used in combat? I know they were being converted from nuclear to conventional during the Gulf war. Gavin - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of John Szalay Sent: 13 November 1998 03:29 To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: FWD: (UASR) Stealth/Unusual Plane Sighted At 08:08 PM 11/12/98 -0700, you wrote: >Forwarded "as is", and obligatory skunky stuff, the fellow does mention >the F-117. BTW, anyone get the details of which and how many stealthy >planes being deployed to SWA? > >Terry > 12 F-117 ( http://www.af.mil/news/Nov1998/n19981112_981734.html) Here is the list of "NEW" deployments. The additional forces ordered to deploy include an air expeditionary force of 12 F-16CJs, 12 F-15C's and -Ds, 12 F-16s and six B-1s. Besides the AEF, four additional F-16CJs, 12 F-117s, 12 B-52s, two EA-6B's and 12 Marine Corps F/A-18s have been ordered to the Gulf for a total of 84 combat aircraft. (http://www.af.mil/news/Nov1998/n19981112_981721.html) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 06:42:15 -0800 From: patrick Subject: RE: FWD: (UASR) Stealth/Unusual Plane Sighted At 09:11 AM 11/13/98 -0000, you wrote: >Good old B1-Bs, they'll sort him out! >It'll be the first time they will have been used in combat? > >I know they were being converted from nuclear to conventional during the >Gulf war. > More like qualified rather than converted. When the Gulf War began the AF, dare I say once again, was caught with its flying pants down. The "Bone" was never qualified to drop a single piece of non nuke hardware. Big oops. So guess what they have been doing since. And when the latest Air Expeditionary plans were drawn up several months ago they rewarded the Bone drivers with a spot on the travelling team. It will be interesting to see just what this odd bird can really do when push comes to shove. For all its hard working and dedicated crews, past, present and deceased I hope it does well when assigned to the Air Tasking Order. Now if they will just give it a good desert camo paint job, maybe some titillating nose art, they just might be able to show those old BUFF drivers how its suppose to be done. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:36:51 -0800 (PST) From: Dave Lapoff Subject: Ft. Huachuca Terry, Noticed that you live in Sierra Vista. Given that you work with USMTF, I'll assume that you're out of Ft. Huachuca. I have to be down there in a few weeks on business. Would appreciate any base frequencies that you could share. Also any other local MIL or FED frequencies in the area that are worth listening to. Thanks. - -Dave- - -- David L. Lapoff Internet: lapoffd@applique.dh.trw.com TRW DTD, DH5/2427 David.Lapoff@trw.com P.O Box 6213 Phone: (310)764-3345 Carson, CA 90746 Fax: (310)764-9094 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 17:30:36 -0500 (EST) From: Evan J Reed Subject: SR-71 wingtips Does anyone know the function of the dip in the leading edge of the SR-71 wingtips? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 15:11:00 -0500 From: Martin Hurst Subject: FW: NASA SR-71's To the SkunkWorks Digest List, According to Ed, it appears they are still using the SR for their purposes. At least the AirForce has not completely killed the 'bird. Thanks Ed, for your information. - -Martin Hurst - ---------- From: Ed Kattenberg[SMTP:edkat@ptw.com] Sent: Saturday, November 14, 1998 1:33 PM To: Martin Hurst Subject: Re: NASA SR-71's - -----Original Message----- From: Martin Hurst To: 'edkat@ptw.com' Date: Sunday, October 25, 1998 9:27 PM Subject: NASA SR-71's >To: Edward Kattenberg, > >I read your post on Leland Haynes, MSgt USAF (Ret) web site, > "SR-71 Alma-Mater and Recollections from the Past" > http://www.wvi.com/~lelandh/srreco~1.htm > >that you wrote on, Mon, 21 Sep 1998 15:42. In it you quote that, >"I presently Work part time in support of NASA SR-71 on- going Research Projects at Dryden Research Center." > >I strongly feel that the Blackbird can be and is still a critical component to the US security and intelligence. So when the Clinton Administration along with the Air Force terminated it again, I was quite disappointed. > >My question, after reading your post here, was is NASA still using and flying the SR-71 for their research projects, or have they also terminated their use and need for this awesome bird? > >Thanks for effort in keeping this bird alive with your memories. > >regards, >-Martin Hurst >Martin, Sorry for the delay in answering your email. Yes we are still flying the SR-71, Presently we have mounted a scale model of the AeroSpike ( X33 access to space vehicle engine ) rocket