From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #26 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 Tuesday, April 11 2000 Volume 09 : Number 026 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: YF-113G Re: YF-113G revealed Re: Fwd: YF-113G revealed Re: YF-113G revealed Super Valkyrie, etc. Re: YF-113G RE: YF-113G Re: Super Valkyrie, etc. Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #25 Re: YF-113G Re: Super Valkyrie, etc. Re: X-24C B-2 Changing Colour? Re: Super Valkyrie, etc. Re: YF-113G *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 00:30:24 EDT From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: Re: YF-113G I have known about the YF-113G for abut a year. In fact, I made it a point to get the autograph of the first Air Force pilot to fly it. He was the commander of "a classified flight test squadron" that took the YF-113G, "a classified prototype," from development to flight test. He received this assignment in the early 1990s. (NOT the early 1980s as reported in AvWeek) The AW&ST article is full of misinformation, and has now polluted the historic record. The YF-113G is not related in any way to the YF-113A through YF-113F. In fact, most of those aircraft are not even related to each other, except perhaps by manufacturer in some cases. I've never actually seen the "D" or "F" model designations used, but that doesn't mean they haven't been. Peter W. Merlin THE X-HUNTERS Aerospace Archeology Team ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 23:51:04 -0500 From: "Albert H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: YF-113G revealed Larry Smith wrote: > > >Now Air Force officials have told Aviation Week > >of yet another aircraft of the period--the YF-113G. > > Hmmm. The 113 designation and the 'G' model to boot! > > I wonder what happened to the A thru F models? > > I'll be somewhat skeptical until we find out more. > > Thanks George for the update. > > Larry Perhaps the "G" means it was the German model? Could it be a late April-fools joke? Al ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 22:01:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: Fwd: YF-113G revealed On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 george.allegrezza@altavista.net wrote: > Interesting. As of 9:10 PM EDT today, this story has disappeared from the website. It was hyperlinked from the AW&ST TOC page, so I assume the article exists in print form in this week's issue. > Big Brother in action ;) May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@cco.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I Trek. Therefore I Am" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 22:41:38 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: YF-113G revealed >>Now Air Force officials have told Aviation Week >>of yet another aircraft of the period--the YF-113G. > >Hmmm. The 113 designation and the 'G' model to boot! "The Air Force does not have an "F-19" " was a pretty common thing to hear in the 1980s as the AF denied press reports concerning the stealth program (particularly after the release of the Testor's model). So it would not be unusual at all for a classified aircraft program to have an unusual designator. The F-117 and U-2 have designators which don't describe their mission at all- the U-2 wasn't a "utility" aircraft, and the F-117 isn't a fighter in the same sense that the F-16 is. This revision of the rec.aviation.military FAQ sums it up: For a long time it's been thought that the "century series" designators have been allocated to Russian aircraft flown by the Red Hats in programs like HAVE DOUGHNUT. Recently the AF has come closer and closer to disclosing the Red Hats programs, having already publically announced the aquisition of Moldavian MiG-29s - I've even seen a photo of one serving as a "gate guardian" at a US base (sorry, don't have a link for the photo). Perhaps this is the activity that people have been seeing at Tonopah since 1996- maybe the Red Hats are getting more permanent facilities. And what better place to hide the designator for a classified stealth aircraft than within a series of designators for other classified programs? > >I wonder what happened to the A thru F models? Sukhoi, Mikoyan, and Tupolev were the prime contractors :) 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. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 09:27:43 -0500 From: Todd Madson Subject: Super Valkyrie, etc. Greetings. Long time no post after my old work account vanished and I lost track of the list. It's been fun playing catch up. Regarding the alleged Hellendale landing: - -Some reports say the strip was dirt, some asphalt. Grainy black and white photos of the site from the air appear to be asphalt to my eyes. Even if asphalt, I have some points that I question: - -Would't it be hard to land an aircraft on an RCS strip with a large RCS pole sticking up above the runway? Can it be recessed when not in use? - -I've read stories indicating that the Hellendale strip was a small public airport before it became an RCS range. Hardly the type of strip a large aircraft (XB-70 or small airliner sized) would desire to land at. But, if it is an emergency you do what you must. - -If the aircraft really "dwarfed" an F-16 chase plane as indicated in the article, perhaps the size and shape may be similar to an XB-70 (or at least a small airliner). The article implies that the witness and at least one other stopped to watch it land. This implies that it is large enough to warrant attention. Definetely not what is usually seen in the Hellendale area