From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #73 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 25 1999 Volume 08 : Number 073 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: ATF testing Re: ATF testing Re: ATF testing Re: ATF testing Re: ATF testing Re: ATF testing Re: ATF testing Re: ATF testing Re: ATF testing Re: ATF testing Re: ATF testing Re: ATF testing *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 08:07:54 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: ATF testing Wei-Jen Su wrote: > I believe F-22 has lower performance due to stealth trade-off. No doubt about it. > Maybe due to cost also, but I am not sure. Are you saying the F-22 has lower performance due to its higher cost? The F-22 is the most expensive fighter aircraft ever built. That would imply that the lower the cost, the higher the performance. > 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. Experiments were done at Topgun in the mid-1970s on thrust vectoring. Using two F11Fs (F-11s). The added weight of the thrust vectoring mechanism offset any advantage. > Anyway, since Gulf War, how many airplane had > engaged in dogfight? What I see is first look, first shoot, and first > kill... This statement is reminiscent of similar statements made beginning at the end of World War I and made at the end of every war since. > 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 ;) Which is why you have a distorted view of reality. > >> >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." Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 08:43:43 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: ATF testing > On 6/24/99 8:44AM, in message In response to my statement: >> 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. Art wrote: > > 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 logic, we could turn up the wick, and make it a 27,000 pound thrust engine even though it would not last as long. The point is, the thrust it put out is the thrust it put out. There are always reasons for the figure but the figure is still the figure. >> 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. First of all, we don't know what spec is. Second, they (Air Force and P&W) only refer to it as a 35,000 pound class engine. I interviewed the P&W program manager and he said, and I quote, "we never said it would produce 35,000 pounds of thrust." So, while you are accurate when you said "we can't at this point say that the F119 won't meet spec." it is also fair to acknowledge that (1) we don't know the spec so we can't use 35,000 pounds of thrust and (2) the Air Force is famous for lowering the spec once it recognizes that the original spec could not be met SNIP > Note my previous comment on drag. The wing loading comment is valid, which is > why thrust vectoring better work Life is a trade-off. The question on the table is whether the F-22 would be more maneuverable with the loss of the added weight due to the thrust vectoring mechanism. In the mid-1970s, Topgun did some experiments on thrust vectoring. It took two F-11s (F11Fs), one with thrust vectoring and one without. It put them on the ACMI range and ran the tests. I watched them. The thrust vectoring was impressive. However, the F-11 without the thrust vectoring prevailed. The consensus was that the added weight degraded performance enough that it subtracted from whatever advantage the thrust vectoring added. When you learn how much the mechanism weighs that holds the thrust vectoring apparatus on the F-22, plus the vectoring mechanism itself, you will probably conclude that Topgun had it right. > >> 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. Yes we can and here is why. When, in history, has the Air Force ever produced an aircraft that met its ORIGINAL spec? All aircraft eventually meet spec because the services keep lowering the spec to meet the performance. The ORIGINAL spec is the one that interests me because it is the figure on which the aircraft was ORIGINALLY justified. >> 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. I'll get back to you on this.> > >> 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. Well, no doubt. But so what? > >> >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 So what you really meant was that the lower thrust-to-weight ratio could be improved. I agree. But it is much less expensive to build a lighter aircraft. Imagine an F-16A with the F-16C engine. Or for that matter, imagine a YF-16 with an F-16C engine. Would you like to go air-to-air against a YF-16 like that with a standard F-16C? > >> >> >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 did not realize the "B" designation was brought back. > >> 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. I did not realize the F-14A+ had been re-designated. But since you are up on designations, what ever happened to the AIM-54B? > >> 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). Due to the smaller size of the F-16, F-15s and F-16s pick each other up at about the same time on radar. I agree that the F-14 is very maneuverable at low and slow speeds. But take the money for one F-14 and buy F-16s with the same money and your F-14 will die. Speaking of dying, during the Topgun "Battle of Britain" multi-aircraft scenarios--the ones that more accurately reflected real world combat--the F-14s were always the first to die. The high speed F-104s were usually the last. > >> 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. Look forward to it. >> 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. McDonnell Douglas put out this same dribble about its conformal tanks on the F-15 actually reducing drag. It turned out not to be true. Drag was actually increased. I'll get back to you on the Tomcat's drag. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 09:10:36 -0400 From: Brentley Smith Subject: Re: ATF testing James P. Stevenson wrote: >Life is a trade-off. Interesting line of reasoning, but another conversation altogether... Brentley ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 10:58:13 -0600 From: Brad Hitch Subject: Re: ATF testing James P. Stevenson wrote: > > When, in history, has the Air Force ever > produced an aircraft that met its ORIGINAL spec? All aircraft eventually > meet spec because the services keep lowering the spec to meet the > performance. The ORIGINAL spec is the one that interests me because it > is the figure on which the aircraft was ORIGINALLY justified. > The "original spec" is not an absolute truth. There is usually alot of uncertainty in what is attainable or affordable for an R&D effort when the detailed design, fabrication, & test work hasn't been done yet. Don't you want to set ambitious goals? The specs can also be set too high due to flawed or unsophisticated analysis early in a program which will end up being corrected later on as more is known about the system. This is an iterative solution to try to find something everyone can live with, like what an architect has to deal with. The specs are USUALLY moving targets, with extra capabilities and performance goals added on AFTER the conceptual design work has been done and the contracts signed. If the government was just asking for off-the-shelf hardware already in production the spec would be the capability of the equipment they planned to buy in the first place - there's no uncertainty there, so is the spec setting the performance or the performance setting the spec in this case? Once production has started the specifications should be reasonable and well-understood and serve as a basis to accept or reject delivery. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 11:48:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: ATF testing On Fri, 25 Jun 1999, James P. Stevenson wrote: > > Maybe due to cost also, but I am not sure. > > Are you saying the F-22 has lower performance due to its higher cost? > The F-22 is the most expensive fighter aircraft ever built. That would > imply that the lower the cost, the higher the performance. What I am saying is that if you want a higher performance for the F-22, the cost will increase substancially. Like a lot of design after the Cold War they pay a lot of attention in the cost and not the performance. But I am not sure about this because F-22 was design at the end of Cold War. > Experiments were done at Topgun in the mid-1970s on thrust vectoring. > Using two F11Fs (F-11s). The added weight of the thrust vectoring > mechanism offset any advantage. Don't you thing that thrust vectoring technology have improve since mid-1970s? New material, less complexity, etc. 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 1999 14:49:46 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: ATF testing > James P. Stevenson wrote: > >> >> When, in history, has the Air Force ever >> produced an aircraft that met its ORIGINAL spec? All aircraft eventually >> meet spec because the services keep lowering the spec to meet the >> performance. The ORIGINAL spec is the one that interests me because it >> is the figure on which the aircraft was ORIGINALLY justified. >> > > To which Brad Hitch replied: > >> The "original spec" is not an absolute truth. > You are so right. The question is: should we hold military program managers to the same standard that the law hold the average citizen to? In other words, does fraud in the inducement apply to the military? I maintain that it should. If you have a house built and the builder tells you it will cost $200,000; you make plans on that basis; you budget your household to that amount; you procure a loan based on that amount; and on settlement day he tells you ill will be $479,500, you will proabably cry foul. It makes precious little difference if you are told along the way, either. Overrun is overrun. But hey, its other people's money so they don't care. Well, its my money, and I do care. > >> There is usually alot of >> uncertainty in what is attainable or affordable for an R&D effort when >> the detailed design, fabrication, & test work hasn't been done yet. > Fine. Then we should decide what amount of money we are willing to pay for uncertainly, and ask the military to give us the best they can for that amount. In other words, give me the best airplane that $X billion will buy. > >> Don't you want to set ambitious goals? > Yes, but I don't want to pay for expanding goals. > >The specs can also be set too >> high due to flawed or unsophisticated analysis early in a program which >> will end up being corrected later on as more is known about the system. > You want goals: how about this one--here is X dollars. Do the best you can. > >> This is an iterative solution to try to find something everyone can live >> with, like what an architect has to deal with. > Architects build to a cost goal. > >>The specs are USUALLY >> moving targets, with extra capabilities and performance goals added on >> AFTER the conceptual design work has been done and the contracts >> signed. > You are so right about part of your statement and wrong about the other part. The moving target is the downward spiral of the specification. Performance seldom