engine on the top of the SR71 with the intent of gathering subsonic & supersonic engine performance data at different altitudes. for more information my I suggest the DRYDEN web site www.dfrc.nasa.gov. there you will find photos of the SR-71 carring the experiment. Thank you for your intrest, Ed Kattenberg ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 19:15:10 -0700 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Un OVNI en El Paso, TX Well, I didn't know what it was, so that makes it an OVNI as far as I'm concerned. :-) It would be kind of surprising if something Very Secret came in and landed as described below, but its appearance was sufficiently unusual to prompt the question. At about 18:13 local this evening I happened to look northwest from my location in East El Paso (near the intersection of Montwood and Saul Kleinfeld) toward El Paso International and Biggs AAF. Low in the sky, apparently in a descending turn to the right toward one of the runways was a large something that had several (four to six, I only had a glimpse of it) bright, steady lights along each swept wing and a very bright blinking light above and in back of them. The impression was that it was moving away from me ( SE - NW) , but it could have been the reciprocal of that. I've watched a fair number of airplanes, but have never seen such a string of lights along both wings. From the overall geometry, it might have been a C-141 or C-5 landing at Biggs/Ft. Bliss. Does anyone here know what kind of landing lights those have? Whatever the thing was, it was big -- the lights were well separated and there was no engine noise. In 2-D ASCII graphics, where the * are bright, steady lights along the wing, and the O is the higher, brighter, blinking light at the rear: * * * * * * * * * * O ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 20:31:00 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Un OVNI en El Paso, TX At 07:15 PM 11/14/98 -0700, you wrote: > Well, I didn't know what it was, so that makes it an OVNI as far as I'm >concerned. :-) > > It would be kind of surprising if something Very Secret came in and >landed as described below, but its appearance was sufficiently unusual to >prompt the question. > > At about 18:13 local this evening I happened to look northwest from my >location in East El Paso (near the intersection of Montwood and Saul >Kleinfeld) toward El Paso >International and Biggs AAF. From the overall geometry, it might have >been a C-141 or C-5 landing at Biggs/Ft. Bliss. > Does anyone here know what >kind of landing lights those have? Whatever the thing was, it was big -- >the lights were well separated and there was no engine noise. > - --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= No noise? So if I stood behind it I would hear nothing? Or there was no noise apparent from your point of view? El Paso/Biggs is 45 miles from the southern boundry of White Sands Missile Range. If it something secret/exotic why fly to Biggs? Course I will argue nothing secret flies at WSMR but that is another post. NASA has a storage/maintenance facility at El Paso/Biggs. Gosh there is a possibility. Now I will get real speculative. The German Army has a large contingent at Ft. Bliss where they train with our SCUD busters. In fact they put on one of the best Oktoberfest in the US. Could they be flying a Luftwaffe aircraft of unknown make into Biggs? I have seen Luftwaffe Airbus aircraft at Holloman just 75 miles up the road. Does the German AF fly Soviet built transport aircraft? Living the life of a skeptic can be so dull...... patrick cullumber "Don't anthropomorphise computers. They hate that. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Nov 98 22:24:46 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: FWD: (UASR) Stealth/Unusual Plane Sighted On 11/13/98 6:42AM, in message <3.0.1.32.19981113064215.00729cc8@e-z.net>, patrick wrote: > At 09:11 AM 11/13/98 -0000, you wrote: > >Good old B1-Bs, they'll sort him out! > >It'll be the first time they will have been used in combat? > > > >I know they were being converted from nuclear to conventional during the > >Gulf war. > > > More like qualified rather than converted. When the Gulf War began the AF, > dare I say once again, was caught with its flying pants down. The "Bone" > was never qualified to drop a single piece of non nuke hardware. Big oops. > So guess what they have been doing since. And when the latest Air > Expeditionary plans were drawn up several months ago they rewarded the Bone > drivers with a spot on the travelling team. > > It will be interesting to see just what this odd bird can