From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #83 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 Friday, December 4 1998 Volume 07 : Number 083 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Magnetohydrodynamics Re: 18E v EF2000 FWD: (UASR) Project FT (Flying Triangle) guns v. missiles Stealth works? Off topic: the flag Re: Off topic: the flag Re: Off topic: the flag Off topic: the flag (II) Re: Off topic: the flag (II) Off-Topic: Clinton, Patch and Flag Re: F-117 Re: guns v. missiles Exotic Material Re: Exotic Material Guns v. Missiles II Maiden flight of radar-reflective device causes panic up in Groom Tower [trip report] *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 16:54:09 +1100 From: "Andrew See" Subject: Magnetohydrodynamics >Aviation Week and Space Technology Magazine. They let slip that the B-2 >electrostatically charges its leading edges and exhaust stream - for those Sounds more like magnetohydrodynamics to me. This is theorised to be useful in hypersonic atmospheric craft, not subsonic heavy bombers. The Russian project Ajax supposedly uses this technology, which basically ionises the air in front of the plane, uses strong electromagnetics mounted mid fuselage to draw the airflow towards and behind the plane, and in doing so create forward thrust, reduce drag, and make aerodynamics less a factor. >who are aware of the work of Thomas Townsend Brown, this is tantamount to >admitting that the B-2 is an antigravity aircraft. Mmm. I don't think so. If it was an antigravity craft, it would have no service ceiling for a start. Have you also considered that the B2's charged surfaces may be a radar deadening measure? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Dec 98 06:48:06 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: 18E v EF2000 On 12/1/98 2:37PM, in message <01be1d7b$1d5efd60$29d516cb@asee2>, "Andrew See" wrote: > > > I think the first method is right. I can see a jet with a high T/W ratio > taking off in 150 metres or so, esp with a skijump, but there's no way a 20 > ton jet is going to pull up from 200kph in the same distance without > arrestor gear. I think this is the way the russians were doing it with their > Flanker-K's. > You're right. I finally found the reference I think the acronym is CTOAR (Conventional TakeOff Arrested Landing) > , > > > > This is the least important aspect of air-to-air > > > Famous last words :) Actually in modern doctrine you're probably right, but > in a hypothetical future conflict, political conflicts may subject forces to > "visual ID" ROE. Vietnam was an example of this. The phantoms were unable to > use their Medium range missiles, and were forced into the close in dogfight > scenario, which was a great benefit to the smaller lighter MiG's (which also > had guns) the early Phantoms did not. > It's not that sustained dogfights are unnecessary or won't happen, they're just the worst way to kill another aircraft or to accomplish your mission. Even in Vietnam, missiles did better than guns (that's a loooong subject, BTW, not for here but I'll be glad to explain privately). > The 3rd factor that may force a dogfight is the increased use of stealth. > Reduced RCS/stealth jets on both sides won't be in sensor range until they > are a lot closer together, possibly visual range, which again means you have > to get ready with the guns and ASRAAMS. You've hit on it. A fighter with ASRAAM and helmet sights is going to do a lot better than a fighter that may be more maneuverable but lacks them. In fact, even if they both have them, the dogfighting capability (as opposed to sensors and point and shoot capability) of one won't give as much advantage as other factors (especially crew skill and training). > > Plus it looks good too. The frogs wouldn't have it any other way :) Ever see every fighter they built before the Mirage? :) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 01:11:13 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: FWD: (UASR) Project FT (Flying Triangle) From: Victor J.Kean Via: CE-list James M. McCampbell wrote: (Selected paragraph) >The witnesses were clearly describing the polished surface of a "white" metal except, perhaps, the twelve who related an impression of dull gray. Eleven of these latter observations, however, occurred under adverse lighting conditions during twilight or at night. Under an overcast sky or through atmospheric haze, a jet airliner that is known to be bright aluminum takes on the appearance of dull gray or even dark gray on the lower half. Therefore, these reports are clearly compatible with the others and there seems to be little doubt about a metallic appearance of UFOs.< Hallo James, Project FT is currently investigating the appearance over the past six years of a grey FT (Flying Triangle) which appears to be a distinct craft separate to its counterpart, the black FT. We believe this is *not* the same craft seen under different lighting conditions. This tentative conclusion is based upon the predominance of sighting reports which link this grey FT with amber-coloured apex 'lights' (as opposed to the black FT with - normally- white apex 'lights.) and the grey FT's pattern of appearing over the UK between November and June. Its last reported sighting was June 6th 1997. On March 8th 1997, a series of seven sighting reports from Kent, UK all described the FT as 'grey coloured'...whereas, if this colour had been only due to differences in the observers perception (or differing lighting conditions) one would have expected that some of the observers would have described the FT as 'black'. Our original thought that the FT uses 'chameleonic camouflage' was