then. - -The article (and a derivitive I've read) indicated that severe storms were indeed in the area. If an "emergency divert" did indeed occur, and Hellendale was the nearest securable site this implies several things..whether the aircraft and its powerplants were conventional or not.... (1) the aircraft was small enough to takeoff and land at this site. the powerplants (conventional or not) were thus that the aircraft would be affected minimally by landing there...or, the danger to the craft was such that they erred on the side of caution. (2) the weather in question was serious enough to cause the pilot(s) to land the aircraft. I wonder if there were any records of any NOTAMS on that particular day for that area that discusses weather conditions...or if experimental aircraft simply go by different rules and do what they're told or advise control that they feel the weather could endanger the aircraft. Anyone have any ideas regarding this? My last topic for discussion: if the aircraft did indeed land, wouldn't you think that a sighting of this beast would have caused every stealth watcher in a five state area trek out to look at it? The article doesn't say that the witness stuck around to watch what happened. Or, possibly, individuals who live in the area mostly work in the defense industry and know that their job security relies on keeping their mouth shut. Perhaps in this particular case someone with an interest in interesting aircraft saw something and talked. My feeling: someone saw SOMETHING. Whether it correponds to the description in the article probably won't be known for a while yet. - -Todd ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 10:17:19 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: YF-113G >I have known about the YF-113G for abut a year. ... >The AW&ST article is full of misinformation, ... >The YF-113G is not related in any way to the YF-113A through YF-113F. In >fact, most of those aircraft are not even related to each other, except >perhaps by manufacturer in some cases. ... Thanks Peter for the information. So I guess I have some observations/questions: 1. The AW&ST sources were not speaking with permission. 2. Do you have any information on when the correct story will be told? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 10:22:30 -0700 From: Erik Hoel Subject: RE: YF-113G Larry Smith [mailto:larry@ichips.intel.com] wrote in response to Peter Merlin: > >I have known about the YF-113G for abut a year. ... > >The AW&ST article is full of misinformation, ... > >The YF-113G is not related in any way to the YF-113A through > YF-113F. In > >fact, most of those aircraft are not even related to each > other, except > >perhaps by manufacturer in some cases. ... > > Thanks Peter for the information. > > So I guess I have some observations/questions: > 1. The AW&ST sources were not speaking with permission. > 2. Do you have any information on when the correct story will be > told? Also, the question that begs is what (if anything) is known about: YF-113A YF-113B ... YF-113F Andreas? Erik ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 14:36:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Super Valkyrie, etc. > Greetings. Long time no post after my old work account vanished and > I lost track of the list. It's been fun playing catch up. > > Regarding the alleged Hellendale landing: > -Some reports say the strip was dirt, some asphalt. > Grainy black and white photos of the site from the air appear to > be asphalt to my eyes. Even if asphalt, I have some points that > I question: > > -Would't it be hard to land an aircraft on an RCS strip with a large > RCS pole sticking up above the runway? Can it be recessed when not > in use? > > -I've read stories indicating that the Hellendale strip was a small > public airport before it became an RCS range. Hardly the type of > strip a large aircraft (XB-70 or small airliner sized) would desire > to land at. But, if it is an emergency you do what you must. > > -If the aircraft really "dwarfed" an F-16 chase plane as indicated > in the article, perhaps the size and shape may be similar to an > XB-70 (or at least a small airliner). The article implies that > the witness and at least one other stopped to watch it land. This > implies that it is large enough to warrant attention. Definetely > not what is usually seen in the Hellendale area then. > > -The article (and a derivitive I've read) indicated that severe storms > were indeed in the area. If an "emergency divert" did indeed occur, > and Hellendale was the nearest securable site this implies several > things..whether the aircraft and its powerplants were conventional > or not.... > > (1) the aircraft was small enough to takeoff and land at this site. > the powerplants (conventional or not) were thus that the aircraft > would be affected minimally by landing there...or, the danger to > the craft was such that they erred on the side of caution. > > (2) the weather in question was serious enough to cause the pilot(s) > to land the aircraft. I wonder if there were any records of > any NOTAMS on that particular day for that area that discusses > weather conditions...or if experimental aircraft simply go by > different rules and do what they're told or advise control that > they feel the weather could endanger the aircraft. Anyone have > any ideas regarding this? > > My last topic for discussion: if the aircraft did indeed land, wouldn't > you think that a sighting of this beast would have caused every stealth > watcher in a five state area trek out to look at it? The article doesn't > say that the witness stuck around to watch what happened. > > Or, possibly, individuals who live in the area mostly work in the defense > industry and know that their job security relies on keeping their mouth > shut. Perhaps in this particular case someone with an interest in > interesting aircraft saw something and talked. > > My feeling: someone saw SOMETHING. Whether it correponds to the > description in the article probably won't be known for a while yet. > > -Todd > > > > Then again the witness(es) might have been on hallucinogenic drugs... Skeptical Sam CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC http://www.darkent.