really do when > push comes to shove. For all its hard working and dedicated crews, past, > present and deceased I hope it does well when assigned to the Air Tasking > Order. > > Now if they will just give it a good desert camo paint job, maybe some > titillating nose art, they just might be able to show those old BUFF > drivers how its suppose to be done. > > patrick cullumber > During the Gulf War, the B-1s were not only not qualified for non-nuke ordnance, they were down for a good portion of it for maintenance problems. When the B-1A morphed into the B-1B, one of the things removed to keep its costs down was a lot of its conventional capability. The B was designed first, foremost and almost exclusively for the nuclear role. You can see some of the consequences of this in the way it carried conventional weapons internally. With the main system for carrying and releasing conventional ordnance, it took Forever to load a B-1B with conventional bombs. It was essentially a one mission a day aircraft, because while the aircraft could itself be turned around in a reasonable amount of time, it took so many, many hours to reload it. This was not caused by how large its payload was relative to other bombers, but by the equipment itself. I haven't been following the Bone that closely, so I don't know how well or even if this was addressed, but I know it was a concern. Even with all modifications planned the B will never be as good a conventional strike aircraft as the A was, but that's not the fault of the design as much as the specifications. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 16:00:42 -0800 From: patrick Subject: RE: FWD: (UASR) Stealth/Unusual Plane Sighted At 10:24 PM 11/15/98 GMT, Art wrote: >the main system for carrying and releasing conventional ordnance, it took Forever >to load a B-1B with conventional bombs. It was essentially a one mission a day >aircraft, because while the aircraft could itself be turned around in a reasonable >amount of time, it took so many, many hours to reload it. This was not caused by >how large its payload was relative to other bombers, but by the equipment itself. I worked for the company that built a test fixture for the rotary launchers. I assume they are stuck with that design. If so the problem isn't in loading the rotary rack. Dropping iron bombs, from a low altitude as is their mission, the problem is in unloading the rack. Not a problem as long as your target is a 5 mile long railroad line!! patrick ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 19:15:10 -0700 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: Un OVNI en El Paso, TX This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BE10CC.434DD660 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ack. I somehow sent the following note to the SeeSat-L mailing list on = first try. Extreme embarrassment. Anyway, here is what was meant to be = sent to SW - -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - ------------------------------------------------------- I drove past Biggs Field today around noon, and, sure enough, there was = a C-17 parked there. Such are only infrequently seen at Biggs, and I = assume it was there in connection with the Gulf flap du jour. I also assume = it was last night's "OVNI", now become an IFO. But I still wonder about the really gaudy line of lights along the = wings. Is the C-17 the only one with them -- I've certainly never seen another = - -- and what are they for? (I can readily imagine how they could have = generated some of the "triangular UFO" sightings that pop up now and then.) = =20 - ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BE10CC.434DD660 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ack. I somehow sent the following = note to the=20 SeeSat-L mailing list on first try. Extreme embarrassment.  Anyway, = here is=20 what was meant to be sent to SW
 
----------------------------------------------------------------= - ----------------------------------------------------------------

I drove past Biggs Field today = around noon,=20 and, sure enough, there was a
C-17 parked there.  Such are only=20 infrequently seen at Biggs, and I assume
it was there in connection = with the=20 Gulf flap du jour.   I also assume it
was last night's=20 "OVNI", now become an IFO.
 
But I still wonder about the really = gaudy line=20 of lights along the wings.
Is the C-17 the only one with them -- I've = certainly never seen another --
and what are they for?  (I can = readily=20 imagine how they could have generated
some of the "triangular = UFO"=20 sightings that pop up now and=20 then.)        