eventually discarded after further study. Your excellent work on these colour differences deserves far more study than this first response... I hope you will find time to visit : http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/tspurrier/ufosight.htm Your comments upon Project FT's findings would be appreciated. Regards Victor J. Kean Project FT - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean@primenet.com > Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/8832 Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: http://www.seacoast.com/~jsweet/brotherh/index.html Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 07:04:03 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: guns v. missiles Art wrote: right,leftIt's not that sustained dogfights are unnecessary or won't happen, they're just the worst way to kill another aircraft or to accomplish your mission. Even in Vietnam, missiles did better than guns. . . . More aircraft were shot down with missiles than guns but to say "missiles did better than guns" begs the question, what is better. Does it mean higher Pk? If it does, then Art is wrong. About 40 percent of the total kills in Vietnam were from guns. But when you look at kills per trigger pull, you will find that guns performed better. James P. Stevenson jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 07:06:57 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Stealth works? Someone wrote: > The 3rd factor that may force a dogfight is the increased use of stealth. > Reduced RCS/stealth jets on both sides won't be in sensor range until they > are a lot closer together, possibly visual range, which again means you have > to get ready with the guns and ASRAAMS. These types of comments assume that the military service is accurately reporting that stealth works as advertised. Why do you continue to accept such assertions without proof. Assertions are not proof. James P. Stevenson jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 08:09:01 EST From: RobertDorr@aol.com Subject: Off topic: the flag Friends, Did anyone notice the widely-published photos of President Clinton speaking to American troops in Korea, while wearing a military-style flight jacket ... with the American flag displayed backwards on the shoulder. I am hoping someone will write a letter to Air Force Times about this (Truman?). I can't do it because I write for them. Bob ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 08:41:34 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Off topic: the flag Bob, Is it possible that the negative was flipped and printed incorrectly? Jim Stevenson >Friends, > > Did anyone notice the widely-published photos of President Clinton >speaking >to American troops in Korea, while wearing a military-style flight jacket ... >with the American flag displayed backwards on the shoulder. > > I am hoping someone will write a letter to Air Force Times about this >(Truman?). I can't do it because I write for them. > >Bob ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 12:20:38 EST From: GunshipII@aol.com Subject: Re: Off topic: the flag In a message dated 12/2/98 5:09:01 AM, RobertDorr wrote: >Did anyone notice the widely-published photos >of President Clinton speaking to American troops >in Korea, while wearing a military-style flight >jacket ... with the American flag displayed >backwards on the shoulder. Hi Bob, I saw the photo and I had the same reaction, but I wonder now if the photo was reversed in printing? Cheers - - - Charlie ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 13:06:01 EST From: RobertDorr@aol.com Subject: Off topic: the flag (II) To any of you who are convinced that I've become a pain in the butt about this, I promise to try to make this my last message about the photos which appear in numerous places (for example, page 31 of the Dec. 7 issue of Air Force Times) showing President Clinton displaying the American flag incorrectly. Contrary to what a number of people have suggested (see Charlie's post below), it is not possible for this to result from reversing a photo and publishing it flipped (in mirror image). Even if you did, the union would still be to his rear and not facing forward where it belongs. Once again (for the last time, I promise), the union is the blue field containing the fifty white stars. On a person, vehicle, or aircraft it must always face forward, regardless of which side it is worn on. The flag was placed on Clinton's jacket incorrectly and no one seems to have noticed. Finally, the address for letters to the editor at Air Force Times newspaper is: airlet@atpco.com I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. Bob Here's Charlie's post: Hi Bob, I saw the photo and I had the same reaction, but I wonder now if the photo was reversed in printing? Cheers - - - Charlie ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 12:59:02 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Off topic: the flag (II) >>Did anyone notice the widely-published photos >>of President Clinton speaking to American troops >>in Korea, while wearing a military-style flight >>jacket ... with the American flag displayed >>backwards on the shoulder. >it is not possible for this to result from reversing a photo Yes but, somehow a President wearing the jacket backwards, or walking backwards to not violate the flag protocol, sounds a little foolish, just because someone sewed the patch on the wrong shoulder. I think it would have shown incredible American Teamwork if you guys had 'fixed' the problem, by printing the picture in reverse, whereas, everybody else printed it correctly. Hey, sometimes the boss has no alternative but to pick the lesser of 2 evils. I think it would have been worse if he didn't wear the jacket. The CIC in my book is a hell of a warrior! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 17:47:31 EST From: MSU94@aol.com Subject: Off-Topic: Clinton, Patch and Flag ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- - --------------- Did anyone notice the widely-published photos of President Clinton speaking to American troops in Korea, while wearing a military-style flight jacket ... with the American flag displayed backwards on the shoulder. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- Sounds like the time in 92 when the SecAF came to Sheppard AFB and the flag on display at Base Ops was a 48 star flag. I found it somewhat incredulous, but I did take pics for proof. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 20:44:06 EST From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: Re: F-117 Patrick Cullumber writes: "the first one, 785, crashed on takeoff during its acceptance flight" Not to nitpick (well, yes actually, to nitpick) but, 785 crashed on its first functional check flight (FCF). It would have had several contractor and Air Force flights prior to acceptance. Since it crashed as soon as the wheels left the ground, it wasn't even counted as a flight. Peter W. Merlin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Dec 98 05:57:58 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: guns v. missiles On 12/2/98 4:04AM, in message , "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > More aircraft were shot down with missiles than guns but to say > "missiles did better than guns" begs the question, what is better. Does > it mean higher Pk? If it does, then Art is wrong. > > > About 40 percent of the total kills in Vietnam were from guns. But when > you look at kills per trigger pull, you will find that guns performed > better. > > > > > > James P. Stevenson > > jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com That's the conventional wisdom. The key, though, in my mind, is not kills per trigger pull, but kills per encounter. A missile would be fired in many cases where no gun shot was even possible. If it missed, it contributed to the lower success rate of missiles per trigger pull. However, in that same encounter, the gun would have missed too, but since there never was even a chance for a gun shot, the gun didn't get penalized. Also, a missile might be fired to break up an enemy formation or attack, which you couldn't do with a gun unless you were Real close, in which case you'd probably get shot down anyway. What's significant about missiles (which could have been better, especially in the beginning) in Vietnam was that using the same weapons, the USN did better than USAF. What is not as well known is that ADC trained crews also did better than TAC trained, primarily because they tended to trust and use the systems whereas TAC crews would want to hose off the missiles early and get in and slug it out. Generally, a missile shot is easier than a gun shot (not to say that it's easy) and has a better return per encounter, IMHO. That may explain why there's been so much development work on missles, with guns kinda getting left over. We still use the same air-to-air gun we did in the mid '50s. A new gun was under development for the F-15 (GAU-7A, I believe), but was abandoned when it was decided the limited increase in kills wasn't worth the much larger cost. Bringin this discusion back on charter, the F-22 may get a new gun, but that seems to be more for stealth reasons. It's interesting that neither the USN or the USMC (who do CAS, mostly) want an internal gun on their JSF versions. Art "Fox 2" Hanley ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 22:52:58 -0800 From: "A.J. Craddock" Subject: Exotic Material For those that are interested, the leaking of the latest (alleged) MJ-12 Documents (93 pages in all) provides a treasure trove of technological details as to the metallurgical makeup and power plants of downed Extraterrestrial craft. Plus multiple events over and above Roswell are confirmed, including the 1941 Cape Girardeau, MO disaster (http://www.cseti.org/crashes/007.htm) The Chief Authenticator has an interesting background. Dr. Robert M. Wood was educated as an engineer and scientist, earning degrees in Aeronautical Engineering from University of Colorado and a Ph.D. in physics from Cornell University. His professional career encompassed the crescendo of aerospace achievement, beginning with analyzing data from V-2 firings in New Mexico to his most recent work on technology for the United States Space Station. His 43-year career was with Douglas Aircraft and McDonnell Douglas, which involved defensive missile design, radar technology, and electronics. Dr. Wood managed the independent research and development projects of the company for about ten years. In management, he often contributed to winning proposals and professional briefings. In the late 60s, McDonnell Douglas asked Dr. Wood to determine how it might develop gravity control propulsion devices like those apparently used by UFOs. This resulted in a significant evaluation of the UFO witness reports and a thorough understanding of the technical and experience literature. During the era of the Air Force's Condon Committee investigation of UFOs, Dr. Wood conferred with the Condon Committee and briefed them on advanced propulsion concepts that might apply to extraterrestrial craft. Involved in classified work and company proposals during much of his career, since his retirement in 1993, Dr. Wood has pursued the UFO problem with enthusiasm, inspiring the confidence of sources