From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest)
To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com
Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #62
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     Wednesday, August 16 2000     Volume 09 : Number 062



     Index of this digest by subject:
***************************************************
Re: Russian Sub
Re: Russian Sub
Fwd: Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com
Re: Russian Sub
Re: Russian Sub
RE: Russian Sub
RE: Russian Sub
Re: Russian Sub
Fwd: oscar class sub specs/URL
Re: Russian Sub
Re: Super STOL C-130 was smithsonian C-130A
RE: Russian Sub
RE: Russian Sub
FWD (Multiple) Re: Concorde Down
***************************************************

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 20:48:29 -0700
From: "T.Toth" <ttoth@primus.ca>
Subject: Re: Russian Sub

Mmmm..., ok after all it doesn't seem to be the reactor. It seems more
likely that a weapon (torpedo or missile) exploded and sattered the bow.
This makes even more sense if you consider that they where on a major
exercise, and that some reports state that there is no contact with some
of the crew.
It seem they are still refusing offers of assistance from the US and the
UK.
Timothy

"Weigold, Greg" wrote:

>
>
> Welllllllll.......
>
> Considering how quickly it seemed to go down, I would think it was
> more than a toilet overflowing....  <grin>
>
> Someone playing tag or "chicken" about 500' down?
>
> BTW:  I missed how deep it is..... anyone catch that?
>
> Greg W
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gavin Payne [mailto:gbpayne@btinternet.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2000 4:18 PM
> To: Skunk Works (E-mail)
> Subject: Russian Sub
>
>
>
> So who here also thinks that the media suggestions that the sunk
> Russian sub
> "touched noses" with a "foreign" submarine earlier today might be true
> ? :)
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 12:01:09 +0100
From: "David" <win@dircon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Russian Sub

T.Toth writes<ttoth@primus.ca>

Gavin Payne wrote: [mailto:gbpayne@btinternet.com]

> > So who here also thinks that the media suggestions that the sunk
> > Russian sub
> > "touched noses" with a "foreign" submarine earlier today might be true
> > ?

> Mmmm..., ok after all it doesn't seem to be the reactor. It seems more
> likely that a weapon (torpedo or missile) exploded and sattered the bow.
> This makes even more sense if you consider that they where on a major
> exercise, and that some reports state that there is no contact with some
> of the crew.
> It seem they are still refusing offers of assistance from the US and the
> UK.

On the face of it, a collision doesn't seem too likely. The Kursk is
an 'Oscar II' class at around 14,000 tons and any sub hitting it hard
enough
to cripple
it would surely have been itself catastrophically damaged.

I understand the last action it took prior to the tragedy was to fire off
two torpedoes. Could it be that trim problems caused the nose to pitch
up and its bow hit the target ship on the surface ?

I'd hope that the RN & the USN make it very clear that they're prepared to
make their deep sea rescue vehicles available. One of the many problems
facing such an attempt is the report that the Kursk is listing some 60
degrees to port. IIRC, DSRVs are best able to mate with the escape hatch if
the sub is relatively level. Sweden has a DSRV
capability, so maybe as a neutral country, its intervention could be less
problematic
for the Soviet top brass.

That said, it seems unimaginable that in the year 2000, more than one
hundred lives could be lost in a sub that's just 450 feet down.

I'm sure we all have the crew in our thoughts, and hope that if they do
perish, it will because the technology to save them has been tried and
failed, rather than left untried for reasons of nationalistic pride. A nuke
sub down is after all - a global disaster in the making.

Best

David

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 18:41:09 GMT
From: "wayne binkley" <wbinkley@hotmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com

some new info on concorde and russian sub. if not interested
DELETE now wayne binkley


- ----Original Message Follows----
From: Breaking News <abcnewsnow-editor@mail.abcnews.go.com>
Reply-To: Breaking News <abcnewsnow-editor@mail.abcnews.go.com>
To: "ABCNEWS.com Breaking News" <abcnews-l@Alist0.starwave.com>
Subject: Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 06:27:20 -0700

Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com

Sent at 5:53am PDT on Tuesday August 15, 2000

British Concorde Fleet Grounded

Weeks after the deadly crash of an Air France Concorde, British Airways has 
suspended its supersonic jet operations. Go to ABCNEWS.com for more details.

http://www.abcnews.go.com



For news that's up to the minute and up to you,
visit http://abcnews.go.com
ABCNEWS.com -- Ready When You Are (tm).
- ---
You received this mail because you subscribed via ABCNEWS.com at
http://abcnews.go.com/service/mailsub.html

