From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #57 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 Sunday, July 30 2000 Volume 09 : Number 057 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: AIM-9 / F-22 Question RE: FWD (EXT) Re: Concorde Down RE: New Information Paper Examines Iraq's Use Of Scud Ballistic Re: Concorde Down Re: Concorde Down Re: AIM-9 / F-22 Question Re: AIM-9 / F-22 Question Re: AIM-9 / F-22 Question JSF and the future of aircraft manufacturers *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 17:50:24 -0400 From: Jim Rotramel Subject: Re: AIM-9 / F-22 Question The interesting thing about the F-22 firing an AIM-9 was that it was an AIM-9M, which makes me wonder if they were even able to get the weapon bay doors to close because of that missile's 25-inch wingspan. I suspect that the way the acquisition problem will work operationally will be to slave the AIM-9X seeker to the helmet mounted sight and automatically select the missile in the best position to acquire the target as it extends on its trapeze into the air stream for launch. For the reported test, which would have been a simple separation test in all likelihood, the missile's guidance would have been preprogrammed and no seeker would have even been fitted, let alone using a target. Since the AIM-9M will never be operational with the F-22, I suspect they were interested in the effects of the rocket motor's blast on the weapon bay. The AIM-9X will use the same basic motor, but with the tail control system fitted, so using an AIM-9M for this test was probably close enough for what they were trying to accomplish. Jim Rotramel ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 23:12:32 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: RE: FWD (EXT) Re: Concorde Down I think Concorde can in some way be compared to the SR-71. Two unique highspeed aircraft that will never be replaced, each have millions wanting or wanted them scraped, each are an excellent demonstration of what brains can achieve when you want them to! As Kelly Johnson once said (wearing a very dodgy plaid jacket!) "It'll be a long long time before they make another airplane that goes faster and higher then the SR-71" He said that in the 70s and its still true!!!! > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com > [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Terry W. Colvin > Sent: 29 July 2000 22:23 > To: forteana@primenet.com > Subject: FWD (EXT) Re: Concorde Down > > > > Thirty year old technology, and still the fastest passenger > aircraft in > > the sky. > > > > Sigh... > > Being an unreconstructed aerospace nut (and spending way too > much time on > airplanes), I've followed the Concorde crash story with > morbid fascination. > Some random observations: > > <> The Concorde stands for the proposition (among others) > that you "can't > push the river". Despite 35 years of effort by France and > the UK, BA and > AirFrance haven't been able to make their SST really pay. BA > says it makes > an operating profit on their birds, but only if you do the > accounting such > that you consider that the company received the airplanes as > a GIFT from the > British government. > > <> Despite having suffered through a transatlantic flight > more times than I > can now count, I can't make myself believe that an SST with current > technology makes sense. It seems to me that the disruption > of one's schedule > from crossing 6 or 8 time zones in 3 or 4 hours is just as > great as doing it > in 9 or 10 hours. Heck, just going back and forth between > the US Middle and > Left Coasts is enough to kill the better part of two whole > days for me. With > the ability to keep a laptop computer running throughout the > usable portion > of the transatlantic flight now, I've come to actually be > able to make > productive use of the trip if I want or need to. > > <> By the time technology develops to the point that a ticket > for an SST ride > is cost effective for the business traveler, telepresence > will have made such > trips decreasingly useful. This is already happening. Those > kinds of > business activities that can't seem to be replaced by > telepresence tend to > not be the kind that are the most time-sensitive in the vast > majority of > cases. > > <> Concorde is a testimony to the fact that highly skilled > and motivated > people can make an "irrational" technology work pretty darned > well long past > the point where it would make sense to throw in the towel and > let it die a > natural death. This is obviously a function of government > subsidy and > institutional inertia insulated from market pressures, a > lesson to which > advocates of swift technological progress should pay close attention. > > <> I understand why the engines have to be in closed nacelles > tucked in > tightly to the body and wing, but why not on TOP of the wing, > where debris > from an exploding tire wouldn't be a problem? > > Greg Burch > > -- > Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) > < fortean1@frontiernet.net > > Home Page: < > http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > > 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 >[Allies, CIA/NSA, > and Vietnam veterans welcome] > 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: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 23:15:26 +0100 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: RE: New Information Paper Examines Iraq's Use Of Scud Ballistic I've read that book, very very good and interesting. Did Saddam know that when the airwar started 80% of American's nuclear SSBNs were within striking range of Baghdad :) > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com > [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of betnal@ns.net > Sent: 01 January 1601 00:00 > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com; AIRCRAFT-LIST@LISTSERV.ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU > Subject: Re: New Information Paper Examines Iraq's Use Of > Scud Ballistic > > > On 7/27/00 1:29PM, in message > <05256929.00708B0D.00@notesmail.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com>, "Tom C > Robison" > wrote: > > > > > > > > ---------------------- Forwarded by Tom C Robison/HDC on > 07/27/2000 03:28 PM > > --------------------------- > > > > > > dlnews_sender@DTIC.MIL on 07/27/2000 01:50:02 PM > > > > Please respond to DODNEWS-L-request@DTIC.MIL > > > > To: DODNEWS-L@DTIC.MIL > > cc: (bcc: Tom C Robison/HDC) > > Subject: New Information Paper Examines Iraq's Use Of Scud > Ballistic > > Missiles - > > Gulf War > > > > > > > > = N E W S R E L E A S E > > = > > = OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE > > = (PUBLIC AFFAIRS) > > = WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301 > > = > > = PLEASE NOTE DATE > > ==================================================== > > > > No. 470-00 > > (703)695-0192(media) > > IMMEDIATE RELEASE > > July 27, 2000 > > (703)697-5737(public/industry) > > NEW INFORMATION PAPER EXAMINES IRAQ'S USE OF SCUD > BALLISTIC MISSILES DURING > > GULF WAR > > > > > > I highly recommend the new book, "Brighter than the > Baghdad Sun", ISBN > 0895262517. It was written by two experienced corespondents > and is based on > not-for-attribution disclosures by intelligence personnel and > interviews with > defectors and involved personnel. Although mostly about > Saddam's work in > developing nuclear weapons (and how a lucky bomb dropped on a > secondary target > saved Kuwait City) then and since the war, there is > information related to the > warheads of Scuds and the "...threat of massive U.S. retaliation". > > It's come out that the British had made it clear that if > CBWs were used on > their troops they let it be known that they would respond in > a nuclear manner. > According to the book, on Jan. 9, 1991 Secretary of State > James Baker > delivered a letter to Iraq's Tariq Aziz and forced him to > read it in his > presence. IN the letter, from George Bush, it stated that if > CBW was used on > any Allied troops or neighboring countries, "We will send you > back to the > pre-industrial age and it will take centuries for Iraq to > recover from > America's response". Given that this was before Bush took > the nukes off ten > SSNs and CVs, it's reasonable to assume that the Iraqis > understood this > response would involve fusing Hydrogen atoms. > > > Of course nowadays, the letter probably might very well > be asking for > campaign contributions. > > > > Art > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:14:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: Concorde Down > I think Concorde can in some way be compared to the SR-71. Two unique > highspeed aircraft that will never be replaced, each have millions wanting > or wanted them scraped, each are an excellent demonstration of what brains > can achieve when you want them to! > > As Kelly Johnson once said (wearing a very dodgy plaid jacket!) "It'll be a > long long time before they make another airplane that goes faster and higher > then the SR-71" He said that in the 70s and its still true!!!! > Provided we have enough brain-power and sufficient resources we can accomplish almost anything we set our minds to. If we wanted to we could develop a quiet and economical SST to replace the Concorde and possibly many subsonic transports. However, it is not in the industry's interest to do so, especially given the huge investment they would have to make which would be considered very risky and thus unprofitable. This aversion to risk has already been devastating in some respects. Our inability or unwilingness to innovate will come back to haunt us some day. Sam CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC http://www.darkent.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 09:11:37 -0700 From: "T.Toth" Subject: Re: Concorde Down Sam Kaltsidis wrote: > Provided we have enough brain-power and sufficient resources we can accomplish > almost anything we set our minds to. If we wanted to we could develop a quiet > and economical SST to replace the Concorde and possibly many subsonic > transports. However, it is not in the industry's interest to do so, especially > given the huge investment they would have to make which would be considered very > risky and thus unprofitable. This aversion to risk has already been devastating > in some respects. Our inability or unwilingness to innovate will come back to > haunt us some day. > > Sam > > CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC > http://www.darkent.com According to this article America is not soooo unwilling to pursue new technologies in that field... Timothy http://38.247.214.215/FRheft/FRH9911/FR9911g.htm AMERICAS X-PLANES By Christopher Hess No other aircraft program illustrates the USA's strong will for the leadership in aerospace technology better than the X-Planes. In more than 50 years since the first supersonic flight of the Bell X-1, the X designation aircraft have become