to let him see their original documents that may provide insight into the workings of the UFO propulsion mechanism. As a scientist, he uses established techniques for the authentication of questioned documents. Dr. Bob Wood is the author of professional journal articles dealing with UFOs including "Giant Discoveries of Future Science," "Testing the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis," "The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis Is Not That Bad," "How to Study Weird Things Gracefully," and "A Little Physics...A Little Friction: A Close Encounter with the Condon Committee." Recently, he wrote the foreword to the book Unconventional Flying Objects by NASA scientist Paul Hill (Hampton Roads, 1995), and book reviews of TOP SECRET/MAJIC by Stan Friedman and The Day After Roswell by Phil Corso. As Dr. Wood says: "We have merely provided the stunningly detailed documentation that seems to place the stamp of reality upon the recovery of crashed extraterrestrial vehicles by the United States from 1947-1954. This validates what most people already accept: there is extraterrestrial life and we are not alone." The presentation by Dr. Robert M. and Ryan S. Wood follows chronologically a paper evidence trail left by former Presidents, military and intelligence leaders of decades past. It tells what they did to keep the alien artifacts from our enemies, to learn the secrets of alien technology, and to advance science. While many might say that today's secrecy is unethical, evil and unconstitutional it can be cogently argued that the original men were patriots not only for our country, but for all mankind by reducing the risk of nuclear war. However, equally powerful arguments build the case that the leaders are criminals for abrogating the Constitution and for denying the entire planet of significant advances in standard of living and quality of life for the least 30 years. The documents can be downloaded from http://the-word-is-truth.org/narr_menu.cfm?id=27 and require Adobe Acroboat to be read. Oh and BTW, the dots can be connected from the above to the Skunkworks. Tony Craddock ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 06:06:25 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Exotic Material At 10:52 PM 12/2/98 -0800, Tony Craddock wrote: >For those that are interested, the leaking of the latest (alleged) MJ-12 >Documents (93 pages in all) provides a treasure trove of technological >details as to the metallurgical makeup and power plants of downed >Extraterrestrial craft......snip......Oh and BTW, the dots can be connected from the above to the Skunkworks. > You know Tony that one of these days your going to really piss off some Aliens for revealing all their Truths and then they are going to come looking for you. patrick cullumber ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 21:17:20 -0500 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Guns v. Missiles II I wrote , in response to some comments about missiles being better than guns: > More aircraft were shot down with missiles than guns but to say > "missiles did better than guns" begs the question, what is better. Does > it mean higher P<k<? If it does, then Art is wrong. > About 40 percent of the total kills in Vietnam were from guns. But when > you look at kills per trigger pull, you will find that guns performed > better. In response, Art Hanley, wrote, right,leftThat's the conventional wisdom. The translation of Art's comment is that while most people believe it, it is not true. Well, the percentages are true; more aircraft were shot down with missiles than guns was true, now the only issue left is what Art got into. Let me repeat it: right,leftThe key, though, in my mind, is not kills per trigger pull, but kills per encounter. A missile would be fired in many cases where no gun shot was even possible. If it missed, it contributed to the lower success rate of missiles per trigger pull. However, in that same encounter, the gun would have missed too, but since there never was even a chance for a gun shot, the gun didn't get penalized. Not so, Art. If you compare kills per trigger squeeze for both weapons, there is an apples-to-apples comparison. If neither got a kill, and only one trigger squeeze was made, the ratios are identical. As an aside, there is seldom only one trigger squeeze for a gun and virtually always one trigger squeeze for a missile, so the ratio of kills per trigger squeezes actually favors the missile. right,left Also, a missile might be fired to break up an enemy formation or attack, which you couldn't do with a gun unless you were Real close, in which case you'd probably get shot down anyway. Eric Hartman loved to sneak up on formations so that he could shoot down more than one aircraft per pass. The only reason to break up a formation is due to a limitation of the missile and that is the requirement to avoid a merged plot on the radar. right,left What's significant about missiles (which could have been better, especially in the beginning) in Vietnam was that using the same weapons, the USN did better than USAF. What is not as well known is that ADC trained crews also did better than TAC trained, primarily because they tended to trust and use the systems whereas TAC crews would want to hose off the missiles early and get in and slug it out. Actually, what is significant about missiles is the total gross mismatch between the promise prior to the war and what was actually delivered. The contractors promised 80-90 percent probability of kills for the Sparrow missiles but what the missile actually delivered between 1965 and the spring of 1968 was a whopping 8.9 