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 11:23:05 -0700 From: Lee Markland Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #25 At 08:17 PM 4/10/00 -0500, Sam wrote: >The XB-70 can't exactly land on a dime. Dirt strips are not exactly >suitable for >high-speed, high-performance jet aircraft. The ingestion of foreign objects >alone could cause serious damage to the powerplants, turbofans and >turbojets are >quite susceptible to FOD (foreign object damage) and replacing fan and >compressor blades is not fun nor is it cheap. Besides if the damage is >extensive >enough it may cause an uncontained failure resulting in loss of the >powerplant >and possibly causing damage to other powerplants or systems in proximity >to the >failed powerplant. > >Sam > >CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC >http://www.darkent.com I don't recall the author saying it was an XB 70, merely looked like one and there in lies a different story. I frequently consider the possibility that government "spooks" (i.e. disinformation agents) haunt such forums as this, to discredit any inadvertent guesses or information that might compromise "National Security" and if not, then why not. Can the government be so stupid as not to avail themselves of this excellent opportunity. As regards Landing Roll, and the ability to land on dirt. True Story. Circa 1970, a C141 out of McChord AFB, was flying an airdrop training mission heading towards a drop zone (Little Joe Butte) in Idaho. The pilot was daydreaming when he got the "Leads" (Mission Commander's order) command of "start slow down now", and flew into the middle of the formation. In Panic he activated the thrust reversers, in an emergency slow down, however the air pressure prevented him from retracting all but one of the thrust reversers. At this time he used his noggin and with only one engine he landed on a farmers dirt runway in Idaho. He of course received simultaneously a reprimand and a commendation, however the C141 was subsequently modified to prevent the recurrence of any possibility of inflight use of thrust reversers. The pilots name, as I recall, was Capt Haley. The farmers dirt runway was not even large enough (2,400 ft is the requirement) for an assault landing by a C130. It took the best command pilot on the 62nd Airlift Wing, to get the plane off the runway, after standing on the brakes and bringing the bird up to full thrust. and downloading all excess fuel and even seats, and straps. The plane lifted up flew a few minutes and touched down at the nearby SAC Base (Mt Home AFB). There was no FOD incurred, by the way, then again a ground crew scoured the strip of even the smallest pebbles. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 20:38:39 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: Re: YF-113G My thoughts tie in with "acquired" Soviet hardware too. There were so many defections and covert thefts during the Cold War that I think its about time now that people start to ask what happened to them. The same sort of thing is happening with submarines. Prehaps we can compile a list of what we know the Americans have somewhere? I know off the top of my head they've got Mig-21s, 23s, 25s, 27s, and 29s. I once heard a rumour of a Bear lurking somewhere in the Nevada desert. Something else that occured to me today, is that with Groom Dry Lake being partially surrounded by mountains, any long range radars in the Nellis Range with be unlikely to pick up any low flying aircraft (or saucers for those who thing there's some there). - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Hoel" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 6:22 PM Subject: RE: YF-113G > Larry Smith [mailto:larry@ichips.intel.com] wrote in response to Peter > Merlin: > > > >I have known about the YF-113G for abut a year. ... > > >The AW&ST article is full of misinformation, ... > > >The YF-113G is not related in any way to the YF-113A through > > YF-113F. In > > >fact, most of those aircraft are not even related to each > > other, except > > >perhaps by manufacturer in some cases. ... > > > > Thanks Peter for the information. > > > > So I guess I have some observations/questions: > > 1. The AW&ST sources were not speaking with permission. > > 2. Do you have any information on when the correct story will be > > told? > > Also, the question that begs is what (if anything) is known about: > > YF-113A > YF-113B > ... > YF-113F > > Andreas? > > Erik > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 14:48:22 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: Super Valkyrie, etc. >Greetings. Long time no post ... Welcome back! >My feeling: someone saw SOMETHING. Whether it correponds to the >description in the article probably won't be known for a while yet. I would encourage you to contact the writer of the story when you have a keen interest in it as you obviously have. Allow me to however tell you the results of when I