From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #96 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, August 16 1999 Volume 08 : Number 096 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Birdwatcher Re: Machchrianish et al. Re: Birdwatcher and lost A-12 Re: Birdwatcher and lost A-12 Re: Recent conclusions Re: FWD: (SK) Mercury Plasma Re: Swept-back wings(?) Current TENCAP programs RE: Swept-back wings(?) RE: Display Notification: Re:Swept-back wings(?) Future targeting devices Special ops airplane (Was Re: Machrianish, and [really] Mary.) Re: Future targeting devices *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 21:55:29 -0400 From: Joe Donoghue Subject: Re: Birdwatcher At 09:32 AM 08/14/1999 -0500, you wrote:
>Joe Donoghue said,
>
>"There was a system known as Birdwatcher which was developed for the U-2
>post Powers which would broadcast bursts of data on SSB whenever certain
>events
>occurred. "
>
>First I'd heard of this system -- is there more information about it, such
>as frequencies, range, data rate, use of relays, etc.? (Speaking of such
>things, if the A-12 had HF communications capability, what did it use for an
>antenna?)

My experience deals only with the U-2 version of Birdwatcher. I believe it first went into the Agency U-2s in 1963. It was a very simple system which gave the condition of 40 on/off sensors on the aircraft. It fed a voice frequency signal into the Collins 618T transceiver and was normally silent, keying the transmitter only when one of the 40 monitored inputs changed to what was considered a failure or alarm mode. I'm not quite sure of the operating range of the 618T but it was something like 2-32 Mhz in 1 kilohertz increments. We always used Upper Sideband mode. I believe the signal would be described as frequency-shift keying as it used a different frequency for each of three conditions: namely ground or zero volts, 28 volts and (for the ten channels which had dual sensor capability) open circuit. The 30 channels were time-division multiplexed.

BIRDWATCHER (Channel numbers not accurate)

1 Below 60,000 ft
2 Below 40,000 ft / Below 50,000 ft
3 EGT below 325 deg. / Below 500 deg.
4 RPM below 75%
5 System 12 Hi PRF / Lo PRF
6 Oxy primary system fault
7 Oxy secondary system fault
8 Hydraulic pressure low
9 Fuel low level (<45 gallons in sump)
10 AC Gen out (Cuts out at 83% RPM)
11 Fire Warning
12 System 9B Range only / Con Scan
13 System 13A repeat
14 Oscar Sierra (OS)
15 System 9B Jam
16 Low fuel pressure
17 Below 80 kts IAS / above .8 mach
18 DC Gen out
19 Inverter 1 / Inverter 2 selected
20 Oil pressure low
21 Minus .8g / Plus 1.8g
22 Ident 1 / Ident 2 (Ground settable to differentiate between 2 or 3 aircraft

using same frequency.)
23 Destruct / Arm
24 A Switch / B Switch
25 Autopilot disengaged
26 Low fuel flow
27 Seat Ejected
28 Cockpit altitude above 35,000 ft
29 Q bay altitude above 35,000 ft
30 Canopy jettisoned

Birdwatcher monitored up to 40 separate sensors, switches, warning lights.
There was no analog information conveyed. Only yes or no for each condition.
(We could determine altitude only as:

above 60,

between 50 and 60,

between 40 and 50, or

below 40.
Fuel was either more than or less than 45 gal.) 10 of the 30 channels could
display two levels of information but the first-listed input overrode the
second one in cases where both inputs might be active (e.g. System 12 HI and
Lo.)

A failure situation on any input channel would cause 3 one second
transmissions (separated by 5 seconds) via the SSB radio. In case of multiple
failures, each new failure would restart the 3 'chirp' sequence. Ground
readout was via strip chart recorder and each one second chirp scanned all
channels.

I believe the A-12 had a 60 channel Birdwatcher system which is understandable since there were dual engines and a more complicated machine to monitor.

Headquarters sent us U-2 folks a Birdwatcher sensor catalog in 1965. On the page following the sensor which was calibrated to switch when fuel flow fell below 1000 lbs per hour (suggesting flameout for the U-2C's J-75), we were intrigued to find the description and stock number for a similar sensor which was set to switch when fuel flow fell below 10,000 lbs per hour.

While not cleared for OXCART, we had read the press reports on the A-11 and SR-71 and heard a few stories from people who had been at the ranch for early testing of the OXCART vehicles so we easily guessed where this fuel flow sensor was used.