the technological spearhead in developing new aircraft and spacecraft. Including a few classified projects there are currently 12 active or planned X programms which will fly in the medium term. However, this number includes single projects, such as Boeing's or Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter prototypes (X-32 and X-35) which are not X-Planes in the classical sense of technology driven experimental vehicles. The X programm was initiated at the end of the Second World War as a joint effort from NASA (back then NACA, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics) and the US forces. The goal of the project was the exploration of the back then still unexplored speed region of high subsonic (transsonic) and low supersonic. When Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier on 14 October 1947, such accomplishing the near-term program goals, the flight experiments did not stop but were intensified. Most interestingly the original XS aircraft designation (for eXperimental Supersonic) was changed into X already at the very beginning of the program. The continous research of supersonic flight gave the Americans an immense Knowledge about the flight in the high-speed region, cumulating in the X-15 that reached a speed of more than six times the speed of sound and an altitude of more than 100 km. This high-speed research was only the beginning. In the past 50 years, the most different aircraft configurations were tested under the X designation. The spectrum reaches from a tailsitting vertical lift-off plane via a nuclear powered bomber and a gyro copter to the spaceplane of the future. Engines used in the projects include jet, propeller and rocket motors. Today, the role of the X-planes has changed significantly. While at the beginning their purpose was mainly to give the US a technological lead (especially in the military aircraft sector), today's experimental aircraft must have a commercial perspective as far as the potential application of the tested technology is concerned. There is an obvious shift from aviation to spaceflight in the research activities. The USA see a big market potential in spaceflight. But in order to exploit that market, the cost of transportation must be reduced considerably. However, the necessary technologies are not yet or only little tested. Here, the industry needs support to take the technological risk. This is the part the X-Planes must play today. NASA has developed the Future-X concept in the frame of its Space Transportation Program. According to this concept, new technologies are tested with demonstrator vehicles in two classes. First the pathfinder class vehicles which are focus on a very narrow technology. Accordingly, these demonstrators are designed for a very short development time of less than two years from program start to flight tests. Also, the program costs should be less than 100 million Dollars. One example for such a pathfinder technology demonstrator is the X-34 which is currently undergoing integration tests with its Lockheed TriStar launch aircraft at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center. The X-34 is supposed to start suborbital flights next year, reaching Mach 8. The technologies to be demonstrated include an autonomous flight control and landing system, as well as, an integrated health monitoring system that is supposed to allow quick turnarounds between flights. While the pathfinders are focusing on specific technologies, larger vehicles, the so called trailblazers, will be used to validate the integration of various technologies and systems. These experimental demonstrators almost look like the real vehicles. For example, the X-33 is a half-scale VentureStar which Lockheed projects as one possible successor of the Space Shuttle. The X-33 already features several design components of the VentureStar, such as new Aerospike rocket engines and a metal thermal protection system. With this approach, NASA together with the industry is making its way towards the next generation of new space transportation systems. This also includes cost-sharing aspects of industry and government. Meanwhile, Europe has recognized the new X-attitude of the USA. With its Future Launchers Technologies Programme, which includes small and large technology demonstrators, the European Space Agency wants to create a technological basis for a competitive and at least partially reusable space transporter. From page 12 of FLUG REVUE 11/99 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jul 100 21:09:16 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: AIM-9 / F-22 Question On 7/29/00 2:50PM, in message <398351A2.5A8FA903@erols.com>, Jim Rotramel wrote: > The interesting thing about the F-22 firing an AIM-9 was that it was an > AIM-9M, which makes me wonder if they were even able to get the weapon > bay doors to close because of that missile's 25-inch wingspan. I suspect > that the way the acquisition problem will work operationally will be to > slave the AIM-9X seeker to the helmet mounted sight and automatically > select the missile in the best position to acquire the target as it > extends on its trapeze into the air stream for launch. For the reported > test, which would have been a simple separation test in all likelihood, > the missile's guidance would have been preprogrammed and no seeker would > have even been fitted, let alone using a target. Since the AIM-9M will > never be operational with the F-22, I suspect they were interested