If you would like to stop receiving these mailings, unsubscribe at
http://abcnews.go.com/service/mailunsub.html

Please do not respond to this mail. Questions or comments can be submitted 
at
http://abcnews.go.com/service/abccontact.html


________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:18:14 -0700
From: "T.Toth" <ttoth@primus.ca>
Subject: Re: Russian Sub

Get all the latest views and analysis on the stricken Russian
submarine, Kursk, by visiting http:///www.janes.com the latest update
reads:


Russian Submarine Disaster - Latest

by Paul Beaver, Group Spokesperson, Jane's

It now seems that the most likely explanation for the sinking of the
Kursk was an explosion in the forward weapons space - the torpedo
compartment - during weapons drills. It is likely that the warhead of
a type 40 Veder torpedo or "Stallion" missile exploded, ripping a hole
in the pressure hull of the submarine.

This in turn would have caused water to flood the
submarine, which then lost trim and plunged to the sea
bed. The captain would have equalised the trim on the
sea bed but in doing so the submarine listed to 60
degrees from the vertical to starboard. In the same
action, the cooling water for the twin nuclear reactors
would have been restricted because the intakes are on
the keel and the reactors would have automatically
shut down, leaving the submarine without power except
for batteries.

Evacuation & Rescue - the options facing the Russian
Fleet Commander are limited - by the condition of the
submarine, the means available and the weather
conditions. The use of rescue submarines might be
difficult because the list which the Kursk has adopted
on the sea bed makes docking difficult.

Diving bells such as those used by the oil industry
might work in getting small, but manageable packages
of sailors across from the Kursk to another submarine.
But all thoughts of raising the submarine or even
righting it appear to have been dropped.

The US Navy has two specialist Deep Sumergence
Rescue Vehicles (DSRVs) named Avalon and Mystic
which can dive to 5,000 feet and carry 24
survivors in each sortie. It is air transportable and would
take about 48 hours to reach Russia, if requested.

The UK Royal Navy has practised free escape from 500
feet but with professional crews. The Russian Navy has
conscript sailors who may not be trained for this type
of escape.

End of bulletin.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 01:54:14 -0700
From: Dan Zinngrabe <quellish@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Russian Sub

For the record, USN says it's at 354 feet with a appox. 30 degree list.


>
>Russian Submarine Disaster - Latest
>
>by Paul Beaver, Group Spokesperson, Jane's
>
>It now seems that the most likely explanation for the sinking of the
>Kursk was an explosion in the forward weapons space - the torpedo
>compartment - during weapons drills. It is likely that the warhead of
>a type 40 Veder torpedo or "Stallion" missile exploded, ripping a hole
>in the pressure hull of the submarine.

Oddly enough, it's now thought that a defective torpedo battery 
caused caused a fire and explosion on Scorpion, which have about the 
same effects we see here. The original reports of a collision with 
another sub seem utterly unfounded- supposedly the blast was clearly 
*outward*, not inward.


>the keel and the reactors would have automatically
>shut down, leaving the submarine without power except
>for batteries.

That and even the Oscars still have to keep moving to cool their 
reactors. Komsomlets (Mike-class, one boat built) didn't have to 
because of it's reactor design, and a few Delta-class boast converted 
for spec ops use have special pumps that allow the boats to hover 
when launching and recovering minisubs. American spec ops subs have 
similar modifications.


>
>The US Navy has two specialist Deep Sumergence
>Rescue Vehicles (DSRVs) named Avalon and Mystic
>which can dive to 5,000 feet and carry 24
>survivors in each sortie. It is air transportable and would
>take about 48 hours to reach Russia, if requested.

This is going to be debated till the end of time, but....
The Russians have not refused offers of assistance, but have told USN 
and others that they'll keep the offers in mind. That said, the 
problems that the Russians are facing now (listing, low crew capacity 
of their rescue bells, weather) would not affect a DSRV operation 
(weather *might* at that depth, but not nearly as much- DSRVs are not 
strictly tied to surface ships). Had the Russians asked for Mystic 
and Avalon, the two DSRVs, the rescue would have been over by now.

>
>The UK Royal Navy has practised free escape from 500
>feet but with professional crews. The Russian Navy has
>conscript sailors who may not be trained for this type
>of escape.

Yeah, an unfortunately the free ascent sailors would be dead in a 
hurry from the cold and choppy waters, even if they made it up 
without getting bent.