I think the HF antenna on the A-12 was some sort of slot on the belly. I have a home video tape in which an A-12 driver does a walkaround explanation of features of the A-12 at Blackbird Park. I think he pointed out the HF antenna in this video. I'll get the tape out and let you know what I find, Allen

For Terry Colvin who wrote:

>Stealth is compromised when radio signals give telemetry data. Isn't
>Tactical Digital Link (TADIL) required on all military aircraft?

We are talking here about NON-MILITARY aircraft (CIA U-2s and A-12s) during the 1960s. I do not think Tactical Digital Link was available then. At any rate, since the system on the U-2 usually only transmitted for three seconds every hour when the pilot pressed his "A" switch and the opposition was continuously tracking by radar, Birdwatcher hardly compromised what little stealth there was.

Joe Donoghue

------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 19:59:15 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Machchrianish et al. At 09:55 AM 8/15/99 -0700, Steve Apthorpe wrote a bunch of good stuff and finished with: > >Alright, seeing the Minister of State has, I'm sure, already revealed >the truth to you, I have to admit that I have been selective with the >'truth.' I have decided to come clean and confirm what you have >suspected, and what my faceless witness can confirm, and reveal that >there was indeed was a crash at BD involving a 'black' project (I know >the name of the craft but I can't reveal this yet until my source has >passed away). It was a type of recce aircraft overflying France. >Somehow, the French overcame the alien-derived stealth technology, and >targeted the craft using LADAR. They then shot at and hit the craft >with a depleted uranium projectile, travelling at Mach 20, that was >launched from a space-based electro-magnetic railgun. The craft >received serious damage and declared an emergency and diverted to BD, >not far when travelling at Mach 9! So, yes, I can confirm that it was >this recce craft that crashed - no wonder the US wanted to implement a >process of disinformation and have the wreckage promptly returned to >Groom Lake by Galaxy. > >And that, as they say, is an example of the propagation of myth. > I have had feelings of discouragement recently due to the plethora of black aircraft mythology and folklore which seemed to have taken over this newslist like a cancer. It really is no fun being a debunker as it is easy to slip into the realm of cynisism. I try to soften that with some humor when I find myself beginning to lose it. Obviously its more fun to "create" scenarios then to continually harangue these hopeful non-critical true believers that have flocked in. So I am very happy to see posts by Mr. Apthorpe who has the greatly appreciated skills in logically separating fact from fiction. And he does it in a friendly pleasant tone. Thanks Steve for raising the signal to noise ratio on this list. And being a Brit makes his point of view all the more valuable. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 02:28:37 EDT From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: Re: Birdwatcher and lost A-12 Here is some information on the Birdwatcher system and the loss of A-12 #129. Please excuse the length of this post (or rejoice in it). The Birdwatcher constantly monitored various vital aircraft system functions, as well as equipment functions. If and when established limits and equipment activity were sensed, the Birdwatcher would key and modulate the HF transmitterwith a coded signal. The coded signal was a multiplexed sample of each monitored item, including the item which triggered the Birdwatcher. Thus, the inteneded receiver operator could determine which aircraft system or equipment triggered the unit and could monitor the status of all remaining items. There were 40 channels available, though not all were necessarily used. The system was controlled from the cockpit with a control panel shared with the ECM and SIP controls on the righthand console. The Birdwatcher unit utilized the HF transmitter, and was located in the lower right side of the E-Bay, just behind the A-12 cockpit (C-Bay). Items monitored by Birwatcher included generator fail, transformer fail, altitude low, fuel quantity low, destruct active, fuel flow low, hydraulic pressure low, System "A" and "B" active, "A" and "B" hydraulic pressure low, oxygen pressure low, compressor inlet temperature high, System "B" manual jam on, pitch and yaw acceleration, cockpit pressure low, seat ejected, Code "A" and "B", angle of attack high, fire warning, System "C" and "F" activity, oil pressure low, and EGT High Derich on. If the Birdwatcher sensed a system limit or equipment activity, it would key the HF tranmsitter and transmit three short, consecutive half-second bursts, each separated by a five-second quiet period. During each burst, the condition of all monitored items , as well as aircraft identity, was transmitted. Upon transmission, the pilot heard three "chirps" in his headset, and an activity light illuminated on the Birdwatcher control panel. "Code A" and "Code B" switches on the panel could be used to retrigger the Birdwatcher to indicate pilot awareness of Birdwatcher operation. By prearrangement, activation of the "Code A" switch could indicate "pilot aware - - no emergency." In that case, "Code B" switch activation might indicate "pilot aware - emergency