From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V7 #94 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 Monday, December 28 1998 Volume 07 : Number 094 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: AFNEWS flash Re: AFNEWS flash Re: Threatcons Re: AFNEWS flash Re: AFNEWS flash Re: AFNEWS flash Re: Threatcons I.42 -I.44 in the flesh Very Interesting ! Re: AFNEWS flash Re: AFNEWS flash Re: Threatcons RE: AFNEWS flash Aviation/Aerospace World Records Re: AFNEWS flash Re: AFNEWS flash RE: AFNEWS flash *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 07:09:48 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: AFNEWS flash I wrote: >It seems to me that the >U-2 community might fear the Dragon Lady will suffer the same faith as the >Blackbird, if they don't get enough publicity. That should have been fate (not faith), sorry. - -- Andreas [who still hasn't mastered the English language] PS: Happy Holidays and a Great New Year. - --- --- 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: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 05:51:56 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: AFNEWS flash At 05:38 AM 12/24/98 -0500, you wrote: >Kirk Ryan asked: > >>What exactly is the record here? Other planes have flown much higher >>than that. > >And Patrick Cullumber responded: > >>The AF article is not real clear >>#5797: > >[...] > >>It's the record for weight in this particular class of aeroplane. The AF >>article is vague. I dug this out of the FAI website. Personally I am more >>impressed with the An-225 although I don't recommend the Soviets attempt an >>overflight of the US in one. > >Slight correction. The record claim listed above (# 5797) pertains to one >of the 3 records claimed by Dragon Lady's last month (remember the factually >incorrect NASA/Lockheed press releases and AP/UPI news articles, I bitched >about ?) :-) > Andreas.....thanks for the correction/more than complete explanation. Its obvious we are going to have to clean up our responses with you back on the job. Besides, some of these answers take a metric kind of guy (couple?) to sleuth out. patrick (are we still going metric here in the good ole us of a or did the xenophobes thwart that effort once and for all? This is a 20 point toss up question for you engineer types.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Dec 98 08:53:28 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: Re: Threatcons Received this from one of our 'digest members'. Greg W. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Threatcon Author: at INTERNET Date: 12/24/98 6:43 AM Greg, I only get the digest, so I'm not sure how to post to the group. Perhaps you could pass on: >Subject: Re: threatcons Alpha is the lowest - general possibility at unspecific locations Bravo - increased threat, location unspecific Charlie - possibly imminently, location unspecific Delta - immient threat, location specific (where you're reading the sign!). For example, with all going on in Iraq, we've been Alpha for weeks. When we bombed this last round, we went Bravo for a few days. You'll also see "exercise" or "actual" designators. These levels are mostly to inform the military folks what they're suppose to be doing. Bravo has increased random checks, for instance. Alpha has buildings locked down. Charlie has personnel watching the entrances/exits. However, there's a great degree of recalibration to the nominal by the people because they're really just people: after 4 weeks of Alpha, nobody seems to even "sees" the sign any more, and falls back to what they always do. - -- Brian J. Mork, 928-E Grenoble, Lansing, MI 48917 Radio Nets: ka9snf@..QRT.., Internet: mork@usa.net http://www.qsl.net/ka9snf/ --public encryption key available ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 14:31:36 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: AFNEWS flash At 07:09 AM 12/24/98 -0500, you wrote: >I wrote: > >-- Andreas [who still hasn't mastered the English language] > >PS: Happy Holidays and a Great New Year. > >--- --- > Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl You may not have mastered the language, but have managed to master the information sources. I, for one, tip my hat to you. THANKS Happy Holidays to you and yours.. John Szalay ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 14:45:37 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: AFNEWS flash At 05:51 AM 12/24/98 -0800, you wrote: >A >patrick > >(are we still going metric here in the good ole us of a or did the >xenophobes thwart that effort once and for all? This is a 20 point toss up >question for you engineer types.) > > > Don,t appear to make any difference which is the standard, Better than half the drawings we get on the floor have one or the other, sometimes both or no numbers at all. the designers no longer have anyone proof checking ( saving money) the drawings. We spend more of the time they saved, not checking, waiting for them to send us the corrected drawings, which, when we get them, will be replaced by new drawing of a revised design, just as we finish the parts, Which makes everything off schedule. I've been in the prototype engineering shop for over 30 years, and I,ve seen more mistakes and revised drawings in the past two years, than all the other rest. Yes boss, I,ll go back to driving the laser after I get my headache medicine. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 10:59:45 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: AFNEWS flash >> >>(are we still going metric here in the good ole us of a or did the >>xenophobes thwart that effort once and for all? This is a 20 point toss up >>question for you engineer types.) > > Don,t appear to make any difference which is the standard, >Better than half the drawings we get on the floor have one or the >other, sometimes both or no numbers at all. >the designers no longer have anyone proof checking ( saving money) >the drawings. >We spend more of the time they saved, not checking, waiting for them >to send us the corrected drawings, which, when we get them, will be >replaced by new drawing of a revised design, just as we finish the parts, >Which makes everything off schedule. >I've been in the prototype engineering shop for over 30 years, and I,ve >seen more mistakes and revised drawings in the past two years, than >all the other rest. > > Yes boss, I,ll go back to driving the laser after I get my headache > medicine. > New part introduction, ya gotta love it! My favorite is the engineer who told me about a new customer he was working with. He said: "We are going to build these parts just like last time only this time they are going to be different". Engineers are to be avoided at all cost. They believe, and maybe rightfully so, that they can build anything the customer wants. But when you present them with delivery dates to the customer or production start dates they start giving you looks like you are speaking to them in Sandskrit. I don't know what they teach them in college. But they are fun to hang out with at the water cooler!! patrick ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 11:19:50 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: Threatcons >Received this from one of our 'digest members'. Greg W. > >______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ >Subject: Threatcon >Author: at INTERNET >Date: 12/24/98 6:43 AM - ---SNIP--- >However, >there's a great degree of recalibration to the nominal by the people because >they're really just people: after 4 weeks of Alpha, nobody seems to >even "sees" the sign any more, and falls back to what they always do. > >Brian J. Mork, 928-E Grenoble, Lansing, MI 48917 =--=-===-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Brian- As a civilian employee I was forced to go to a security meeting once given to all base members. I was the only person in the auditorium not wearing cammo. I was also the only person smiling when a gruff sergeant with too many stripes on his arm got up on stage and began lamenting the fact that everytime they sent decoys on to the top security flightline that they were never questioned for lack of proper security badges nor was base security ever alerted. Instead they were always given the red carpet treatment. The sergeant was from base security and seemed to become very peeved off as I recall. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 13:24:57 +1300 (NZDT) From: Kerry Ferrand Subject: I.42 -I.44 in the flesh The first photo of the Russian "ATF-ski" hanger queen has appeared http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~0logo/mfii42.jpg shows one of the I.44 demonstrators, part of the I.42 project K ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 23:13:19 +0000 From: John Szalay Subject: Very Interesting ! But is it for real ? - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/spook ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 09:09:00 PST From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Re: AFNEWS flash don't you people under stand the difference between doing something,maybe on a regular basis and setting an official record of same?i have erased the article about the u-2 setting an official record for 4400 lbs(?)to a certain altitude. that weight had to be documented.first it had to be removed from the airframe(and probably benched checked) then weighed and re-installed(under the sanctioning bodies supervision) then sealed in some fashion.after landing the flight data recorder was removed for examination and verification(by the sanctioning body,the acft manufacturer,and a representative of the person/org claiming the record)this,as the article plainly stated does not mean the"record"is not being broken every day by"routine"flights,only that it is expensive AND time consuming,requiring lots of coordination between the parties involved. wayne d.binkley >Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 17:37:51 -0800 >From: Ryan Kirk >To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com >Subject: Re: AFNEWS flash >Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > >What exactly is the record here? Other planes have flown much higher >than that. > >Ryan > > ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 22:06:06 -0800 From: patrick Subject: Re: AFNEWS flash >>What exactly is the record here? Other planes have flown much higher >>than that. >> >>Ryan =---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=---=-=-=-= >don't you people under stand the difference between doing >something,maybe on a regular basis and setting an official record of >same?i have erased the article about the u-2 setting an official record >for 4400 lbs(?)to a certain altitude. that weight had to be >documented.first it had to be removed from the airframe(and probably >benched checked) then weighed and re-installed(under