in > the effects of the rocket motor's blast on the weapon bay. The AIM-9X > will use the same basic motor, but with the tail control system fitted, > so using an AIM-9M for this test was probably close enough for what they > were trying to accomplish. > > Jim Rotramel > > The Helmet Mounted Sight is used to expand the envelope of the seeker head of the AIM-9X, but it's the seeker head that actually acquires the target. If you look at a plot of the AIM-9X's acquisition area with the HMS overlaid that of an AIM-9X used without the HMS, you'll see that you get 80% of the coverage anyway. The HMS serves to cut down on acquisition time and to expand the margins. Keep in mind also that since USAF likes to drive everything with radar, the APG-77 may also be used to point the -9X's seeker. Most likely when AIM-9 is selected, both missiles will stick their noses out as the target/launch aircraft's aspect will keep changing and at least half of the seeker's view is going to be blocked by the F-22 itself. So, it'll be whichever seeker has the target which will determine which AIM-9 goes. It's not safe to assume that the F-22 won't use earlier Sidewinders. It'll take a while for -9X to penetrate the whole inventory, especially if its schedule keeps slipping. You need to be able to use what you've already got thousands of. An parallel happened with the F-14/F-15. When they were designed, USAF directed that the APG-63 be capable of guiding AIM-7F and later models. The USN required that the AWG-9 be capable of doing that and also the AIM-7E models, not completely trusting that, although it was a better version, - -7Fs would be bought fast enough to be the exclusive missile. There were lots of -7Es around. A second consideration was not wanting to have one missile for one fighter, but a different version for another fighter. Turned out the USN was right. When the F-15 first entered service ther were nowhere near enough - -7Fs around and the Eagle suffered from a lack of long range talons for some time. There are lots of -9Ms about, and USAF would be foolish not to use them whenever -9X isn't around. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 19:18:34 -0700 From: "T.Toth" Subject: Re: AIM-9 / F-22 Question How does the Sidewinder 'poke' it's head out? Is it lowered at an angle? or is the complete missile lowered out of the bay? Of course what you say about the F-22 being in the way for acquisition by the seeker further enhances the impression that either the missile has to have substential 'outside' data before launch, or else it's chances of acquiring a target are pretty small. I can't imagine that the pilot would have to manoeuvre the aircraft so that the, extended out of the bay, missile can acquire the target by itself, with such a limited FOV. Timothy betnal@ns.net wrote: > On 7/29/00 2:50PM, in message <398351A2.5A8FA903@erols.com>, Jim Rotramel > wrote: > > > The interesting thing about the F-22 firing an AIM-9 was that it was an > > AIM-9M, which makes me wonder if they were even able to get the weapon > > bay doors to close because of that missile's 25-inch wingspan. I suspect > > that the way the acquisition problem will work operationally will be to > > slave the AIM-9X seeker to the helmet mounted sight and automatically > > select the missile in the best position to acquire the target as it > > extends on its trapeze into the air stream for launch. For the reported > > test, which would have been a simple separation test in all likelihood, > > the missile's guidance would have been preprogrammed and no seeker would > > have even been fitted, let alone using a target. Since the AIM-9M will > > never be operational with the F-22, I suspect they were interested in > > the effects of the rocket motor's blast on the weapon bay. The AIM-9X > > will use the same basic motor, but with the tail control system fitted, > > so using an AIM-9M for this test was probably close enough for what they > > were trying to accomplish. > > > > Jim Rotramel > > > > > > The Helmet Mounted Sight is used to expand the envelope of the seeker head > of the AIM-9X, but it's the seeker head that actually acquires the target. If > you look at a plot of the AIM-9X's acquisition area with the HMS overlaid that > of an AIM-9X used without the HMS, you'll see that you get 80% of the coverage > anyway. The HMS serves to cut down on acquisition time and to expand the > margins. Keep in mind also that since USAF likes to drive everything with > radar, the APG-77 may also be used to point the -9X's seeker. > > Most likely when AIM-9 is selected, both missiles will stick their noses > out as the target/launch aircraft's aspect will keep changing and at least half > of the seeker's view is going to be blocked by the F-22 itself. So, it'll be > whichever seeker has the target which will determine which AIM-9 goes. > > It's not safe to assume that the F-22 won't use earlier Sidewinders. It'll > take a while for -9X to penetrate the whole inventory, especially if its > schedule keeps slipping. You need to be able to use what you've already got > thousands of. An parallel happened with the F-14/F-15. When they were > designed, USAF directed that the APG-63 be capable of guiding AIM-7F and later > models. The USN required that the AWG-9 be capable of doing that and also the > AIM-7E models, not completely trusting that, although it was a better version, > -7Fs would be bought fast enough to be the exclusive missile. There were lots > of -7Es around. A