did that. I talked with the writer of that story right after the story had been published. The writer was going through a lot of ridicule by the aerospace establishment for the same reasons as mentioned in earlier posts on this. The writer told me that he asked the source, after the fact if the aircraft landed. The source claimed that he never saw it land, but he saw it disappear from view real low to the ground, and never saw it pop up again. But he may have missed it when it popped up again. In other words, the source claimed the writer got that part of the story wrong. I do not know if this is even a feasible explanation. I do not know if there are even ground features present, as seen from the highway where the source was, that would obstruct the source's view as claimed. I'd be interested in knowing from anyone familiar with the area, there take on this. Please also don't take my word for it, I'd check it out for yourself. Personally, I'm skeptical about it being as described, namely an XB-70 like aircraft in terms of size and shape. Regards, Larry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 15:58:13 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: X-24C Dan, I'm not quite comfortable leaving it as we left it. >Oddly enough, NASP and several other recent hypersonic research >vehicle proposals have done exactly the opposite- focused entirely on >hypersonic flight and not on subsonic/transonic/supersonic flight. I think that's too general a statement. Since NASP was an accelerator and not a cruiser, by definition, being able to accelerate in the zero velocity, subsonic, transonic, supersonic, hypersonic, and exoatmospheric regimes, were part of its charter. But, the issue of whether a scramjet can generate positive thrust at a cruising Mach number is seen as overwhelming all other considerations right now. This is because if there isn't adequate thrust to counteract drag at a cruising Mach number, there can't possibly be adequate thrust to accelerate THROUGH a cruising Mach number. NASP worked on and noted many challenges in the acceleration regimes, but they didn't have any kind of flight rated thrust producing scramjet to base their accelerator development work on. So it was really a chicken and the egg problem. Hyper-X and some other programs, are to give us the first real flight data on real integrated flying scramjets. These issues are not so much of a problem for normal ramjets however (not talking about a scramjet running in ramjet mode), as those are quite well understood. >> >>I thought it was to be B-52 launched. >> >>Where did you see that it was Titan launched? >I don't have the reference handy, but it was in one of the AIAA >hypersonics series from the early 1990s. It may have been under the >NHRF proposals, but it was definitely a Titan-launched X-24C from the >1970s. I'm not sure where we sit on this. I'd like to see the reference someday on the Titan launched X-24C. I'll share my cool Dyna-Soar program review document - including the section on the issues with allowing the Dyna-Soar pilot to control the Titan booster during launch! Anyway, just to insure we haven't left the wrong impression that the X-24C was to have no engine, here's some additional information: From: "Lifting Bodies - An Attractive Aerodynamic Configuration Choice For Hypervelocity Vehicles". Draper, et al ... . On the page named: Fig. 27 - "X-24C Potential Flight Experiments" ... it indicates some of the hypersonic experiments I mentioned in my previous post. At the bottom it says (numbers approx. I hope I read them correctly - they're difficult to read - some of the details bloomed in some earlier phtotcopy/reproduction): Original X-24C Concept: Launch Weight: 30043 lb Propellants: 16228 lb Burnout Weight: 13086 lb Max Mach No: 5.06 A Vehicle internal view shows LOX + NH3 tanks + XLR-99 powerplant. Regarding a B-52 launch: If you do a rough back of the envelope calc. on this delta-v, with B-52 boost, ignoring gravity effects, assuming expansion to ambient in the XLR-99 nozzle (so that characteristic exhaust velocity can be used in place of effective exhaust velocity - I think this is correct), it seems to roughly fit the correct speed range of a B-52 launch. B-52 Calculations follow: delta-v = Ve * ln(Mi/Mf) Assume characteristic exhaust velocity (C) == effective exhaust velocity (Ve) (at perfect expansion for altitude - I think this is correct). So equation now reads: delta-v = C * ln(Mi/Mf) ln(30043/13086) = .8310 I was able to find C for LOX/NH3 in XLR-99: C= 1785m/sec = ~1785*3 ft/sec = ~5355 ft/sec So: delta-v = C * ln(Mi/Mf) delta_v = 5355 * .8310 delta_v = 4450 ft/sec ~Mach 4.45 (no grav effects) B-52 would add 500-600 mph or .8 Mach Fig. 27 also shows a larger version X-24C with larger LOX and NH3 tanks with a Mach number over Mach 6. So, the original X-24C concept did have its own rocket engine. And I would suspect that a B-52 launch was anticipated. Also, thanks Dan for the interesting ATHENA and HAVE MILL references. Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 00:59:14 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: B-2 Changing Colour? Found this on Usenet. Intelligence, N. 61, 2 June 1997, p. 11 STEALTH - A Colorful "Private" Show in Paris. According to French intelligence rumors, a select group of French military figures were very impressed last week by a "private" demonstration inside a secured hangar at Le Bourget near Paris. In preparation for the coming Paris Air Show at Le Bourget, a U.S. B-2 stealth bomber arrived and was immediately "put under wraps". The select group visited the hangar and watched in amazement as a B-2 crew member in the cockpit changed the color of the aircraft from sky gray to camouflage green and then to jet black. The technology for variable aircraft coloration has been under development for some time and was known now to be available. Apparently, by changing the aircraft's skin temperature with embedded heating elements, the thermally active paint changes color. French authorities were duly impressed. ..................................... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 18:50:20 -0700 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Re: Super Valkyrie, etc. >Greetings. Long time no post after my old work account vanished and >I lost track of the list. It's been fun playing catch up. > >Regarding the alleged Hellendale landing: >-Some reports say the strip was dirt, some asphalt. > Grainy black and white photos of the site from the air appear to > be asphalt to my eyes. Even if asphalt, I have some points that > I question: Parts are dirt, parts are asphalt. The RCS range is separate from the field. > >-Would't it be hard to land an aircraft on an RCS strip with a large > RCS pole sticking up above the runway? Can it be recessed when not > in use? Yup, the "stingers" are retractable, and the Helendale facility was one of the first to use them. The RATSCAT facility in New Mexico is similar. The fact that odd-looking RCS calibration models have been seen disappearing into the ground has fueled more than a few rumors of secret underground UFO bases. Soon I should have some nifty overhead photos of the Helendale facility up on the web somewhere, but in the meantime, check out: Where "Project X-2000" has some pretty good overheads of major RCS facilities, including Helendale. A number of suppliers of aerial and satellite photogrphy have shots of the Helendale facility from the summer of 1992 under various conditions, angles, etc. Some of these can be had online at little or no cost. And of course Tom Mahood's page "Radar Ranges of the Mojave" is still up, and by far the most informative resource yet on Helendale: >-The article (and a derivitive I've read) indicated that severe storms > were indeed in the area. If an "emergency divert" did indeed occur, > and Hellendale was the nearest securable site this implies several > things..whether the aircraft and its powerplants were conventional > or not.... > >(1) the aircraft was small enough to takeoff and land at this site. > the powerplants (conventional or not) were thus that the aircraft > would be affected minimally by landing there...or, the danger to > the craft was such that they erred on the side of caution. Well, it's also possible that the aircraft in question was a misidentified Beech Starship. Why a Starship would be at Helendale is anyone's guess, much less at that hour, but a number of "sightings" of the "XB-70-like" aircraft have turned out to be Starships. >My last topic for discussion: if the aircraft did indeed land, wouldn't >you think that a sighting of this beast would have caused every stealth >watcher in a five state area trek out to look at it? The article doesn't >say that the witness stuck around to watch what happened. Well, the sighting was at 11:45 pm in a remote area that isn't heavily populated, and it wasn't reported in the open literature for more than a month. It did focus quite a few people's attention on the Helendale facility though. 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: YF-113G >My thoughts tie in with "acquired" Soviet hardware too. > >There were so many defections and covert thefts during the Cold War that I >think its about time now that people start to ask what happened to them. >The same sort of thing is happening with submarines. > > >Prehaps we can compile a list of what we know the Americans have somewhere? >I know off the top of my head they've got Mig-21s, 23s, 25s, 27s, and 29s. >I once heard a rumour of a Bear lurking somewhere in the Nevada desert. Yup, and they're asking for $75m this year (FY01) in the DoD budget, down from $85m last year. The Air Force museam has several Russian-desinged aircraft that came out of the Red Hats program and furnishes short histories for each, the Smithsonian also has at least one MiG-21 from the Red Hats. From the FY01 DoD RDT& E PROGRAMS (R- 1) No Number Item Act FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 [124 0207248F Special Evaluation Program 7 97,142 84,162 75,443] (Numbers are in thousands of dollars) This item has long been thought to be funding for the Red Hats- Paul McGinnis' very well researched FY95 classified program analysis states: 148 0207248F "special evaluation program" / $118.3 million / (until fiscal year 1994, this program was known as "special tactical unit detachments" and was funded like other tactical aircraft units, such as F-117A squadrons. One wonders what kind of aircraft are being flown in this program...) With more and more former Warsaw Pact nations working with the US and it's allies, and even training at Nellis, the need for the services that the Red Hats performed in the past has diminished considerably. Dan _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ The software you were born with helps you write code into the wee small hours, find the bugs in your competitors' products, and create fake demos for the first six months of a project. It deserves the operating system designed to work with it: the MacOS. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #26 ******************************** 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