the sanctioning >bodies supervision) then sealed in some fashion.after landing the flight >data recorder was removed for examination and verification(by the >sanctioning body,the acft manufacturer,and a representative of the >person/org claiming the record)this,as the article plainly stated does >not mean the"record"is not being broken every day >by"routine"flights,only that it is expensive AND time >consuming,requiring lots of coordination between the parties involved. > >wayne d.binkley > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-===-=-=-=-==== wayne- Ryan was confused probably by the vagueness of the AF story. They seemed to emphasize the weight being carried, almost as if it was an absolute weight record for any category. If you read the description Andreas printed it is more clear that it is the weight carried by a specific narrow category of aircraft to a higher altitude than previous. I believe there are different weight categories for each category of aircraft with the record being for the highest altitude. I believe most of us understand that a record attempt is a very laborius, time consuming and expensive process not endured until someone decides the prize is worth the effort. It is my understanding that the F-111 routinely broke speed records for its category of airplane on a regular basis. By a large margin too. And some in the AF considered going for the record near the end of its lifetime. But time and money ran out before those intereseted could convince the powers that be of the worth of such an effort. A sad ending for the old TFX fighter/bomber/jammer. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 04:48:00 -0500 (EST) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Threatcons > >______________________________ Reply Separator > _________________________________ > >Subject: Threatcon > >Author: at INTERNET > >Date: 12/24/98 6:43 AM > ---SNIP--- > >However, > >there's a great degree of recalibration to the nominal by the people because > >they're really just people: after 4 weeks of Alpha, nobody seems to > >even "sees" the sign any more, and falls back to what they always do. > > > >Brian J. Mork, 928-E Grenoble, Lansing, MI 48917 > =--=-===-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > Brian- As a civilian employee I was forced to go to a security meeting > once given to all base members. I was the only person in the auditorium > not wearing cammo. I was also the only person smiling when a gruff > sergeant with too many stripes on his arm got up on stage and began > lamenting the fact that everytime they sent decoys on to the top security > flightline that they were never questioned for lack of proper security > badges nor was base security ever alerted. Instead they were always given > the red carpet treatment. The sergeant was from base security and seemed > to become very peeved off as I recall. > > patrick For the official DOD definition of THREATCON please refer to: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/t/06113.html Sam ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 10:10:26 -0000 From: Gavin Payne Subject: RE: AFNEWS flash I thought the U2 flew at around 85,000+ feet, whereas the news article says they got to about 66,000ft? On Sunday, December 27, 1998 6:06 AM, patrick [SMTP:patrick@e-z.net] wrote: > >>What exactly is the record here? Other planes have flown much higher > >>than that. > >> > >>Ryan > =---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=---=-=-=-= > >don't you people under stand the difference between doing > >something,maybe on a regular basis and setting an official record of > >same?i have erased the article about the u-2 setting an official record > >for 4400 lbs(?)to a certain altitude. that weight had to be > >documented.first it had to be removed from the airframe(and probably > >benched checked) then weighed and re-installed(under the sanctioning > >bodies supervision) then sealed in some fashion.after landing the flight > >data recorder was removed for examination and verification(by the > >sanctioning body,the acft manufacturer,and a representative of the > >person/org claiming the record)this,as the article plainly stated does > >not mean the"record"is not being broken every day > >by"routine"flights,only that it is expensive AND time > >consuming,requiring lots of coordination between the parties involved. > > > >wayne d.binkley > > > >=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-===-=-=-=-==== > > wayne- > Ryan was confused probably by the vagueness of the AF story. They seemed > to emphasize the weight being carried, almost as if it was an absolute > weight record for any category. If you read the description Andreas > printed it is more clear that it is the weight carried by a specific narrow > category of aircraft to a higher altitude than previous. I believe there > are different weight categories for each category of aircraft with the > record being for the highest altitude. > > I believe most of us understand that a record attempt is a very laborius, > time consuming and expensive process not endured until someone decides the > prize is worth the effort. > > It is my understanding that the F-111 routinely broke speed records for its > category of airplane on a regular basis. By a large margin too. And some > in the AF considered going for the record near the end of its lifetime. > But time and money ran out before those intereseted