second consideration was not wanting to have one missile for > one fighter, but a different version for another fighter. Turned out the USN > was right. When the F-15 first entered service ther were nowhere near enough > -7Fs around and the Eagle suffered from a lack of long range talons for some > time. > > There are lots of -9Ms about, and USAF would be foolish not to use them > whenever -9X isn't around. > > Art ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:28:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Sam Kaltsidis Subject: Re: AIM-9 / F-22 Question > How does the Sidewinder 'poke' it's head out? Is it lowered at an angle? or is the > complete missile lowered out of the bay? As I said before and Art added... Robotic arms in the bays on the sides of the fuselage under the wings. Besides according to USAF theory the F-22 will never get close enough to an enemy aircraft to use sidewinders. > Of course what you say about the F-22 being in the way for acquisition by the > seeker further enhances the impression that either the missile has to have > substential 'outside' data before launch, or else it's chances of acquiring a > target are pretty small. I can't imagine that the pilot would have to manoeuvre the > aircraft so that the, extended out of the bay, missile can acquire the target by > itself, with such a limited FOV. > Timothy When the robotic arms are extended the AIM-9M/X (apparently) has enough FOV to lock onto the enemy aircraft. Sam CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC http://www.darkent.com > > betnal@ns.net wrote: > > > On 7/29/00 2:50PM, in message <398351A2.5A8FA903@erols.com>, Jim Rotramel > > wrote: > > > > > The interesting thing about the F-22 firing an AIM-9 was that it was an > > > AIM-9M, which makes me wonder if they were even able to get the weapon > > > bay doors to close because of that missile's 25-inch wingspan. I suspect > > > that the way the acquisition problem will work operationally will be to > > > slave the AIM-9X seeker to the helmet mounted sight and automatically > > > select the missile in the best position to acquire the target as it > > > extends on its trapeze into the air stream for launch. For the reported > > > test, which would have been a simple separation test in all likelihood, > > > the missile's guidance would have been preprogrammed and no seeker would > > > have even been fitted, let alone using a target. Since the AIM-9M will > > > never be operational with the F-22, I suspect they were interested in > > > the effects of the rocket motor's blast on the weapon bay. The AIM-9X > > > will use the same basic motor, but with the tail control system fitted, > > > so using an AIM-9M for this test was probably close enough for what they > > > were trying to accomplish. > > > > > > Jim Rotramel > > > > > > > > > > The Helmet Mounted Sight is used to expand the envelope of the seeker head > > of the AIM-9X, but it's the seeker head that actually acquires the target. If > > you look at a plot of the AIM-9X's acquisition area with the HMS overlaid that > > of an AIM-9X used without the HMS, you'll see that you get 80% of the coverage > > anyway. The HMS serves to cut down on acquisition time and to expand the > > margins. Keep in mind also that since USAF likes to drive everything with > > radar, the APG-77 may also be used to point the -9X's seeker. > > > > Most likely when AIM-9 is selected, both missiles will stick their noses > > out as the target/launch aircraft's aspect will keep changing and at least half > > of the seeker's view is going to be blocked by the F-22 itself. So, it'll be > > whichever seeker has the target which will determine which AIM-9 goes. > > > > It's not safe to assume that the F-22 won't use earlier Sidewinders. It'll > > take a while for -9X to penetrate the whole inventory, especially if its > > schedule keeps slipping. You need to be able to use what you've already got > > thousands of. An parallel happened with the F-14/F-15. When they were > > designed, USAF directed that the APG-63 be capable of guiding AIM-7F and later > > models. The USN required that the AWG-9 be capable of doing that and also the > > AIM-7E models, not completely trusting that, although it was a better version, > > -7Fs would be bought fast enough to be the exclusive missile. There were lots > > of -7Es around. A second consideration was not wanting to have one missile for > > one fighter, but a different version for another fighter. Turned out the USN > > was right. When the F-15 first entered service ther were nowhere near enough > > -7Fs around and the Eagle suffered from a lack of long range talons for some > > time. > > > > There are lots of -9Ms about, and USAF would be foolish not to use them > > whenever -9X isn't around. > > > > Art > > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 20:04:55 -0700 From: "T.Toth" Subject: JSF and the future of aircraft manufacturers Considering the recent 'winner takes all' decision for the JSF, don't you think that Lockmart is at a disadvantage? After all, aren't the higher ups and politicians likely to decide that if they give the contract to Lockmart the future of Boeing as a major military manufacturer / designer is at risk, and thus all future competition (Lockmart already has the F-22) and no new major programs are on the horizon. Timothy ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #57 ******************************** 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