condition." Having transmitted, the Birdwatcher would not key the HF transmitter again until another system limit was reached or another equipment activity was sensed, or if the original triggering system returned within limits and exceeded them again. On 4 June 1968, Mr. jack Weeks flew A-12 (#129) on a redeployment preparation and functional check flight due to replacement of the right engine. Taxi and takeoff were uneventful, as evidenced by the reception of the required Birdwatche "Code A" transmission and the lack of any HF transmissions from the pilot. Refueling, 20 minutes after takeoff, was normal. At tanker disconnect, the A-12 had been airborne 33 minutes. Then tanker crew observed the A-12 climbing on course in a normal manner. This was the last visual sighting of the aircraft. No futher communications were received until 19 minutes later when a Birdwatcher transmission indicated right engine EGT was in excess of 860 degrees C. Seven seconds later, Birwatcher indicated the right engine fuel flow was less than 7500 ponds per hour and repaeted that EGT exceeded 860. Eight seconds later, Birdwatcher indicated that the A-12 was below 68,500 feet, and repeated the two previous warnings. This was the final transmission. Several attempts were made to contact Weeks via HF-SSB, UHF, and Birwatcher, but without success. Operation of recording and monitoring facilities at the home base continued until the time that the aircraft's fuel would have been exhausted, but no further transmissions were recieved. The aircraft was declared missing some 500 nautical miles east of the Phillipines and 600 nautical miles south of Okinawa. The accident report declared that "No wreckage of aircraft number 129 was ever recovered. It is presumed totally destroyed at sea." Peter W. Merlin The X-HUNTERS Aerospace Archeology Team ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 00:36:26 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: Birdwatcher and lost A-12 At 02:28 AM 8/15/99 EDT, you wrote: >Here is some information on the Birdwatcher system and the loss of A-12 #129. > Please excuse the length of this post (or rejoice in it). > . The aircraft was >declared missing some 500 nautical miles east of the Phillipines and 600 >nautical miles south of Okinawa. The accident report declared that "No >wreckage of aircraft number 129 was ever recovered. It is presumed totally >destroyed at sea." > Wonder if they ever searched for it with the Glomar Explorer????? Course it might be pretty deep out there!! Trader is travelling a lot. With the company of 2 or 3 women. (But only 1 at a time!) Since he has found the other sex he has gone from techno nerd to regular guy. At least he gave up the idea of moving to Holland. patrick ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 03:27:02 -0700 From: Paul Suhler Subject: Re: Recent conclusions Jim Eastham (YF-12A chief test pilot) told me a couple of years ago that he thought the aircraft "just exploded." It *was* on a functional flight test after an engine change, after all, according to Crickmore. A maintenance error could be the reason. But, of course, no one will really know until the wreckage is found, and I think that would be tough even for Bob Ballard. Robert S. Hopkins, III, PhD" wrote: > I have been asked to comment upon the 5 June 1968, "disappearance" of > A-12 60-6932, piloted by Jack Weeks on an FCF after an engine change > at RODN. > > As far as I can tell, the airplane disappeared 520nm east (?) of > Manilla, the Philippines. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 10:18:33 -0700 From: INFORMATION RESTRICTED Subject: Re: FWD: (SK) Mercury Plasma Yep, Mercury does that. Terry W. Colvin wrote: > > Did these two scientists ever do anymore work relating to mercury? > > However, here we are more interested in the "engines" that are alleged > > to have activated these aerial machines. In Science for the 3rd > > Jan ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 15:14:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: Swept-back wings(?) Don Hackett wondered: >Is this true? What about the rumor that the idea of swept-back wings >only dawned upon Americans after the capture of Nazi war data? Every >account of the development of the F86, the B47, and whatever else >fails to mention this guy. Any historians on the list? [...] >THIS WEEK'S HONORARY UNSUBSCRIBE goes to Robert Thomas Jones. After >enrolling in University of Missouri in 1927, but dropped out a year >later to pursue his dream of flying. He joined Charles Fower's flying >circus where he traded chores for flying lessons. In 1934, he took a >more practical approach: he joined the National Advisory Committee for >Aeronautics -- the forerunner of NASA -- in Langley, Va., and in 1946 >transferred to NASA's Ames Research Center in Mountain View, Calif. His >primary contribution to flight was his 1944 invention of swept-back >wings, which are used now on most jet planes, from fighters to >passenger transports. When he retired in 1981, Jones received the >Congressional Excalibur Award for his contributions to aeronautical >science. He also received the Langley Award from the Smithsonian >Institution, joining the likes of the Wright brothers and Charles >Lindberg. Jones died August 11 in California. He was 89. I am surprised that David Lednicer hasn't responded to this (he probably will later), but I can't let some of the statements in this "history" go unchallenged. Anyone interested to read something about Robert Thomas Jones, can find some relevant on-line information at: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4406/chap3.html The main mis-statement in the post above is of course the "1944 invention of swept-back wings". Swept wings are nearly as old as the heavier-than-air flying machine, or aircraft. The use of swept wings to lower the drag of an aircraft in the transonic region, or to increase the critical Mach number of an aircraft's wing, does not constitute an invention, but is rather a discovery. Other aerodynamicists, specifically A. Busemann, preceded Jones' theoretical work by a decade. For example, Busemann lectured at the Volta conference in Rome, Italy, held in October 1935, about: "Pfeilfoermige Tragwerke" and deren Vorteile bei Ueberschallgeschwindigkeiten (Arrow-shaped or Swept wings, and their advantages at supersonic speeds). By 1940, aerodynamicists in Germany had made many high-speed wind-tunnel tests with various swept-wing configurations, and by 1945, various swept wing (jet) aircraft were under development or even tested. That includes forward-swept wings and delta wings, as well as flying wing (tail-less) configurations. The contribution of Robert Thomas Jones is very much limited to the context of US (NACA/USAAF) history. OTOH, he was also the principle designer of the Ames-Dryden AD-1, the oblique or "scissors" variable sweep wing aircraft of 1979, a very 'unique' looking aircraft. - -- 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: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 18:07:28 -0500 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Current TENCAP programs This is probably only distantly related to the Skunk Works charter, but I thought some here might be interested in a new source of TENCAP and related stuff that has appeared at http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/nssrm/categories/tencap.htm The FOUO material at http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/nssrm/roadmap/isr.htm is particularly interesting. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 14:50:53 +1000 From: "Clifford M Dubery" Subject: RE: Swept-back wings(?) Jim Stevenson jamesstevenson@sprintmail.com said: There were aircraft in WWI that had swept wings. - -- Cliff Dubery comments Specifically. The work of Lieutenant John William Dunne of the Wiltshire Regiment. Late 1905 and the development of Dunne D.1, D.5 (1912), D.8 (1912), Burgess-Dunne AH-7 (USA 1914) and a number of others. I can't find any earlier reference, but it was a British design, swept wing by someone who was employed as a kite designer. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 14:50:45 +1000 From: "Clifford M Dubery" Subject: RE: Display Notification: Re:Swept-back wings(?) As I recall the little history I know the Germans used a swept wing in their Gotha jet fighter in 1944 and the Me 262, and 263. The only one of which to reach production was the 262, the 263 was extremely short ranged and the Gotha all wing design did not reach production. Swept wing design helps solve the compression problem associated with near mach 1 flight. Experimental attempts at transonic flight resulted in a number of tragic fatalities. I think we can concede the Germans were the first to apply this to high speed flight (at the time) and the US were able to get their share of German scientist ahead of the British and Russians, although the Russians had quite a number. Note, it took a while to get a stable airflow with a swept wing. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com] On Behalf Of wayne binkley Sent: Sunday, 15 August 1999 7:06 To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: Display Notification: Re:Swept-back wings(?) i don't think any of those ww1 planes had jet engines or could exceed 500 MPH.WDB.(yes i know you did't say they could):) _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 22:11:56 -0700 From: "Terry W. Colvin" Subject: Future targeting devices Retrieved from the dim past: Having initiated the discussion about Doppler radar possible noticing the vortices of passing stealth aircraft, another subject comes to mind. A former neighbor was an engineer who worked on the original targeting system for Sidewinder missiles, or their predecessors. He told me about all of the "suffering" he and his buddies went through in creating the model of how to guide the missile to the target. The problem was finally "solved" when a former Navy pilot told them that all student pilots were taught to hold their heads still and note whether another craft "moved" with regard to the windscreen of the pilot's craft. If the other craft's imaged "moved," then there was not a collision danger. However, if the image merely grew in size, the two planes were on an intercept course. >From there, the IR imaging system merely was designed to steer the missile to prevent apparent movement within the IR imaging system. Hence, it would intercept the plane. I suspect that with IR emissions being reduced so significantly on modern helicopters and planes, that the next generation of missiles will be guided by image as much, if not more, than by IR imaging. Heck, many cameras today focus by using a chip developed by Kodak years ago that optically images what is in the viewfinder, and adjusts the lens to sharpen the edges of the image. Why not adapt a great-great grandson of that optical chip to hold an image of whatever it "sees" in the center of its field of vision. Couple that to an image intensifier and any clue of a stealth fighter/bomber/helicopter can result in a missile having something to chase. Go one step further. Even today, optical imaging is in the infancy of recognizing what it "sees." Why not refine it, shrink it and let it guide A-A missiles to targets. That way, a passing cloud, the ground, a bird or even a friendly fighter might not confuse the missile. Missiles guided by optical means could be the ultimate beam-riders of the next decade. Thomas A. Gauldin Raleigh, NC BSRB45A on Prodigy - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean@primenet.