increases and the performance goals you speak of are reductions in goals. But you are correct when you say it all happens after the contract is signed. The next thing that happens is a breach of the cotract. > >>If the government was just asking for off-the-shelf hardware >> already in production the spec would be the capability of the equipment >> they planned to buy in the first place - there's no uncertainty there, >> so is the spec setting the performance or the performance setting the >> spec in this case? Once production has started the specifications >> should be reasonable and well-understood and serve as a basis to accept >> or reject delivery. > I have no objection to R&D. I just want an agreement on how much we are going to spend in advance, not how much we can run up the bill to attempt to reach a goal that history tells us the military seldom meets. Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 15:29:41 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: ATF testing > > > On Fri, 25 Jun 1999, James P. Stevenson wrote: > >> > Maybe due to cost also, but I am not sure. >> >> Are you saying the F-22 has lower performance due to its higher cost? >> The F-22 is the most expensive fighter aircraft ever built. That would >> imply that the lower the cost, the higher the performance. > > What I am saying is that if you want a higher performance for the > F-22, the cost will increase substancially. Like a lot of design after the > Cold War they pay a lot of attention in the cost and not the performance. > But I am not sure about this because F-22 was design at the end of Cold > War. I don't think it would be possible to spend more money on a fighter than we are spending on the F-22 without looking completely silly. > >> Experiments were done at Topgun in the mid-1970s on thrust vectoring. >> Using two F11Fs (F-11s). The added weight of the thrust vectoring >> mechanism offset any advantage. > > Don't you thing that thrust vectoring technology have improve > since mid-1970s? New material, less complexity, etc. Yes. But the weight has increased as well so the problem is the same or worse. Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 15:57:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: ATF testing James P. Stevenson wrote besides other things: >Life is a trade-off. The question on the table is whether the F-22 would >be more maneuverable with the loss of the added weight due to the thrust >vectoring mechanism. >In the mid-1970s, Topgun did some experiments on thrust vectoring. It >took two F-11s (F11Fs), one with thrust vectoring and one without. It >put them on the ACMI range and ran the tests. I watched them. The thrust >vectoring was impressive. However, the F-11 without the thrust vectoring >prevailed. >The consensus was that the added weight degraded performance enough that >it subtracted from whatever advantage the thrust vectoring added. >When you learn how much the mechanism weighs that holds the thrust >vectoring apparatus on the F-22, plus the vectoring mechanism itself, >you will probably conclude that Topgun had it right. That was in the early 1970s, over 25 years ago, and it wasn't really a thrust vectoring system, but more an "inflight thrust-reverser". And what about the F/A-18A HARV, X-31As, and other thrust vectoring aircraft tests since then? The Russians (despite all their other problems and shortcomings) seem to value thrust vectoring engines on some of their aircraft (including the Su-30MK/MKI). OTOH, the same (added/increased weight and complexity for the purpose of gaining additional capabilities) can be said for many things in fighter aircraft design, but is of course especially true for variable geometry (swing wings), which faded away after the 1970s/1980s. Thrust vectoring might become as out-moded as variable geometry, while stealth might become as prevasive as the jet-engine. Only time will tell. - -- 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: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 13:33:14 PDT From: wayne binkley Subject: Re: ATF testing james p. stevenson wrote: i suspect this conversation is about fighter acft,but i must take up the "ever"challenge.in 1951 the a.f.wanted a cargo plane that could carry 90 troops,slow to 125kts for airdrops,land on un improved rough fields and carry 30,000lbs in 2,000 mile increments.the yc130A flew in 1953,af started taking delivery in 1955.they are still taking delivery of the 1999 C-130J. wayne d.binkley _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 17:07:11 -0400 From: Gunman and Jacks Subject: Re: ATF testing James P. Stevenson spewed forth the following: >You are so right. The question is: should we hold military program >managers to the same standard that the law hold the average citizen to? >In other words, does fraud in the inducement apply to the military? > >I maintain that it should. If you have a house built and the builder >tells you it will cost $200,000; you make plans on that basis; you >budget your household to that amount; you procure a loan based on that >amount; and on settlement day he tells you ill will be $479,500, you >will proabably cry foul. > Houses are not new technology, new technology is hard to quote, since its in a development process. - ---------------------------------------- Gunman and Jacks PGP Key Available - ----------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 17:11:19 -0400 From: Gunman and Jacks Subject: Re: ATF testing You spewed forth the following: >>> Experiments were done at Topgun in the mid-1970s on thrust