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.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 09:37:56 -0400
From: "Weigold, Greg" <GregWeigold@mynd.com>
Subject: RE: Russian Sub

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C00787.7B16AF3C
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Television reports this morning stated that the Russians have attempted to
mate a "diving bell" rescue vehicle, but it couldn't make it through the
currents underwater, and match up with the listing sub...

There was a USN(ret.) Vice-Admiral (I think) on the Today show, who stated
the Russians have been leaders in DSRV technology for the last 30 years or
so, and that if they can't do it, probably no one else can....   He also
stated that he tended to agree that most  "foreign" rescue vehicles would
not be able to dock properly with the Russian sub's hatches...

GregW 

- -----Original Message-----
From: T.Toth [mailto:ttoth@primus.ca]
Sent: August 16, 2000 12:18 AM
To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com
Subject: Re: Russian Sub



Get all the latest views and analysis on the stricken Russian
submarine, Kursk, by visiting http:///www.janes.com the latest update
reads:


Russian Submarine Disaster - Latest

by Paul Beaver, Group Spokesperson, Jane's

It now seems that the most likely explanation for the sinking of the
Kursk was an explosion in the forward weapons space - the torpedo
compartment - during weapons drills. It is likely that the warhead of
a type 40 Veder torpedo or "Stallion" missile exploded, ripping a hole
in the pressure hull of the submarine.

This in turn would have caused water to flood the
submarine, which then lost trim and plunged to the sea
bed. The captain would have equalised the trim on the
sea bed but in doing so the submarine listed to 60
degrees from the vertical to starboard. In the same
action, the cooling water for the twin nuclear reactors
would have been restricted because the intakes are on
the keel and the reactors would have automatically
shut down, leaving the submarine without power except
for batteries.

Evacuation & Rescue - the options facing the Russian
Fleet Commander are limited - by the condition of the
submarine, the means available and the weather
conditions. The use of rescue submarines might be
difficult because the list which the Kursk has adopted
on the sea bed makes docking difficult.

Diving bells such as those used by the oil industry
might work in getting small, but manageable packages
of sailors across from the Kursk to another submarine.
But all thoughts of raising the submarine or even
righting it appear to have been dropped.

The US Navy has two specialist Deep Sumergence
Rescue Vehicles (DSRVs) named Avalon and Mystic
which can dive to 5,000 feet and carry 24
survivors in each sortie. It is air transportable and would
take about 48 hours to reach Russia, if requested.

The UK Royal Navy has practised free escape from 500
feet but with professional crews. The Russian Navy has
conscript sailors who may not be trained for this type
of escape.

End of bulletin.





- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C00787.7B16AF3C
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2650.12">
<TITLE>RE: Russian Sub</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Television reports this morning stated that the =
Russians have attempted to mate a &quot;diving bell&quot; rescue =
vehicle, but it couldn't make it through the currents underwater, and =
match up with the listing sub...</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>There was a USN(ret.) Vice-Admiral (I think) on the =
Today show, who stated the Russians have been leaders in DSRV =
technology for the last 30 years or so, and that if they can't do it, =
probably no one else can....&nbsp;&nbsp; He also stated that he tended =
to agree that most&nbsp; &quot;foreign&quot; rescue vehicles would not =
be able to dock properly with the Russian sub's hatches...</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>GregW </FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: T.Toth [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:ttoth@primus.ca">mailto:ttoth@primus.ca</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: August 16, 2000 12:18 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: Re: Russian Sub</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Get all the latest views and analysis on the stricken =
Russian</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>submarine, Kursk, by visiting <A =
HREF=3D"http:///www.janes.com" =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http:///www.janes.com</A> the latest update</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>reads:</FONT>
</P>
<BR>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Russian Submarine Disaster - Latest</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>by Paul Beaver, Group Spokesperson, Jane's</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>It now seems that the most likely explanation for the =
sinking of the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Kursk was an explosion in the forward weapons space =
- - the torpedo</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>compartment - during weapons drills. It is likely =
that the warhead of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>a type 40 Veder torpedo or &quot;Stallion&quot; =
missile exploded, ripping a hole</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>in the pressure hull of the submarine.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>This in turn would have caused water to flood =
the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>submarine, which then lost trim and plunged to the =
sea</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>bed. The captain would have equalised the trim on =
the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>sea bed but in doing so the submarine listed to =
60</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>degrees from the vertical to starboard. In the =
same</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>action, the cooling water for the twin nuclear =
reactors</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>would have been restricted because the intakes are =
on</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>the keel and the reactors would have =
automatically</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>shut down, leaving the submarine without power =
except</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>for batteries.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Evacuation &amp; Rescue - the options facing the =
Russian</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Fleet Commander are limited - by the condition of =
the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>submarine, the means available and the =
weather</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>conditions. The use of rescue submarines might =
be</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>difficult because the list which the Kursk has =
adopted</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>on the sea bed makes docking difficult.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Diving bells such as those used by the oil =
industry</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>might work in getting small, but manageable =
packages</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>of sailors across from the Kursk to another =
submarine.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>But all thoughts of raising the submarine or =
even</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>righting it appear to have been dropped.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The US Navy has two specialist Deep Sumergence</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Rescue Vehicles (DSRVs) named Avalon and Mystic</FONT=
>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>which can dive to 5,000 feet and carry 24</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>survivors in each sortie. It is air transportable =
and would</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>take about 48 hours to reach Russia, if =
requested.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>The UK Royal Navy has practised free escape from =
500</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>feet but with professional crews. The Russian Navy =
has</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>conscript sailors who may not be trained for this =
type</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>of escape.</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>End of bulletin.</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>