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/8832 > Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org > Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 01:52:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Mary Shafer Subject: Special ops airplane (Was Re: Machrianish, and [really] Mary.) I was just cleaning out my mail queue and came upon this message again and realized I had something to add, something I should have mentioned earlier. There was a Special Ops airplane being developed in about the right time interval, although it wasn't known as Aurora and wasn't particularly secret. In fact, it was housed in the two AFFTC hangars nearest to Dryden, one of which later was the home of the SR-71 reactivation (9th RW Det 2) and the other of which is being remodelled to support the F-22, which is across the ramp from it, in the hangars that used to hold the F-15 JTF (F-22 being a larger effort, there's been an office building added). Its location meant it was clearly visible from the road and could be seen by members of the public, foreign and domestic, going on the DFRC tour. Because of that, I don't think it was exactly smothered in secrecy. This plane is a modified C-130. I think it's the MC-130, although it may be the AC-130, and I can't, for the life of me, remember the model number. It has a name, too, but I've forgotten it entirely (just because I drove by the sign on my way home every day doesn't mean I really paid much attention). At one time, the commander was a fellow who'd been a co-op at Dryden before he ran away and joined the USAF, which I did notice. Anyway, someone here probably can tell us more about this airplane, which became operational some time ago. It's probably in Janes', too. It did go away and come back. I don't read signs but I do notice aircraft and this one would vanish for long enough to be noticeable. Mary Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com "Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Steve Apthorpe wrote: > Machrianish, and [really] Mary. > > One thing that has always puzzled me is about sightings at Machrianish > [sp]. Yes it is remote and secure, but certainly not in the same sense > as Groom Lake. As regards 'Aurora' type aircraft (it may have > originated as an erroneous name from a budget listing, but it has now > come to signify 'black, hypersonic programs.') there would be no > operational reason to land outside of CONUS, let alone the > considerations of security and ground support. > > Having said that, there have been suggestions that 'Senior Citizen' is a > special ops transport (possibly V/STOL), and would therefore operate in > the field. Machrianish is/was a spec ops base (I think SEALs, possibly > those who protect(ed) Holy Loch) so it is at least feasible that a Spec > Ops transport may have been tested at Machrianish. (I'm not saying it > was tested there, I'm not even saying 'Senior Citizen' exists/ed, I'm > just saying it is a more logical explanation of rumoured activity at > Machrianish). ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 23:08:55 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Future targeting devices >guided by image as much, if not more, than by IR imaging. Heck, many I'm guessing you mean visible light imaging, since IR seekers theses days are in fact "imaging IR". The current trend isn't toward TV/visible light seekers but millimeter wave radar, lidar, and more sensitive IR. IR hasn't come close to reaching the phyical limits of the technology yet, much less that of the software. mm radar is interesting in that it may allow the software to target very precise components of an A/C, such as a centerline fuel tank on a MiG-29, etc. There has also been work on UV seekers for missile defense, and there is little reason that UV seekers could not be applied to AAMs. With good software, any seeker can work pretty well :) >even a friendly fighter might not confuse the missile. Missiles guided by >optical means could be the ultimate beam-riders of the next decade. Any missile can be fooled, just like no computer system is completely secure. The missile is guided by rules determined by software and the physical limits of the avionics and airframe. And, of course, not all missiles are year 2000 compliant :) Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you follow thousands of different threads on the Internet, whip up gourmet feasts using only ingredients from the 24-hour store, and use words like "paradigm" and "orthogonal" in casual conversation. It deserves the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #96 ******************************** 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