 
 
- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BE10CC.434DD660-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Nov 98 03:03:35 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: FWD: (UASR) Stealth/Unusual Plane Sighted On 11/15/98 4:00PM, in message <3.0.1.32.19981115160042.00723d40@e-z.net>, patrick wrote: > > I worked for the company that built a test fixture for the rotary > launchers. I assume they are stuck with that design. If so the problem > isn't in loading the rotary rack. Dropping iron bombs, from a low altitude > as is their mission, the problem is in unloading the rack. > > Not a problem as long as your target is a 5 mile long railroad line!! > > patrick > Conventional "iron" bombs (which still make up 95% of ordnance used) aren't on the rotary launcher. They are "layered" into the bay at an angle. This uses the Conventional Weapons Module, which attaches to the same mount as the rotary launcher, but is a different piece of equipment entirely. It can actually get the bombs out rather quickly, but is an exhaustive, very time consuming device to reload, and that's what limits the aircraft turnaround. It's sort of like the Vertical Launching System on Navy warships. Versatile, with a very good launch rate, but reloading it is such a complex process that for all practical purposes, ships equipped with it can't be rearmed at sea. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Nov 98 20:31:16 -0000 From: jaz5@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: Un OVNI en El Paso, TX Allen Thompson wrote >I drove past Biggs Field today around noon, and, sure enough, there was a >C-17 parked there. Such are only infrequently seen at Biggs, and I assume >it was there in connection with the Gulf flap du jour. I also assume it >was last night's "OVNI", now become an IFO. > >But I still wonder about the really gaudy line of lights along the wings. >Is the C-17 the only one with them -- I've certainly never seen another -- >and what are they for? (I can readily imagine how they could have generated >some of the "triangular UFO" sightings that pop up now and then.) No, the C-17 is parked for people who may have seen the object with all the lights at night. Its to alleviate suspicion of what flew in at night. It works... jaz ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 21:27:16 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Un OVNI en El Paso, TX At 08:31 PM 11/15/98 -0000, you wrote: >Allen Thompson wrote >>I drove past Biggs Field today around noon, and, sure enough, there was a >>C-17 parked there. Such are only infrequently seen at Biggs, and I assume >>it was there in connection with the Gulf flap du jour. I also assume it >>was last night's "OVNI", now become an IFO. >> >>But I still wonder about the really gaudy line of lights along the wings. >>Is the C-17 the only one with them -- I've certainly never seen another -- >>and what are they for? (I can readily imagine how they could have generated >>some of the "triangular UFO" sightings that pop up now and then.) > >No, the C-17 is parked for people who may have seen the object with all >the lights at night. Its to alleviate suspicion of what flew in at night. > It works... >jaz > > It still escapes me as to why lay UFO "observor's" insist their craft can glide invisibily across many galaxies in a heartbeat, can then communicate telepathically with humans, but when they want to land surreptitiously in the middle of Kansas......they must necessarily light up like a Tilt-A-Whirl carnival ride. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 09:03:42 -0000 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: RE: FWD: (UASR) Stealth/Unusual Plane Sighted I am interested in this side of the B1, are there any good websites or books on it? Gavin - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of betnal@ns.net Sent: 15 November 1998 22:25 To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: RE: FWD: (UASR) Stealth/Unusual Plane Sighted On 11/13/98 6:42AM, in message <3.0.1.32.19981113064215.00729cc8@e-z.net>, patrick wrote: > At 09:11 AM 11/13/98 -0000, you wrote: > >Good old B1-Bs, they'll sort him out! > >It'll be the first time they will have been used in combat? > > > >I know they