</BODY>
</HTML>
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C00787.7B16AF3C--

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 09:52:04 -0400
From: "Weigold, Greg" <GregWeigold@mynd.com>
Subject: RE: Russian Sub

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C00789.73E28D38
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

There were prayers in church Monday night for the crew, and that just maybe,
world leaders would put aside their differences to save whoever is left....

As of today, it seems that the Russians are still not taking advantage of
the offers, but as has been said, they're not saying No, just that they want
to try first.  Its too bad that this wasn't in a slightly more hospitable
area, maybe those guys would be out by now....

Even if they don't save them, let's pray they did the best that they could
and didn't abandon them, as has been suggested.

There was a story this morning about the Russians attempting some kind of
inflatable collar to bring the sub up closer to the surface and straighten
it, possibly allowing a free swim or better hatch accessibility, but the
estimated weight of this thing is 20,000 tons!!!   How much positive
buoyancy do you need to raise 20,000 tons?  Figuring its full of water, has
a nuclear reactor inside, the weather inside the arctic circle is anything
but calm.....   this doesn't sound like an expeditious solution....

Greg W

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C00789.73E28D38
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2650.12">
<TITLE>RE: Russian Sub</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>There were prayers in church Monday night for the =
crew, and that just maybe, world leaders would put aside their =
differences to save whoever is left....</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>As of today, it seems that the Russians are still not =
taking advantage of the offers, but as has been said, they're not =
saying No, just that they want to try first.&nbsp; Its too bad that =
this wasn't in a slightly more hospitable area, maybe those guys would =
be out by now....</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Even if they don't save them, let's pray they did the =
best that they could and didn't abandon them, as has been =
suggested.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>There was a story this morning about the Russians =
attempting some kind of inflatable collar to bring the sub up closer to =
the surface and straighten it, possibly allowing a free swim or better =
hatch accessibility, but the estimated weight of this thing is 20,000 =
tons!!!&nbsp;&nbsp; How much positive buoyancy do you need to raise =
20,000 tons?&nbsp; Figuring its full of water, has a nuclear reactor =
inside, the weather inside the arctic circle is anything but =
calm.....&nbsp;&nbsp; this doesn't sound like an expeditious =
solution....</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Greg W</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C00789.73E28D38--

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 09:48:21 -0500
From: George R. Kasica <georgek@netwrx1.com>
Subject: Re: Russian Sub

>There was a story this morning about the Russians attempting some kind of
>inflatable collar to bring the sub up closer to the surface and straighten
>it, possibly allowing a free swim or better hatch accessibility, but the
>estimated weight of this thing is 20,000 tons!!!   How much positive
>buoyancy do you need to raise 20,000 tons?  Figuring its full of water, has
>a nuclear reactor inside, the weather inside the arctic circle is anything
>but calm.....   this doesn't sound like an expeditious solution....
Greg:

I'm no hydraulic engineer, but I'd guess that you need 20,000 tons of
lift....now IF they can blow all the ballast, safety and emergency
tanks they may not need much more to get it headed up....depends on
conditions of these tanks, how much water it took on and how much high
pressure air they have on board....lots of IFs there.....and as you
state, the weather topside it anything but calm.

