From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #72 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 Thursday, June 24 1999 Volume 08 : Number 072 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Latest on Roton Re: Latest on Roton Re: Latest on Roton RE: Latest on Roton Re: MiG plasma cloaking device to take off soon Re: ATF testing Re: ATF testing Re: Latest on Roton Re: MiG plasma cloaking device to take off soon Re: ATF testing Re: MiG plasma cloaking device to take off soon Re: ATF testing *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 99 03:30:29 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Latest on Roton The Roton has indeed been restructured but there apparently is more to the story. They've got commitments for $900 million worth of launches over the next ten years if they can meet their schedule. Problem they've run into is not with the rotor, which actually is pretty clever, but the engine. They were also developing an advanced engine design to fly the thing. It became clear that they weren't going to be able to develop it in anywhere the timeframe they would have to to meet their commitments. Financing the radical engine design would also be a problem. Banks are perfectly willing to finance cutting edge technology as long as a lot of people had built the thing before, everything is known about it and there isn't much risk. People may not like Michael Milken, but he and his techniques financed a lot of high tech in the first half of the '80s. The financing just wasn't there for the Roton with a new concept engine. What they're saying they're going to do is get an engine developed by NASA's Marshall center (the same one powering X-34 tests) and cluster it. The economics aren't as good, but they're good enough and using the "Fastrac" will give bankers more of a warm fuzzy. For one thing, you can hand them a lot of colorful pictures of Fastracs firing as opposed to sketches of what the original engine would look like if it worked. The engine development and associated work consumed a lot of workers, and with it on indefinite hold, there wasn't much for them to do. The Roton itself, like the DC-X concept, doesn't need a large ground support team, especially at this point. Kistler seems to be doing better in financing. Its design is more conventional, so will have higher support and operating costs (but still way less than the Government's). It's also interesting that although US based, the company is going heavily abroad (though not exclusively) for financing and will launch outside the US. I wonder if foreign finance sources take a longer view and whether Kistler and its backer fear that operating in the US will involve too much read tape and a push by the Government to handicap them if they get too successful? Art ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:54:38 EDT From: INFORMATION RESTRICTED Subject: Re: Latest on Roton How's about a Rotory engine for the Rotons' rotors to rotate and totate? Kurt ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jun 99 05:33:25 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Latest on Roton On 6/23/99 8:54PM, in message <19990623.205017.9839.2.KC7VDG@juno.com>, INFORMATION RESTRICTED wrote: > How's about a Rotory engine for the Rotons' rotors to rotate and totate? > > Kurt > > > Actually, the vehicle autorotates from 28,000 ft until the final part of the descent (horizontal speed < 50 knots) when small tip rockets are used to maintain energy on the disc for touchdown. All the rotor is a metal, reusable parachute. Art ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 17:21:44 +0930 From: Dennis Lapcewich Subject: RE: Latest on Roton > Kistler seems to be doing better in financing. Its > design is more > conventional, so will have higher support and operating costs > (but still way less > than the Government's). It's also interesting that although > US based, the company > is going heavily abroad (though not exclusively) for > financing and will launch > outside the US. I wonder if foreign finance sources take a > longer view and > whether Kistler and its backer fear that operating in the US > will involve too much > read tape and a push by the Government to handicap them if > they get too successful? > Here is the official Oz Govt press release on Kistler operating out of the Woomera Rocket Range in South Australia (28 April 1998): http://www.defence.gov.au/media/1998/05898.html Here is a SA government press release concerning the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) (12 May 1998): http://www.ministers.sa.gov.au/laidlaw/media/rp_p980512_kistler.html And this is an apparent financial crash & burn press release (05 January 1999): http://www.news.com.au/sa/4192525.htm Then again, two days later (07 January 1999): http://www.news.com.au/sa/4269376.htm And for a look at Woomera, start here at http://www.powerup.com.au/~woomera/ with a map at http://www.powerup.com.au/~woomera/map.htm Hope this helps. Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 05:58:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: MiG plasma cloaking device to take off soon > Just remember, the Russians lie a lot. They've shown working samples of > devices that they really couldn't deliver in the past and lied about their > availability (KA-50, rearward firing missile, etc.). > > > On the other hand, I wonder if they got the cloaking device from someone > else? Let's see... Romulan,--Russian; Russian,--Romulan. Hmmmm > > > Art I have news for the Russians. We have been working with the Klingons on cloaking devices since 1947. Somehow I doubt they can beat us with Romulan technology when we have the Klingons on our side. Seriously now. How do they power this plasma cloaking device? How do they maintain plasma containment? How do they keep the plasma from interfering with the aircraft's aerodynamics (i.e. still maintain air flow in order to produce lift). What prevents the plasma from lighting up the aircraft like a Christmas tree? How do they eliminate IR emissions? Sam ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 11:44:04 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: ATF testing Art wrote: > We have some idea from the prototypes, but I agree that we don't really know > enough to go to production. You don't need to go any further than this statement. >Regarding thrust to weight, with two 35,000 lb > thrust engines pushing a 65,000 lb. airframe I'd say that's a pretty good > ratio. We don't know what the thrust of the F-22's engines is. P&W claims it is a "35,000 class engine." Well, they did the same thing on the F-15. They called it a 25,000 class engine. But is was slightly over 23,000 pounds in reality. Using that same ratio, that would make the 35,000 pound class engine a 32,200 lb thrust engine. The combined total of 64,400 divided by the weight means the F-22 have lower thrust-to-weight than a the F-16A, F-15A, and I believe the F-15C. Furthermore, the wing-loading is worse than the those three aircraft. So we are back to justifying a fighter based on its electronics. In that case, let's put lots of electronics into a 747. >Keep in mind also, the requirement was maneuverability equal to the > F-16C, which Lockheed claims they beat. The requirement for the ATF went down long before the F-16C was around. All you are talking about is a rubber baseline. The heavier this adipose F-22 gets, the more the Air Force gets a yearning for pigs. It keeps changing its requirements. As far as Lockheed, (1) since when is the final source of truth the company who builds the aircraft; (2) let's put equal aircraft for equal dollars in the air and see who comes home. AIMVAL/ACEVAL made that point quite clear >Weight can be overcome. Tell me how many aircraft have become lighter over time? >Although it > can't match it in every maneuver, the F-14B/D reportedly pretty much fights > the F-16C/D to a draw close-in and it weighs a Lot more. First, have you ever seen an F-14B? I don't believe the F401 engine was ever built. Did the Navy give that designation to another version. Second, I have seen F-5Es defeat the F-16A, a much more maneuverable aircraft. It is a function of pilot ability. But if there was one truth that I heard over and over at Topgun it was this: first sight wins the fight. And the F-5E, and the F-16s to some degree, could keep the F-14 in slight without being seen. When forced to engage low and slow, where the F-14 excels, yes it would do well. But in real combat, who would do that? >Maneuverability is > great up to a point, but I fear that in some quarters it's being treated the > same way top speed was in the '50s and '60s, too much else being sacrificed to > gain a bit more maneuverability that really isn't that important. The four criteria for winning in air-to-air combat are listed in Paradox: page 33. >> Yes, but the F-22 does not have that kind of radius of action. Look at the >> fuel fraction. It is worse than an F-15 and has higher fuel consumption. How >> can it possible fly further unless it has virtually no drag? > Don't underestimate the advantages of low drag. The F-14A always had a lower > T/W ratio than the F-4, yet could fly rings around it and handily > outaccelerate it (when the TF30s worked). In fact, except for a fairly narrow > band, it outaccelerates the F/A-18. Now when you get to the B/D... That > said, I also will be very interested when some actual performance test results > are in. Drag is a factor in the Brequet range equation but fuel fraction and specific fuel consumption are such larger issues that I doubt that the drag will have much effect. The Navy sold the promise that the F-18E/F would fly further than the F-18A based in part on lower drag. Well, guess what-- >> Right, so there you have another misleading comment by the Air Force. "The >> F-15 is a Mach 2 fighter." No it's not. If it goes to Mach 2, it flies out of >> the sky. Furthermore, the only way it can get there is without missiles. So >> the point is, the comment is bogus. What remains to be seen is the number of >> bogus comments about the F-22. > To be honest the example I used was a bit unfair. An F-15 would normally > accelerate to M2+ starting at altitude and from high subsonic. Starting from > the ground really uses up the gas. Even so, it doesn't have much persistence > at high Mach. I wanted to point out how much fuel is used by afterburners. I > didn't know that the Eagle had to be clean to exceed M2. With four Sparrows, four Sidewinders, and gun filled with ammo, the F-15A cannot exceed Mach 1.78. > I know for a fact > that a F-14 (shameless plug) will sustain M2+ in level flight carrying four > AIM-54, two AIM-9 and two 280 gal, tanks, albeit turning an enormous amount of > kerosene into heat and noise. What do you mean "sustain" and what is your source of information? >Interestingly enough, the Navy seems to have > come to the conclusion that short bursts of speed M2+ aren't worth the fuel > and maintenance costs, so the F-14B/D are limited to M1.88 (I believe they > deactivate the variable ramps), even the aircraft is capable of M2.5. You are correct, the ramps have been deactivated. Flying at Mach 2.5 is tactically useless. Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 12:23:33 -0400 From: Eric Rebentisch Subject: Re: ATF testing Jim Wrote: >According to your comments, Art, the F-22 is suppose to cruise >supersonically for the same distance as the F-15, et al, subsonically. >The ATF goal was a total combat radius of action of 500 miles (100 >subsonic and 400 supersonic). According to your comments, that means the >F-15 should have a subsonic range of 500. But F-15A did not even meet >its radius of action of 240 miles. I don't know what the F-22 SPO has claimed in recent years, but 100 miles subsonic and 400 miles supersonic was NEVER the design mission for the ATF when I worked on the program (nor does it make any sense considering the mission for which the aircraft was originally designed). What appears to be the current performance is consistent with the original design goals (it sounds as if they actually are coming in with better than expected performance, which is confirmed by a recent GAO report on F-22 EMD progress). I suggest you consult your sources again Jim. 400 miles supersonic is a strawman that is too easily torn down. Bear in mind also that any range numbers for supercruise mean out and back, where supersonic range for current generation fighters usually means dash. >Time will tell whether the F-22 can cruise supersonically much more than >125 miles. Riccioni did the seminal work on this subject. He shared all >of his calculations with me. He claims no heavenly guidance on the >subject. However, he claims that most of this is simply physics. And if >you have a fuel fraction less than 0.29, you cannot expect to meet the >range promised by the acquisition czars who used these inflated numbers >to extract the money in the first place. If you want to make the case with physics, then the F-22 should have better supercruise performance than an F-15. First, the F-22 is a cleaner aerodynamic design with the added benefit of internal weapons and fuel carriage. Lower drag would suggest longer range, all else being equal. Next, the F-22 is supercruising on dry thrust, so all the propulsion work is being done within the more efficient core engine cycle. If the F-15 has to rely on the afterburner to go supersonic, then its engine specific impulse will take a big hit (using the afterburner only becomes a relatively fuel-efficient way to produce thrust at high mach numbers, as seen in the SR-71). Consequently, if you take both the thrust and drag efficiencies of the F-22 into account, the F-15 would have to have a significantly better fuel fraction than the F-22 to match its supercruising capability. Eric ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 19:27:12 EDT From: SkyeFire@aol.com Subject: Re: Latest on Roton In a message dated 6/23/99 11:35:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, betnal@ns.net writes: > > Kistler seems to be doing better in financing. Its design is more > conventional, so will have higher support and operating costs (but still way > less > than the Government's). It's also interesting that although US based, the > company > is going heavily abroad (though not exclusively) for financing and will > launch > outside the US. I wonder if foreign finance sources take a longer view and > whether Kistler and its backer fear that operating in the US will involve > too much > read tape and a push by the Government to handicap them if they get too > successful? Well, one of the biggest reasons behind Kistler's going abroad is the tangled mess of laws covering the use of RLVs -- that is to say, none. Things have gotten a little better in the last two years, but at the time that Kistler decided to build the Woomera Spaceport, it looked like FAA, DOT, MDOT, NASA, and every other boondoggle of bureaucrats was tangling up the situation into legal immobility. Legal requirements to force manned RLVs to obey outdated NASA specs meant for unmanned expendables, a complete void of any law covering reentry and landing of RLVs over US airspace, and more in that vein made operating from abroad look very attractive. I have my suspicsions that Kistler's announcement that they were shifting flight operations to Australia might have inspired some Congresscritters with still-active brain cells to start trimming that overgrown legal hedgerow. Since the recent improvements, Kistler is also building the originally planned New Mexico Spaceport, but is still keeping the Woomera facility going. I recall speculating at the time that if things kept going as they were, the only RLV system that might be useable in the US would be Black Horse/Pioneer and/or Kelly Aero's systems, and even then only by taking off from an airstrip, flying out over international waters, and then performing air-to-space activities beyond the Government's jurisdiction. But even that might have been risky. Heck, the entire legal system for commercial spaceflight is still mired in the old ways of thinking from the days when spacecraft were considered just intercontinental artillery shells. But there does seem to be some hope. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 17:03:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: MiG plasma cloaking device to take off soon On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > Seriously now. How do they power this plasma cloaking device? How do they > maintain plasma containment? How do they keep the plasma from interfering with > the aircraft's aerodynamics (i.e. still maintain air flow in order to produce > lift). What prevents the plasma from lighting up the aircraft like a Christmas > tree? How do they eliminate IR emissions? To explain plasma, just consider plasma as a high voltage electrical charge for now, there are a lot of other things. I thing we discuss about the plasma helping the aerodynamics of the aircraft long time ago in the list. At supersonic speed, discharging plasma may weaken the shock wave generated by the aircraft. But this concept is still in R&D with have a lot of controversia because some argue that it is due to the increasing of heat and not by some magic "plasma". There are some high security scientific conference for plasma only. Plasma researches for aerospace application dates back in the early days of Cold War from my knowledge. Plasma discharge is local and not to the entire aircraft. And finally, some claims that the plasma help in disturbing the way to detect the airplane. By electromagnetic means. May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Seize the time, Meribor. Live now; make now always the most precious time. Now will never come again" Capt. Picard (ST:TNG The Inner Light Ep.) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 17:21:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: ATF testing On Thu, 24 Jun 1999, James P. Stevenson wrote: > We don't know what the thrust of the F-22's engines is. P&W claims it is > a "35,000 class engine." Well, they did the same thing on the F-15. They > called it a 25,000 class engine. But is was slightly over 23,000 pounds > in reality. Using that same ratio, that would make the 35,000 pound > class engine a 32,200 lb thrust engine. The combined total of 64,400 > divided by the weight means the F-22 have lower thrust-to-weight than a > the F-16A, F-15A, and I believe the F-15C. Furthermore, the wing-loading > is worse than the those three aircraft. So we are back to justifying a > fighter based on its electronics. In that case, let's put lots of > electronics into a 747. I believe F-22 has lower performance due to stealth trade-off. Maybe due to cost also, but I am not sure. In respect to the maneouble of the F-22, there is something crucial that you didn't consider, by my own experience, if you ever going to dogfight with another airplane with similar performance than your, one of the thing that you most want is to out-turn the enemy! I think using thrust vectoring in F-22 will compensate by the lack of T/W, etc. Anyway, since Gulf War, how many airplane had engaged in dogfight? What I see is first look, first shoot, and first kill... I don't know about how the off-bored sight of the new generation missiles is going to change the tactic of dogfight... If you still have doubt about dogfighting stuff, try me in the internet, I challenge anybody, try the F-22 Lightning 3, F-16 or Mig 29 by Novaworld, I am one of the best pilot over there... Of course... It is just a game ;) > >Weight can be overcome. > > Tell me how many aircraft have become lighter over time? This is true. As Ben Rich said: "But airplanes are like peoples. They tend to gain weight as they get older." May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Seize the time, Meribor. Live now; make now always the most precious time. Now will never come again" Capt. Picard (ST:TNG The Inner Light Ep.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jun 99 04:24:26 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: MiG plasma cloaking device to take off soon On 6/24/99 2:58AM, in message <199906240958.FAA13445@aegis.mcs.kent.edu>, Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > > I have news for the Russians. We have been working with the Klingons on cloaking > devices since 1947. Somehow I doubt they can beat us with Romulan technology > when we have the Klingons on our side. > > Sam, you forget... The Klingons got their cloaking device From the Romulans! Art ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jun 99 05:22:52 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: ATF testing On 6/24/99 8:44AM, in message <199906241544.IAA08567@avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "James P. Stevenson" wrote: > > > We don't know what the thrust of the F-22's engines is. P&W claims it is > a "35,000 class engine." Well, they did the same thing on the F-15. They > called it a 25,000 class engine. But is was slightly over 23,000 pounds > in reality. No, it was 25,000 lbs. The 23,000 lbs was the level the AF quietly derated the engine to in order to meet the engine life requirement. I understand that on domestic F-15Cs, they may have been derated again since the promised plan to put later F100s in those Eagles was quietly swept under the rug. > Using that same ratio, that would make the 35,000 pound > class engine a 32,200 lb thrust engine. Although the TF30 was a pig and the F100 a disappointment, we can't at this point say that the F119 won't meet spec. with certainty, so that's not a fair basis for comparison. Then again, the J-79, F404 and F110 were really good engines that met their requirements (Oh wait. You say those were made by the same company that made the F120 engine, the one that both teams reportedly preferred but wasn't selected? Never mind.). > The combined total of 64,400 > divided by the weight means the F-22 have lower thrust-to-weight than a > the F-16A, F-15A, and I believe the F-15C. > Furthermore, the wing-loading > is worse than the those three aircraft. Note my previous comment on drag. The wing loading comment is valid, which is why thrust vectoring better work > So we are back to justifying a > fighter based on its electronics. In that case, let's put lots of > electronics into a 747. Well, if you've got a working laser... Seriously, although I don't feel its