vectoring. >>> Using two F11Fs (F-11s). The added weight of the thrust vectoring >>> mechanism offset any advantage. >> >> Don't you thing that thrust vectoring technology have improve >> since mid-1970s? New material, less complexity, etc. > >Yes. But the weight has increased as well so the problem is the same or >worse. > What about the ACTIVE and VISTA F-15 and F-16, they used an almost stock F100 nozzle, with 3-D vectoring? - ---------------------------------------- Gunman and Jacks PGP Key Available - ----------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 18:22:27 -0600 From: Brad Hitch Subject: Re: ATF testing James P. Stevenson wrote: > >> The "original spec" is not an absolute truth. > > > You are so right. The question is: should we hold military program > managers to the same standard that the law hold the average citizen to? > In other words, does fraud in the inducement apply to the military? > > I maintain that it should. If you have a house built and the builder > tells you it will cost $200,000; you make plans on that basis; you > budget your household to that amount; you procure a loan based on that > amount; and on settlement day he tells you ill will be $479,500, you > will proabably cry foul. > > It makes precious little difference if you are told along the way, > either. Overrun is overrun. But hey, its other people's money so they > don't care. Well, its my money, and I do care. Was it a cost plus fixed fee or firm fixed price contract? If it was FFP then you plunk down your $200K and you're done. The contractor ponies up the rest. If it was cost plus, contract law will require you to pay the full amount because you were the one to benefit from the work. Both of these situations apply outside of the military contracts process. As a contractor, if you really want a fixed price contract for something no one has ever done before I will jack up the cost to try to cover the uncertainties - or not bid at all. Not to exceed CPFF contracts are used to try to keep the cost to the customer down. Now, which way is really in the best interests of the taxpayer? > > > >> There is usually alot of > >> uncertainty in what is attainable or affordable for an R&D effort when > >> the detailed design, fabrication, & test work hasn't been done yet. > > > Fine. Then we should decide what amount of money we are willing to pay > for uncertainly, and ask the military to give us the best they can for > that amount. In other words, give me the best airplane that $X billion > will buy. > > Many cost overruns have been caused by the customer changing their mind about what they really want. Architects see it all the time. I'm not in business to provide charity to the government. > >> Don't you want to set ambitious goals? > > > Yes, but I don't want to pay for expanding goals. > That's completely up to the customer. > > >The specs can also be set too > >> high due to flawed or unsophisticated analysis early in a program which > >> will end up being corrected later on as more is known about the system. > > > You want goals: how about this one--here is X dollars. Do the best you > can. > > But that means you can't tell me how to do it, too. One place military money gets spent is tracking government property down to individual 1/8" washer. DOD regulations require that I track ALL items of ANY value that I buy on a CPFF contract, resulting in many cases in tracking paperwork costs far exceeding the value of the items. I would speculate that overall the costs associated with property tracking far exceed the losses due to fraud - the reason property tracking of ALL items was instituted in the first place. So how do you decide how big X is? Ask the people who build these types of things how much it will cost? If you set a FFP program cost too low you will either get no bidders or unqualified bidders who will then spend all the money and go bankrupt, leaving you with no aircraft and no money too. Is this really what you want? > > > Architects build to a cost goal. > > > >>The specs are USUALLY > >> moving targets, with extra capabilities and performance goals added on > >> AFTER the conceptual design work has been done and the contracts > >> signed. > > > You are so right about part of your statement and wrong about the other > part. The moving target is the downward spiral of the specification. > Performance seldom increases and the performance goals you speak of are > reductions in goals. But you are correct when you say it all happens > after the contract is signed. The next thing that happens is a breach of > the cotract. > > > >>If the government was just asking for off-the-shelf hardware > >> already in production the spec would be the capability of the equipment > >> they planned to buy in the first place - there's no uncertainty there, > >> so is the spec setting the performance or the performance setting the > >> spec in this case? Once production has started the specifications > >> should be reasonable and well-understood and serve as a basis to accept > >> or reject delivery. > > > I have no objection to R&D. I just want an agreement on how much we are > going to spend in advance, not how much we can run up the bill to > attempt to reach a goal that history tells us the military seldom meets. > By definition, if it is research we don't know the answer. Research is also, to a large extent, composed of efforts that don't turn out the way we would like them to. ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #73 ******************************** 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