From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #64 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, June 4 1999 Volume 08 : Number 064 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: List Topics Re: List Topics Suggestion Re: Suggestion RE: Skunk-Works Charter RE: Skunk-Works Charter Re: List Topics Re: List Topics Luddite or Constitutionalist? Re: Luddite or Constitutionalist? Re: Luddite or Constitutionalist? Re: List Topics Re: List Topics Re: Long-Term Stealth Project Gets The Ax Sea Shadow Test Test Is the list alive? Re: Is the list alive? Re: Is the list alive? RE: Is the list alive? Re: Is the list alive? RE: Is the list alive? RE: Is the list alive? Re: Is the list alive? RE: Is the list alive? RE: Is the list alive? HGH Support Product Black Aircraft Enthusiast #1 dies *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 02:05:02 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: List Topics At 08:29 PM 5/25/99 -0700, Larry eloquently stated: > >This list is therefore named skunk-works to honor the group that has created >more of these kinds of designs than anyone else, namely the Skunk Works. >But in the past 11 years, it never was exclusively just about Lockheed or >Lockheed-Martin products. > >So the phrases: "discussions of advanced technology aircraft and >historical discussions about products of the ... Skunk Works", captures >the spirit well, IMHO. Keep it simple! > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-==-=-=-=-== I will differ to Larrys position on this matter and request that my concerns be changed to a test message and ignored. (He's holding more cards in his hands than I) patrick ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 11:32:57 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: List Topics Patrick writes: >According to this intro to our list the TR-3A exists and was built by >Lockheed. Not to mention the Aurora. I am very concerned that this topic >description lends credence to the existence of these vehicles, thus >generating new inquiries from new members. This negates all standards of >investigating or reporting we have been clinging to. FWIW, I'd suggest the TR-3a and Aurora be placed in a catagory of >speculative aircraft< to avoid any misunderstandings. Other than that slight clarification, I see no reason to button down the areas of valid discussion too much. For me, the spirit of this list has always been that any advanced aerospace project or concept is On Topic. I'd hate to see that change. Best Dave >And as Jim mentions it essentially prohibits mention of other stealth >aircraft. We chose to include aircraft similar to Lockheed's as is the >case with the Northrup XST, and the various UAV's made by all the companies >not purchased by Lockheed. To discuss one and not the other made no sense. > This description forbids hypersonic aircraft not designed by Lockheed-Martin. > >But the B-2? Seems it should be in and not out of bounds for topic >limitation. Course an examination of the digests would indicate we all >have failed the guidelines. Like Orwell's Animal Farm, though, we're all >guilty but some of us are more guilty than others. And you extraterrestial >believing blasphemer's know who you are. > >I say that description of our lists' topics is not correct and needs to >reflect our previous agreement. > >patrick > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 07:16:50 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Suggestion Sounds to me like a Skunk Works convention is in order with suggestions for an evolved definition of the purpose of the list. I, for one, like advanced technology. But I am only interested in it if it actually works. In other words, I could care less if we were able to design a Recce aircraft that could fly Mach 20 only to find that the images it produced were less useable than those produced by the SR-71. The technology would be interesting but for what purpose? Some may want to discuss such technology for its own sake and that's O.K. But I believe a discussion as to its viability is useful. Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 11:03:23 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Suggestion >I, for one, like advanced technology. But I am only interested in it if >it actually works. In other words, I could care less if we were able to >design a Recce aircraft that could fly Mach 20 only to find that the >images it produced were less useable than those produced by the SR-71. >The technology would be interesting but for what purpose? Hmmm. Interesting. You like the SR-71. You have some of the answers to your own question. But, of course, the Luddite in you, is strong. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 99 14:04:00 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: RE: Skunk-Works Charter How's this for a start? GW - -----Original Message----- From: at INTERNET Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 02:29 AM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com at INTERNET Subject: Skunk-Works Charter The skunk-works mailing list was created for discussions of advanced technology aircraft and historical discussions about products of the Lockheed Advanced Development Company (LADC), also known as the Skunk Works, as our list name suggests. However, we also welcome discussions about leading-edge technologies from any other aircraft manufacturer. Primary areas of discussion include: Stealth aircraft, manned and unmanned New aircraft technology - stealth or non-stealth Historical discussions about how current technologies came about Leading-edge technology associated with aircraft, ie: cruise missiles and laser guided bombs Other uses of stealth technology not related to aircraft Stealth can be defined as the implementation of ANY technology that allows a vehicle or person to go somewhere undetected (or minimally detected) - this includes detection by any radar, sonar and optical devices CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IS NOT ALLOWED Appropriate book and magazine reviews may be submitted Posting of complete magazine articles or other commercially published materials that are copyrighted will not be permitted. A brief synopsis with excerpts and quotes may be submitted. The poster will attribute all copyrighted materials to the author AND publisher. The list-owner is responsible for maintaining order. Off-topic discussions may occasionally occur as the list-owner permits, and the majority of list participants concur. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 11:53:56 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: RE: Skunk-Works Charter Greg writes: [Proposed Charter] >The skunk-works mailing list was created for discussions of advanced >technology aircraft and historical discussions about products of the >Lockheed Advanced Development Company (LADC), also known as the >Skunk Works, as our list name suggests. However, we also welcome >discussions about leading-edge technologies from any other aircraft >manufacturer. Thanks Greg! It's interesting how different people interpret the first sentence. I interpret the first part: "The skunk-works mailing list was created for discussions of advanced technology aircraft" as not necessarily applying just to LMSW aircraft. But after rereading it your way, I see your point. Pat interpreted it your way as well. Anyway, I'm glad you added the last sentence above. I might slightly modify it to read: "However, we also welcome discussions about leading-edge aerospace technologies from any other aircraft manufacturer, or university or government sponsored research group." I also like your: "Historical discussions about how current technologies came about" Nice! larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 12:19:21 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: List Topics >I will differ to Larrys position on this matter and request that my >concerns be changed to a test message and ignored. What is your concern about formally allowing something that we've been doing for all the time I've been on this list? Namely discussing advanced aerospace technology, that relates to something that the Skunk Works could conceivably be working on. Something that is real, as measured by some other company, or some university or government sponsored research group actually having worked on it? So, what's the concern? Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 12:33:42 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: List Topics >>I will differ to Larrys position on this matter and request that my >>concerns be changed to a test message and ignored. >What is your concern about formally allowing something that we've been >doing for all the time I've been on this list? Namely discussing >advanced aerospace technology, that relates to something that the >Skunk Works could conceivably be working on. Something that is real, >as measured by some other company, or some university or government >sponsored research group actually having worked on it? I might add, or a real problem that currently exists that needs to be solved. The USAF always publishes their major areas of research and interest. Some of us like to discuss these things at a high level and how they might be solved. These discussions have been interesting in the past. But if they waver to domestic or foreign policy, let them be off topic. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 16:08:30 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Luddite or Constitutionalist? I did not say I liked the SR-71. I said that there is no sense paying for a Mach 20 replacement, in spite of its technological advances, if it produced poorer pictures of the SR-71. Your assertion that I am a Luddite is incorrect. I reprint the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary for your edification: OED 1 a. ". . . A member of an organized band of English mechanics and their friends, who (181116) set themselves to destroy manufacturing machinery in the midlands and north of England. b. transf. One who opposes the introduction of new technology, esp. into a place of work. American Heritage 1. Any of a group of British workers who between 1811 and 1816 rioted and destroyed laborsaving textile machinery in the belief that such machinery would diminish employment. 2. One who opposes technical or technological change I assume that you are implying that I belong to group 1b as defined by the OED or group 2 as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary. In either case, you are incorrect. I love technology--when it works. Having been a consultant to numerous high technology companies, I can assure you I have been involved in the front end of many fascinating projects. But these involved successes and failures in the free enterprise environment. They did not involved the financing of unproven technology at the taxpayer's expense under threat of imprisonment. If you want to label me, call me a strict constitutionalist who believes that: 1. the executive branch of the U.S. government should not spend money that congress has not appropriated, a violation of the U.S. Constitution; 2. that the executive branch of the U.S. government should not violate the anti-deficiency laws, a felony; 3. that the the executive branch should not procure any aircraft that have not demonstrated IN FLIGHT that it will performed as advertised; and that 4. the executive branch should stop abusing the secrecy regulations to cover its blunders. Jim Stevenson >>I, for one, like advanced