prudent to make a production decision based on so little testing, at this point we can't assume that the plane's and engine's performance doesn't meet spec. The problem is we can't be sure it does, yet, either. We just don't know either way at this time. > > . > > The requirement for the ATF went down long before the F-16C was around. > All you are talking about is a rubber baseline. The heavier this adipose > F-22 gets, the more the Air Force gets a yearning for pigs. It keeps > changing its requirements. > The maneuverability requirement dates back to at least the mid eighties. I brought up this point because one of the questions raised about the F-22 vs. F-23 decision (which I'm not trying to go into here). Rumor was that AF said that one of the reasons the F-22 the Lockheed a/c won was that it was more maneuverable. However, so the story goes, AF had previously said that as long as the proposed plane was as maneuverable as the F-16C, which both were, no extra credit would be given for more. > As far as Lockheed, (1) since when is the final source of truth the > company who builds the aircraft; I simply said Lockheed said it was. > >Weight can be overcome. > > Tell me how many aircraft have become lighter over time? I could probaly name a couple (max)if I thought about it. However I was referring to is more thrust and efficiency could overcome weight growth. Witness the, F-14 and F-16C/D > > >Although it > > can't match it in every maneuver, the F-14B/D reportedly pretty much fights > > the F-16C/D to a draw close-in and it weighs a Lot more. > > First, have you ever seen an F-14B? Not only have I seen one, I've been in one (chocked, dammit!) Remember those pictures of some of the night strikes on Iraq last year which our ever-alert news media identified as cruise missiles climbing off course? Those were actually F-14Bs doing precision night strikes while the F/A-18s were conducting precision hookups to tankers. > I don't believe the F401 engine was > ever built. Did the Navy give that designation to another version. > The F-14B was originally called the F-14A+. They are the ones with the F110 engines, sealed glove vanes and some updates to systems. They do not have the wondrous (and quite reliable and exceeding spec) fire control and other massive improvements of the F-14D. They are getting the D's HUD, though, and will get DFCS before the D. You can recognize a B on the ground through the F110 nozzles at the rear but just the TCS pod under the nose. The D will have a dual TCS and IRST pod. In the air, you can recognize the B/D through the fact that the engine keeps running regardless of what the plane is doing and by the fact that such a large airplane seems to be rapidly outturning you where it couldn't before. > Second, I have seen F-5Es defeat the F-16A, a much more maneuverable > aircraft. It is a function of pilot ability. But if there was one truth > that I heard over and over at Topgun it was this: first sight wins the > fight. And the F-5E, and the F-16s to some degree, could keep the F-14 > in slight without being seen. When forced to engage low and slow, where > the F-14 excels, yes it would do well. But in real combat, who would do > that? Not what I'm talking about. Close in, unless there was a stroke of luck or the Viper pilot was asleep, given equal pilot skill F-16s pretty much whomped on F-14As. The Tomcat tactic was not to close. F-14B/Ds on the other hand could get right in there and fight them to a draw in a maneuvering contest, although each aircraft had advantages/disadvantages relative to the other close in. They could also use their increased endurance (B/Ds don't have to go into 'burner as much as A's which decreased the older model's persistence) and better sensors. First sight usually wins, but the definition of "first sight" can vary (No, I'm not Clintonizing the word, just meaning that there are things besides pure eyeballs that count). > > > > The four criteria for winning in air-to-air combat are listed in > Paradox: page 33. > > You and I are going to have that discussion privately as soon as I get some time. > > > > The Navy sold the promise that the F-18E/F would fly further than the > F-18A based in part on lower drag. Well, guess what-- You're expecting an argument from Art "Swat the Hornet" Hanley? > >> I know for a fact > >that a F-14 (shameless plug) will sustain M2+ in level flight carrying four > >AIM-54, two AIM-9 and two 280 gal, tanks, albeit turning an enormous amount of > >kerosene into heat and noise. > > > > What do you mean "sustain" and what is your source of information? > > By "sustain" I mean that the plane will maintain it as long as there is fuel available to the engines (which at those power settings won't be that long) as opposed to a speed that can only be reached from a dive or similar trick. It's a function of the aircraft's low airframe drag and conformal stores carriage. The special tanks turn out to contribute little additional drag and no maneuvering restrictions (which is why Tomcats always carry them) and the second pair of AIM-54s contribute no additional drag because they're behind the first. My source is F-14 flight test data, and talks with Grumman flight test engineers at Bethpage and Fallon. The ability to do that doesn't have much tactical utility, which Grumman freely admitted. It's simply an illustration of how much lower the Tomcat's drag was than it appeared and how it could do much more than most people believed. Art ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #72 ******************************** 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