could convince the > powers that be of the worth of such an effort. A sad ending for the old > TFX fighter/bomber/jammer. > > patrick ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 08:34:49 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Aviation/Aerospace World Records Some info on records. To claim an Official Aviation/Aerospace World Record, the record must be observed and certified by the National Airsport Control (NAC) as a National Record within 90 days of accomplishment, and must be verified by the FAI to become an official World Record. In case of the USA, the NAC is the National Aeronautic Association of the USA (NAA, web site: www.naa.ycg.org) that observes, verifies, and registers the records claimed with the FAI. All FAI records are measured in metric units, and feet, miles, pounds, knots and degrees Fahrenheit must be converted for that purpose. There are currently 16 different Classes in which records can be claimed, and there are hundreds of Sub-Classes, Groups, and Categories, to make those records more comparable (or useful). Those 16 Classes are (sorted by Section in the Sporting Code): ============================================================== * Section 1: Aerostats (lighter than air) --------------------------------------- Class A -- Free Balloon (Hot-Air Balloon, Gas Balloon, etc.) Class B -- Airship or Dirigible (powered and steerable) * Section 2: Powered Aerodynes (Aircraft, Aeroplanes) --------------------------------------------------- Class C -- Aeroplane, Solar- and Electric-Powered Aerodyne Class H -- Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) Aircraft (Jet-Powered) Class M -- Tilt-Wing / Tilt-Engine Aircraft (Convertiplane) Class N -- Short Take-Off and Landing (STOL) Aircraft * Section 3: Gliders ------------------ Class D -- Glider, Motor-Glider * Section 4: Models ----------------- Class F -- Aeromodel Class S -- Space Model * Section 5: Parachuting ---------------------- Class G -- Parachute * Section 7: Hang Gliding and Paragliding --------------------------------------- Class O -- Hang-Glider, Paraglider * Section 8: Astronautics ----------------------- Class K -- Spacecraft Class P -- Aerospacecraft * Section 9: Rotorcraft --------------------- Class E -- Rotorcraft (Helicopter, Gyrocopter, Autogyro, etc.) * Section 10: Microlights ----------------------- Class R -- Microlight, Powered Hang-Glider, Powered Paraglider * Section 11: Human-Powered Aircraft ---------------------------------- Class I -- Human-Powered Aircraft An aircraft may claim records in more than one Class -- the V-22 for example could try to establish records in Class C, E, and M, but is excluded from all other classes, including Classes H and N. Most of those Classes have Sub-Classes, Class C for example has 3 main Sub-Classes: Class C-1 -- Landplanes (Start and Landing from Land) Class C-2 -- Seaplanes (Start and Landing from Water) Class C-3 -- Amphibian (Start from Land and Landing on Water, or vice versa) Those Sub-Classes are again divided in more Sub-Classes, based on the Take-Off Weight (C-1 Sub-Classes differ from C-2 and C-3 Sub-Classes): Class C-1a/o -- Landplanes (Take-Off Weight < 300.00 kg) Class C-1a -- Landplanes (Take-Off Weight >= 300.00 < 500.00 kg) Class C-1b -- Landplanes (Take-Off Weight >= 500.00 < 1,000.00 kg) Class C-1c -- Landplanes (Take-Off Weight >= 1,000.00 < 1,750.00 kg) Class C-1d -- Landplanes (Take-Off Weight >= 1,750.00 < 3,000.00 kg) Class C-1e -- Landplanes (Take-Off Weight >= 3,000.00 < 6,000.00 kg) Class C-1f -- Landplanes (Take-Off Weight >= 6,000.00 < 9,000.00 kg) Class C-1g -- Landplanes (Take-Off Weight >= 9,000.00 < 12,000.00 kg) Class C-1h -- Landplanes (Take-Off Weight >= 12,000.00 < 16,000.00 kg) Class C-1i -- Landplanes (Take-Off Weight >= 16,000.00 < 20,000.00 kg) Class C-1j -- Landplanes (Take-Off Weight >= 20,000.00 < 25,000.00 kg) Class C-1k -- Landplanes (Take-Off Weight >= 25,000.00 < 35,000.00 kg) Class C-1l -- Landplanes (Take-Off Weight >= 35,000.00 < 45,000.00 kg) Class C-1m -- Landplanes (Take-Off Weight >= 45,000.00 < 60,000.00 kg) Class C-1n -- Landplanes (Take-Off Weight >= 60,000.00 < 80,000.00 kg) Class C-1o -- Landplanes (Take-Off Weight >= 80,000.00 < 100,000.00 kg) Class C-1p -- Landplanes (Take-Off Weight >= 100,000.00 < 150,000.00 kg) Class C-1q -- Landplanes (Take-Off Weight >= 150,000.00 < 200,000.00 kg) Class C-1r -- Landplanes (Take-Off Weight >= 200,000.00 < 250,000.00 kg) Class C-1s -- Landplanes (Take-Off Weight >= 250,000.00 < 300,000.00 kg) Class C-1t -- Landplanes (Take-Off Weight >= 300,000.00 kg) Not all Classes have Sub-Classes, though, and not all Sub-Classes are by Take-Off Weight. Motor-Glider are for example Sub-Class 'DM', under Class 'D' (Glider), and Hot-Air Balloons are Sub-Class 'AX' under Class 'A' (Balloons). There may also be Categories for those Sub-Classes, including separate Records for Males and Females (General and Feminine), Single- and Two-Seaters (Solo and Multi-Seat), With and Without Inflight-Refuelling, or (in case of Balloons) by Size or Volume. Additionally, some Classes/Sub-Classes are also subdivided into the following four Groups, based on the type of Engine or Powerplant (for combinations of engines, always the highest Group has to be used): Group 1 -- Piston Engines Group 2 -- Turboprops Group 3 -- (Turbo-) Jet Engines Group 4 -- Rocket Engines (or Rocket assisted) There are various Absolute and Specific Records, that