technology. But I am only interested in it if >>it actually works. In other words, I could care less if we were able to >>design a Recce aircraft that could fly Mach 20 only to find that the >>images it produced were less useable than those produced by the SR-71. >>The technology would be interesting but for what purpose? > > Hmmm. Interesting. You like the SR-71. > > You have some of the answers to your own question. But, of course, the > Luddite in you, is strong. > > Larry > - ----------------------------- James P. Stevenson (301) 254-9000 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 13:30:14 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Luddite or Constitutionalist? >I did not say I liked the SR-71. I said that there is no sense paying >for a Mach 20 replacement, in spite of its technological advances, if it >produced poorer pictures of the SR-71. "Picture quality" has little to do with the effectiveness of an asset. Maybe your hypothetical Mach 20 recce aircraft takes "poor pictures", but takes them in parts of the sectrum the SR-71 cannot, or is a better SIGINT platform, or has greater value simply because the bad guys don't know it's there. Or maybe "good pictures" aren't so good afer all. In fact, the next gneeration of NRO spacecraft will be deliberately developed to produced low resolution imagery. The current generation of Kennan spacecraft produce only high resolution data- which makes the analysis process difficult, and makes targetting a "shot" difficult. The Kennan series is not appropriate for wide area surveilance like the Big Bird series, and as such almost makes intelligence planners focus on one tank instead of the battlefield. And, of course, the quality of the photographs produced by a hypothetical Mach 20 aircraft would probably be classified for quite a while, making debate rather pointless. We are only now seeing some of the capabilities of the Kennan satellites 20 years after their introduction. Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Have you exported RSA today? print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Subject: Re: Luddite or Constitutionalist? Let's just say that I believe in technology that accomplishes advertised purposes. If the technology is advanced and its advancement accomplishes something worthwhile, i.e., that which it was sold to the public to accomplish, then I am for it. Otherwise, I am not. Jim Stevenson >>I did not say I liked the SR-71. I said that there is no sense paying >>for a Mach 20 replacement, in spite of its technological advances, if it >>produced poorer pictures of the SR-71. > > "Picture quality" has little to do with the effectiveness of an > asset. Maybe your hypothetical Mach 20 recce aircraft takes "poor > pictures", but takes them in parts of the sectrum the SR-71 cannot, > or is a better SIGINT platform, or has greater value simply because > the bad guys don't know it's there. Or maybe "good pictures" aren't > so good afer all. In fact, the next gneeration of NRO spacecraft will > be deliberately developed to produced low resolution imagery. The > current generation of Kennan spacecraft produce only high resolution > data- which makes the analysis process difficult, and makes > targetting a "shot" difficult. The Kennan series is not appropriate > for wide area surveilance like the Big Bird series, and as such > almost makes intelligence planners focus on one tank instead of the > battlefield. > > And, of course, the quality of the photographs produced by a > hypothetical Mach 20 aircraft would probably be classified for quite > a while, making debate rather pointless. We are only now seeing some > of the capabilities of the Kennan satellites 20 years after their > introduction. > > Dan > > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_ > /_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > Have you exported RSA today? > print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> > )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_ > /_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > > - ----------------------------- James P. Stevenson (301) 254-9000 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 20:22:45 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: List Topics At 12:19 PM 5/26/99 -0700, I wrote: > >>I will differ to Larrys position on this matter and request that my >>concerns be changed to a test message and ignored. > Larry wrote: >What is your concern about formally allowing something that we've been >doing for all the time I've been on this list? Namely discussing >advanced aerospace technology, that relates to something that the >Skunk Works could conceivably be working on. Something that is real, >as measured by some other company, or some university or government >sponsored research group actually having worked on it? > >So, what's the concern? > =-===-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Hmmmmm. Did I say differ? Let's try the word defer. Now that earlier post might make more sense. patrick "Language is not reality. It is but a map of reality." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 00:52:54 -0700 From: JAZ Subject: Re: List Topics Since Aurora was mentioned (accidentally) in a congressional document it seems it falls within the category of this group. There are undoutably many high-tech aircraft that aren't known to the public that would fall within the bounds of discussion. Apparently some members of this group get pushed out of shape over mention of anything that hasn't been publically unvealed by the DOD. Well, tough cookies. I enjoy everything I see in this group. Now ufo's, that's another matter. jaz ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 10:52:57 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: Long-Term Stealth Project Gets The Ax . > Initially, the 15-year long black program was designed to build a > strategic reconnaissance aircraft that resembled the Dark-Star in > shape and approached the B-2 bomber in size and cost, according to > several Pentagon officials. The aircraft was to penetrate contested > airspace... [,] carry a wide range of sensors and serve as a > replacement for the long-lived U-2 The part about the B-2-sized UAV being intended as a replacement for the U-2 (at least the post-1960s U-2) strikes me as questionable. More likely, IMVHO, is that its primary task was to perform reconnaissance over the Soviet Union in support of the B-2's original raison d'etre: destruction of strategic relocatable targets, aka mobile ICBMs and IRBMs. Things pointing to this interpretation are: - - the characterization of it as a "strategic reconnaissance aircraft" - - the timeframe in which it must have been initiated (probably during Reagan's first term, maybe early in his second one, when strategic warfighting programs were being pushed) - - the size, stealth and associated cost, all of which were much more compatible with the Cold-War strategic warfighting mission than with simple replacement of the U-2 - - the fact that the mobile-missile hunting mission of the B-2 seriously needed something to provide broad-area, more or less continuous surveillance. Satellites and the SR-71 wouldn't have done it very well because of dwell and revisit problems; the big UAV would have been much better suited to the task. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 12:43:55 -0500 From: Dave Bethke Subject: Sea Shadow From a Navy public web page -- (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/images/ima-ship.html) A shape of things to come? The U.S. Navy Sea Shadow craft gets underway at dusk on Mar. 18, 1999, in San Francisco Bay to participate in events associated with Fleet Battle Experiment-Echo, sponsored by Commander, Third Fleet and the Maritime Battle Center. Sea Shadow, a test platform, was reactivated this year to support evaluation of future Navy ship designs and technologies, including automation for reduced manning, propulsion concepts, and characteristics of surface ship stealth. http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/misc/seashadow/seashadow02.jpg U.S. Navy photo - Naval Sea Systems Command. Mar. 18, 1999. - ---- I know, a little off topic, but it is a Skunk Works product. :) - -- Dave Bethke ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 May 1999 04:09:41 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Test Disregard - ----------------------------- James P. Stevenson (301) 254-9000 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 15:10:33 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Test Test - ----------------------------- James P. Stevenson (301) 254-9000 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 06:41:54 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Is the list alive? I haven't seen anything on the list for several days? Is the list still alive? - ----------------------------- James P. Stevenson (301) 254-9000 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 11:59:09 GMT From: georgek@netwrx1.com (George R. Kasica) Subject: Re: Is the list alive? On Wed, 02 Jun 1999 06:41:54 -0400, you wrote: >I haven't seen anything on the list for several days? Is the list still >alive? >----------------------------- >James P. Stevenson >(301) 254-9000 Sure is...at least I'm here.... George ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 414 541 8579 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 800 520 4873 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com West Allis, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com gkasica@hotmail.com gkasica@yahoo.com gkasica@netscape.com ICQ #12862186 Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 07:43:49 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Is the list alive? At 06:41 AM 6/2/99 -0400, you wrote: >I haven't seen anything on the list for several days? Is the list still >alive? >----------------------------- We have switched to stealth mode........ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 11:07:16 -0400 From: "Frank Markus" Subject: RE: Is the list alive? See ... Stealth DOES work! - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com] On Behalf Of patrick Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 1999 10:44 AM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: Is the list alive? At 06:41 AM 6/2/99 -0400, you wrote: >I haven't seen anything on the list for several days? Is the list still >alive? >----------------------------- We have switched to stealth mode........ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 15:15:40 +0000 From: georgek@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: Is the list alive? On Wed, 02 Jun 1999 07:43:49 -0700, you wrote: >At 06:41 AM 6/2/99 -0400, you wrote: >>I haven't seen anything on the list for several days? Is the list still >>alive? >>----------------------------- > >We have switched to stealth mode........ Pat: Thanks, I needed that after yesterday at the docs office! Enjoy! George George, MR. Tibbs & The Beast Kasica West Allis, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com gkasica@hotmail.com gkasica@yahoo.com gkasica@netscape.com http://www.netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 Zz zZ |\ z _,,,---,,_ /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_ |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'_' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 99 11:12:00 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: RE: Is the list alive? switching back from LO mode.... WE"RE HERE!!! <|:-) - -----Original Message----- From: at INTERNET Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 1999 07:43 AM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com at INTERNET Subject: RE: Is the list alive? At 06:41 AM 6/2/99 -0400, you wrote: >I haven't seen anything on the list for several days? Is the list still >alive? >----------------------------- We have switched to stealth mode........ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 18:52:05 -0700 From: patrick Subject: RE: Is the list alive? At 11:12 AM 6/2/99 -0500, you wrote: > >switching back from LO mode.... > >WE"RE HERE!!! > Greg did you switch to LO? I switched to Stealth. Which one were we suppose to switch to? Is there a difference? Damn, I can't find my manual for my RCM 135 mode switcher. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 22:14:41 EDT From: INFORMATION RESTRICTED Subject: Re: Is the list alive? EAK! Don't DO that ! Here I was traipsing merrily through the ether and you guys had to pop up without warning ! Kurt Amateur Radio Stations KC7VDG/KK7RC Monitor Station Registry KCA6ABB Based In Nevada, United States Of America On Wed, 02 Jun 1999 18:52:05 -0700 patrick writes: >At 11:12 AM 6/2/99 -0500, you wrote: >> >>switching back from LO mode.... >> >>WE"RE HERE!!! >> >Greg did you switch to LO? I switched to Stealth. Which one were we >suppose to switch to? Is there a difference? Damn, I can't find my >manual >for my RCM 135 mode switcher. ___________________________________________________________________ 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/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 08:32:14 +0100 From: Gavin Payne Subject: RE: Is the list alive? > Greg did you switch to LO? I switched to Stealth. Which one were we > suppose to switch to? Is there a difference? Damn, I can't > find my manual > for my RCM 135 mode switcher. RC-135s, are we allowed to talk about them here? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Jun 99 11:25:00 -0500 From: gregweigold@pmsc.com Subject: RE: Is the list alive? As the redneck F-117A pilot said to the Iraqi ground troops....... Hey, ya'll, watch this!! - -----Original Message----- From: at INTERNET Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 1999 6:52 PM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com at INTERNET Subject: RE: Is the list alive? At 11:12 AM 6/2/99 -0500, you wrote: > >switching back from LO mode.... > >WE"RE HERE!!! > Greg did you switch to LO? I switched to Stealth. Which one were we suppose to switch to? Is there a difference? Damn, I can't find my manual for my RCM 135 mode switcher. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 00:20:51 -0400 From: info2@concepts2001.com Subject: HGH Support Product Guaranteed TOP 50 If You Respond NOW! Human Growth Hormone (HGH) is in no doubt the next Hottest Health Product to hit the marketplace. (Remember DHEA, Colloidals, Etc...) Gary Shawkey from the hit TV show "Making Money" is currently in search of Founders for his next venture. Gary has the only proven clinical studies that shows his HGH Support product raises IGF-1 levels an average of 58%. Gary also challenges any other company claiming to have similar products to a random clinical study to see who's product really works best. The last time Gary launched a program like this one, he did almost $4,000,000 in less than 2 years. Nobody has this product and nobody is going to pay out this much money. The program will launch July 1st, 1999 and Gary is looking for key Founders to train and motivate the rest of the market. If you want a GUARANTEED position in the top 50 of Gary's new program, call 1-800-242-0363 extension 2298 and leave Gary your phone number and the best time for Gary to get in touch with you. Call 1-800-242-0363 X 2298 right away. ============================================================================== P.S. This message is sent in compliance with the proposed United States Federal requirements for commercial e-mail: Section 301, Paragraph (a) (2) (C) of s. 1618. Further transmissions to you by the sender of this e-mail may be stopped at no cost to you by replying to this e-mail with the word "remove" in the subject line. ============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 17:49:50 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Black Aircraft Enthusiast #1 dies One of the first black aircraft watchers (if not THE first), has recently died! From Testors WEB site: "John Andrews, designer of some of the most famous model kits in the world, died Friday, April 2, 1999 after a courageous four-year battle with cancer". Unfortunately, I just found out about this last night as I was at one of the local magazine stands, and happened to see John's smiling face staring back at me in a magazine. I was struck with saddness as I realized that it was his obituary. I know that some of you out there on the skunk-works mail list knew him, and were probably also recipients of John's infrequent phone calls asking about what was going on. They always started out with: "Hello Friend". Four years ago, during John's first battle with cancer, this list mailed him a number of get-well cards. John won that battle. Unfortunately, I didn't even know he was sick again. I've just gotten too busy. In the past few months I'd wondered why I hadn't heard from John in some time. Testors model company has an obituary on the WEB at: http://www.testors.com/Corp/Press.htm#JohnAndrews Anyway, the only comfort I have in this is that I'm sure John has looked up his close friends Kelly, and Ben. Now I'll bet that those are some REALLY interesting conversations! Larry ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #64 ******************************** 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