were being converted from nuclear to conventional during the > >Gulf war. > > > More like qualified rather than converted. When the Gulf War began the AF, > dare I say once again, was caught with its flying pants down. The "Bone" > was never qualified to drop a single piece of non nuke hardware. Big oops. > So guess what they have been doing since. And when the latest Air > Expeditionary plans were drawn up several months ago they rewarded the Bone > drivers with a spot on the travelling team. > > It will be interesting to see just what this odd bird can really do when > push comes to shove. For all its hard working and dedicated crews, past, > present and deceased I hope it does well when assigned to the Air Tasking > Order. > > Now if they will just give it a good desert camo paint job, maybe some > titillating nose art, they just might be able to show those old BUFF > drivers how its suppose to be done. > > patrick cullumber > During the Gulf War, the B-1s were not only not qualified for non-nuke ordnance, they were down for a good portion of it for maintenance problems. When the B-1A morphed into the B-1B, one of the things removed to keep its costs down was a lot of its conventional capability. The B was designed first, foremost and almost exclusively for the nuclear role. You can see some of the consequences of this in the way it carried conventional weapons internally. With the main system for carrying and releasing conventional ordnance, it took Forever to load a B-1B with conventional bombs. It was essentially a one mission a day aircraft, because while the aircraft could itself be turned around in a reasonable amount of time, it took so many, many hours to reload it. This was not caused by how large its payload was relative to other bombers, but by the equipment itself. I haven't been following the Bone that closely, so I don't know how well or even if this was addressed, but I know it was a concern. Even with all modifications planned the B will never be as good a conventional strike aircraft as the A was, but that's not the fault of the design as much as the specifications. Art ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 21:28:06 -0800 From: G&G Subject: Re: B-1 references Gavin Payne wrote: > > I am interested in this side of the B1, are there any good websites or books > on it? Books I know of: World Air Power Journal #24, features the B-1B Aerofax Minigraph #24 by Jay Miller and Don Logan (hi Jay!) Arco/Salamander did a "big picture" book in the early '80, by Mike Spick Detail & Scale Vol. 37, has drawings of both rotary and "non-nuclear module" Air Power magazine, Vol. 16-02 March '86 & Vol. 19-01 January 1989 Others around I'm sure... Greg (finally got my .sig file back) %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% %% %% Reality is for People Who %% %% Can't Handle Simulation %% %% %% %% habu@cyberramp.net %% %% gdfieser@hti.com %% %% %% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 21:32:24 -0800 From: G&G Subject: SR-71 Production Resumed OK, right up front I'll apologize for any heart attacks this subject line may have caused... this was fwd'd to me by a friend who knows of my proclivity towards anything about SR-71s: http://www.constantvelocity.com/sr71.htm Personally, I prefer Pontiacs... Greg %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %% %% %% Reality is for People Who %% %% Can't Handle Simulation %% %% %% %% habu@cyberramp.net %% %% gdfieser@hti.com %% %% %% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Nov 98 04:09:29 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: RE: FWD: (UASR) Stealth/Unusual Plane Sighted World Airpower Journal did a good article on the B-1 not that long ago, and there was a book call something like "Rockwell B-1, SAC's last bomber" published this decade that was also excellent. For extensive coverage of the A model, you'll need to go and search for magazines of the mid to late '70s. Art ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:09:28 -0000 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: F117 used for recon? I read on the milnet website, that the F117 is used for overhead-recon, using its stealth properties to get to places others can't. Anyone else heard anything about this? Gavin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 09:48:48 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: SR-71 Production Resumed >this was fwd'd to me by a friend who knows >of my proclivity towards anything about SR-71s Hey, pretty nice! I'm glad the Dodge Sidewinder concept car inspired someone! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 13:19:26 -0500 From: Martin Hurst Subject: RE: F117 used for recon? - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BE122D.0A4B7C20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable That was one of my sugestions a while ago on this list. The only limitation that it might have, is that it has a small gas tank, = and probably couldn't loiter for 8 hours at a time, like Darkstar is = supposed to be able to do, and could only be used at nighttime with no = full moon in the night sky. This would probably make the F117 an multi-purpose assest to the = AirForce, or will the AirForce consider the F117 getting to old as well and decide = to retire it !?!?! (...who mentioned the SR-7, not I,...) - ---------- From: Gavin Payne[SMTP:G.Payne@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 1998 8:09 AM To: Skunk-Works (E-mail) Subject: F117 used for recon? I read on the milnet website, that the F117 is used for overhead-recon, using its stealth properties to get to places others can't. Anyone else heard anything about this? Gavin - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BE122D.0A4B7C20 Content-Type: application/ms-tnef Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 eJ8+IhsSAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAENgAQAAgAAAAIAAgABBJAG ADABAAABAAAADAAAAAMAADADAAAACwAPDgAAAAACAf8PAQAAAE0AAAAAAAAAgSsfpL6jEBmdbgDd AQ9UAgAAAABza3Vuay13b3Jrc0BuZXR3cngxLmNvbQBTTVRQAHNrdW5rLXdvcmtzQG5ldHdyeDEu Y29tAAAAAB4AAjABAAAABQAAAFNNVFAAAAAAHgADMAEAAAAYAAAAc2t1bmstd29ya3NAbmV0d3J4 MS5jb20AAwAVDAEAAAADAP4PBgAAAB4AATABAAAAGgAAACdza3Vuay13b3Jrc0BuZXR3cngxLmNv bScAAAACAQswAQAAAB0AAABTTVRQOlNLVU5LLVdPUktTQE5FVFdSWDEuQ09NAAAAAAMAADkAAAAA CwBAOgEAAAACAfYPAQAAAAQAAAAAAAADATsBCIAHABgAAABJUE0uTWljcm9zb2Z0IE1haWwuTm90 ZQAxCAEEgAEAGQAAAFJFOiBGMTE3IHVzZWQgZm9yIHJlY29uPwB+BwEFgAMADgAAAM4HCwARAA0A EwAaAAIALQEBIIADAA4AAADOBwsAEQANAA0AHQACACoBAQmAAQAhAAAANjhBMDlFN0RFQjdERDIx MTk2QTI0NDQ1NTM1NDAwMDAA9gYBA5AGABQFAAASAAAACwAjAAAAAAADACYAAAAAAAsAKQAAAAAA AwA2AAAAAABAADkA4Ccez1YSvgEeAHAAAQAAABkAAABSRTogRjExNyB1c2VkIGZvciByZWNvbj8A AAAAAgFxAAEAAAAWAAAAAb4SVs8NfZ6gaX3rEdKWokRFU1QAAAAAHgAeDAEAAAAFAAAAU01UUAAA AAAeAB8MAQAAABYAAABtYXJ0aW5oQGl4Lm5ldGNvbS5jb20AAAADAAYQ6O+1SwMABxClAgAAHgAI EAEAAABlAAAAVEhBVFdBU09ORU9GTVlTVUdFU1RJT05TQVdISUxFQUdPT05USElTTElTVFRIRU9O TFlMSU1JVEFUSU9OVEhBVElUTUlHSFRIQVZFLElTVEhBVElUSEFTQVNNQUxMR0FTVEFOSwAAAAAC AQkQAQAAAJIDAACOAwAAyAUAAExaRnXNND3J/wAKAQ8CFQKoBesCgwBQAvIJAgBjaArAc2V0MjcG AAbDAoMyA8UCAHByQnER4nN0ZW0CgzN3AuQHEwKAfQqACM8J2TvxFg8yNTUCgAqBDbELYOBuZzEw MxRQCwoUUWUL8mMAQCBUEYAFQHcWYQQgAiBlG3BmIG0geSBzdWcHkHRpawIgBCBhGzBoAxAboGFk Z28bcSB0HQAEIGw5BAB0LgqFGvAboW5s8xwAHhBtaQGQHHIdsRsRYx+QG+BpZ2gFQBGAdnxlLCBQ BCAgFhGAHLJzNQDAbAMgZxtRAZBua5MhMABwZCATUG9iAaCDHzEFoHVsZG4nBUC3FaAfkASQIAIQ BcA4IOD/CGEcsQVAHNAccAeAITAeEOprG6BECsBrE8AKwR3hsRwgcHBvEbAjgHQdcJ5iHTECYBug KEFkbyNE9yQzHwQocXUoAhsRAwAgsbcmQhswH5BoKvAdcGYkUP8DIARgHZELgB2xG6ArAxwQ7Gt5 Hlgd4XcpsyOnAMDDJsEs8kYxMTcjURvg8yRQHHAtcAhwJ+IcwAQQhxxRKDIs8kFpckYFsP5jISAK hQWxA/AikTIaJCH/AIEEgS/IHEArQRkQKDIG8PsqsS5xZSKRI2IFgTThKDLPFhAccBYQIFIhPzix CoX8KC45gBzwHXAHgAIwHIHDKBIe4VNSLTchMCvw6QVASSw5gSkKhTvcCvQxHhAxODAC0TDQMTSe NA3wDNA+IwtZMTYKoOsDYBPQYwVALUBHCoc+++sMMD/GRgNhOkFOP8YMgowgRyEALMFQYXkbkABb U01UUDpHLrlFY0BjHSAAcAUAdUbQTGguDbAEYG4uBaAu+HVrXUDvQf0GYAIwQy9lRDtUClBzZEVw ITBOPm8hEAbQJQEwMCEwMTlCOSVwODowORSwTTNIH0H9VG9KX0Q7U2txRwBrLVcFsCcgOWBFPi0A wAMQO8ZOz0mXdWL+akABUH9EOzATKoMlMhYQzTShPzxPPVMzNj7HGkV1P8ZJOAFhKeIs4x+AbPMb kBshZWIAkBPQITAgE28v1x3hWDdM0XIe4FxgLf9YwzLWKoA2Ah+QJ5ET0AdA+yvBI6FwBJAccAeR KEE1wb8oMgtRMrAbYSzxJcFjAHDJJJAuIBSwbnkbgjbw3xGwCoVf4QsgI1F5HcE2Ef8BoAhgXjIE AFkdRQMKhRUxAgBpcAAAAwAQEAAAAAADABEQAAAAAEAABzBAByj6VRK+AUAACDBAByj6VRK+AR4A PQABAAAABQAAAFJFOiAAAAAA9Ws= - ------ =_NextPart_000_01BE122D.0A4B7C20-- ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #74 ******************************** 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