can be claimed for speed, altitude, distance and endurance, in each Class (and its Sub-Classes) if the requirements for the selected record are fulfilled and verified, and if the record exceeds the previous/current record by a defined percentage margin. A complete list and description of all Classes, Sub-Classes, Groups and Categories, and all possible World Records achievable in those Classes, as well as Descriptions and all Requirements for each of those Records and listings of many current World Records, can be found at the FAI web site at: www.fai.org. The NAA also sells a book that contains all current World Records, and maybe even all previous records (at least it should contain previous ones). - -- Andreas - --- --- Andreas & Kathryn Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: schnars@ais.org 313 West Court St. #305 or: gpahl@acm.flint.umich.edu Flint, MI 48502-1239 Tel: (810) 238-8469 WWW URL: http://www.ais.org/~schnars/ - --- --- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 11:32:51 -0700 From: Brad Hitch Subject: Re: AFNEWS flash patrick wrote: > > > Andreas.....thanks for the correction/more than complete explanation. Its > obvious we are going to have to clean up our responses with you back on the > job. Besides, some of these answers take a metric kind of guy (couple?) to > sleuth out. > > patrick > > (are we still going metric here in the good ole us of a or did the > xenophobes thwart that effort once and for all? This is a 20 point toss up > question for you engineer types.) There is nothing inherently superior about the metric system. When it was first proposed by the French, the meter was defined as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the pole (a distance that wasn't actually known at the time in ANY units), and which is a rather inconvenient standard. On the other hand, almost everyone has a foot available. The basic difference between the US Customary units and SI is that in USC the pound is defined as a force and the mass is derived (from Newton's 3rd law: F=ma, yielding slugs as the fundamental unit of mass) while in SI the mass is defined and the force (in units of Newtons) is derived. The physics is the same in any units you choose. Extra credit: What is a poundal? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 11:41:29 -0700 From: Brad Hitch Subject: Re: AFNEWS flash John Szalay wrote: > > At 05:51 AM 12/24/98 -0800, you wrote: > >A > >patrick > > > >(are we still going metric here in the good ole us of a or did the > >xenophobes thwart that effort once and for all? This is a 20 point toss up > >question for you engineer types.) > > > > > > > > > Don,t appear to make any difference which is the standard, > Better than half the drawings we get on the floor have one or the > other, sometimes both or no numbers at all. > the designers no longer have anyone proof checking ( saving money) > the drawings. > We spend more of the time they saved, not checking, waiting for them > to send us the corrected drawings, which, when we get them, will be > replaced by new drawing of a revised design, just as we finish the parts, > Which makes everything off schedule. > I've been in the prototype engineering shop for over 30 years, and I,ve > seen more mistakes and revised drawings in the past two years, than > all the other rest. > > Yes boss, I,ll go back to driving the laser after I get my headache > medicine. My experience is that if it doesn't work on paper, it won't work any better in metal. Time spent drafting is rarely wasted. A napkin sketch just won't do it if any kind of close fit is required. Learning AutoCAD was one of the best things I ever did. Checkers have traditionally been some of the most experienced people, they porbably took early retirement and nobody could come up with a solid justification to keep their positions to the bean-counters (not because there wasn't a good justification, but it's hard to quantify until you get some data, which you don't have if your checkers are doing what they are supposed to). ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 10:54:22 -0800 From: ehoel@esri.com Subject: RE: AFNEWS flash Brad Hitch [mailto:hitch@tda.com] wrote: ... chop ... > There is nothing inherently superior about the metric system. When it > was first proposed by the French, the meter was defined as one > ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the pole (a distance > that wasn't actually known at the time in ANY units), and which is a > rather inconvenient standard. On the other hand, almost > everyone has a > foot available. The basic difference between the US > Customary units and > SI is that in USC the pound is defined as a force and the mass is > derived (from Newton's 3rd law: F=ma, yielding slugs as the > fundamental > unit of mass) while in SI the mass is defined and the force > (in units of > Newtons) is derived. The physics is the same in any units you choose. > > Extra credit: What is a poundal? : A poundal is a unit of force equal to the force providing an acceleration of one foot per second-squared on a mass of 1 pound. Erik - -- Erik Hoel mailto:ehoel@esri.com Environmental Systems Research Institute http://www.esri.com 380 New York Street 909-793-2853 (x1-1548) tel Redlands, CA 92373-8100 909-307-3067 fax ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V7 #94 ******************************** 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