percent. right,left Generally, a missile shot is easier than a gun shot (not to say that it's easy) and has a better return per encounter, IMHO. Art, share your data on "return per encounter,k with me. [I don't speak initialism so IMHO is meaningless to me.] right,left That may explain why there's been so much development work on missles, with guns kinda getting left over. Wrong. The reason we spent literally billions on radar-guided missiles and the radars to guide them them (not to mention the extra cost of arcraft because they had to be sized larger and outfitted with larger engines) was to fulfill the fantasy of beyond visual range kills which has never happened as promised. And after spending all that money, we shot down 20 airplanes during this 1965-spring 1968 period. right,left We still use the same air-to-air gun we did in the mid '50s. A new gun was under development for the F-15 (GAU-7A, I believe), but was abandoned when it was decided the limited increase in kills wasn't worth the much larger cost. The kill-loss ratio between U.S. and German aircraft in World War II was less than 2-to-1. The best ratio belonged to the Navy's in the Pacific but never got above 20-to-1. If you seriously believe that the GAU-7A was abandonded because its predicted kill-loss ratio was not worth the extra cost, how do you explain the Air Force's abandonment of the AIM-82 missile for the F-15 with its promised exchange ratio of 955-to-1! right,leftBringing this discusion back on charter, the F-22 may get a new gun, but that seems to be more for stealth reasons. It's interesting that neither the USN or the USMC (who do CAS, mostly) want an internal gun on their JSF versions. After every war, the services believe that the age of the dogfight is over. That was why the Navy did not spec a gun for the F4H-1 Phantom. As to your comment that the USN and USMC do mostly CAS, it is not CAS as we have grown up understanding it. Close air support (CAS) has historically meant that the pilot, in coordination with the ground commander in contact with enemy troops, exerts some control over what the pilot does and where he goes. The new definition of CAS no longer resembles that. It is a bomb toss with all kinds of technological promise that has no better chance of effecting the outcome of the war than the Sparrow missile did. Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: 4 Dec 98 03:04:18 MST From: batwing.cmd@usa.net Subject: Maiden flight of radar-reflective device causes panic up in Groom Tower [trip report] Batwing CMD's sixth expedition launched to explore the deep black secrets of the US-Southwest was successfully completed early in October 1998. The Swiss part of the team comprised Raphael [T-Bird] Bloechlinger and Meinrad [Swiss Mountain Bat] Eberle. Later on, they got reinforcement by Rohan J. Bourke from Australia, a Pine Gap expert. Fun-factor rating: 10. Flat tires: 1. Road Kill: 0. Best Burgers devoured at Kim Mc Donald's 'Wing & a Prayer' in Lancaster CA. From team's logbook: Wednesday, 9/30/98, a day that young radar operator up in Groom Tower might not forget for the rest of his life. Because it was the day he tracked an uncorrelated target hovering high in the skies above Tikaboo Peak - and clearly lost control over his voice then: 'Radar contact to the East, radar contact to the East!' The joint Swiss-Australian team observed the event using both Canon 15x45 image-stabilized binoculars and intercepted relevant radio-broadcasts with a Uniden Bearcat 3000 XLT scanner and a tape-recorder while spending 11 hours on the Peak, constantly monitoring both Area 51 and Tikaboo Peak's surrounding airspace. After that glinting rectangular object had been hovering and zig-zagging in the skies oh so close to the Mother of all Bases for a full hour, - the wind died down! If the latter had not done so, Groom might have thrown alert craft of whatever sort at the uncorrelated target, to check out its nature...and three ruthless Interceptors would probably have died of ROFLing up on Tikaboo. To learn why, just check out..... http://www.skystreme.uk.net ...and you will be in the know about one of the most interesting GADGETS for outdoor activities close to deep black US Air Farce - eh, Force bases: The world's first radar reflective personal location marker which flies, floats, self-launches and requires no power supply or gases. Just about around 3 PM, while our team was preparing the radar reflector's veritable Maiden Launch on US-grounds, the three of us turned with excitement when the scanner suddenly started spitting out a call sign never heard before: "BLACK SPOT, you're FL......" What followed were statics and some sort of hacked, garbled voice mumbling a pair of numbers. The latter were DEFINITELY not more than just two numbers, I'm sure: They were either SIX-FIVE or THREE-FIVE. With FL standing for Flight Level, that airborne device was certainly NOT flying higher than 99K:) Early into the night, a B-2 Bomber on his way to Tonopah got intercepted while calling Groom: DREAMLAND was the designation he used! Just too bad our tape was not running that very moment. So don't scratch your heads about alleged secret new designations for the Motha of all Bases: At least for B-2s, it's still that good ole DREAMLAND. Now, with reference to crafts probably featuring next century's engines or design features, it MAY be completely different a story. But that's why we'll be back soon, for sure. Meinrad Eberle, 12/4/98 BATWING CMD, Switzerland 'No mountain too steep, no valley too wide' ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #83 ******************************** 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