George

George, MR. Tibbs & The Beast Kasica
Waukesha, WI USA
georgek@netwrx1.com
http://www.netwrx1.com
ICQ #12862186

      Zz
       zZ
    |\ z    _,,,---,,_
    /,`.-'`'    _   ;-;;,_
   |,4-  ) )-,_..;\ (  `'_'
  '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 15:51:00 GMT
From: "wayne binkley" <wbinkley@hotmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: oscar class sub specs/URL

i am sending this to several lists and to some individuals.a few may get 
more than one copy. on most it is "off topic" how ever due to events taking 
place the last few days i think the interest and concern for the russian 
sailors trapped on the Kursk(K141) have temporarily over ridden"the 
topic".the url below has specs., photos and articles about the Kursk and the 
status of the russian navy as a whole. if you are interested in this take a 
look. if not,use that "DELETE" function now.
wayne binkley
PS. this is being sent via hotmail at  1040 AM CST on aug 16, but i have 
been getting emails from hotmail  saying"message delayed".i have no control 
over this,so if you get this hours or days later,don't blame me.





http://www.hazegray.org/


________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 19:32:09 EDT
From: SkyeFire@aol.com
Subject: Re: Russian Sub

In a message dated 8/16/00 4:55:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, quellish@gte.net 
writes:

> 
>  This is going to be debated till the end of time, but....
>  The Russians have not refused offers of assistance, but have told USN 
>  and others that they'll keep the offers in mind. That said, the 
>  problems that the Russians are facing now (listing, low crew capacity 
>  of their rescue bells, weather) would not affect a DSRV operation 
>  (weather *might* at that depth, but not nearly as much- DSRVs are not 
>  strictly tied to surface ships). Had the Russians asked for Mystic 
>  and Avalon, the two DSRVs, the rescue would have been over by now.

  Except...can Avalon or Mystic mate to the hatches on a Russian sub?  I can 
think of a few seemingly-simple ways to make a nearly-universal collar for 
the DSRV, but I'm not a sub designer -- there may be design issues of which I 
am unaware.  Additionally, ISTR that even the DSRVs can only latch onto a sub 
that is fairly close to being on an even keel -- the _Kursk_ currently has a 
60-deg list, according to CNN.  *That* always struck me as a very major 
design flaw, but again, it's easy to criticize from my easy chair.  

- -- 
David McMillan, Imagineer at Large.  
Chief Systems Analyst and Integration Engineer, Exotic Technologies Division, 
KUKA GmbH.  Mecha and Weapons Design Specialist.
"Agent Mulder?  My name is Neo.  I believe I may be able to show you part of 
the truth you've been searching for.  I should warn you, however -- it's not 
what you think."
- --

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 17:03:02 -0700
From: "Gentile, Larry" <LGentile@filenet.com>
Subject: Re: Super STOL C-130 was smithsonian C-130A

Hi List Members,

I know I'm only about a month behind in responding to this topic, but I
remember seeing some old, grainy black and white video of some of these
attempts.  I remember it being very impressive (even if it wasn't a complete
success).

My question is, does anyone know where mpegs of these might live somewhere
in cyberspace?

Thanks for your time!

Regards,
Larry Gentile
FileNET Corporation
Costa Mesa, CA.


- --------------------------------------

Speaking of C-130's have you ever heard of the Super short take off
landing C-130 that was designed to land in the Teheran football (that
would be soccer) stadium, sometime around
1979...?
Take off and landing where to be rocket assisted. Several tests where
made,and proved promissing, and if I remember well one resulted in the
crash of the aircraft (admittidly not
so promissing!). Apparently all further devellopement was stopped when
the hostages where freed.

Timothy

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 17:04:13 -0700
From: Erik Hoel <ehoel@esri.com>
Subject: RE: Russian Sub

Forgive me for more non-skunky questions about the Kursk:

This 60 degree list is hard to understand - the cross section of the Kursk
appears very elliptical from illustrations/photos that I've seen. How could
a structure with such a cross section list so much when it sits on the
bottom? Is it partially resting on a (very) large rock, is the seabed that
uneven at that location (hard to imagine - anyone got a good topo map?), or
did something do wrong with the buoyancy on one side of the sub as it
settled to the bottom?

Erik

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 21:45:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Kaltsidis <skaltsid@mcs.kent.edu>
Subject: RE: Russian Sub

> Forgive me for more non-skunky questions about the Kursk:
> 
> This 60 degree list is hard to understand - the cross section of the Kursk
> appears very elliptical from illustrations/photos that I've seen. How could
> a structure with such a cross section list so much when it sits on the
> bottom? Is it partially resting on a (very) large rock, is the seabed that
> uneven at that location (hard to imagine - anyone got a good topo map?), or
> did something do wrong with the buoyancy on one side of the sub as it
> settled to the bottom?
> 
> Erik
> 

<speculation>

Depending on the damage caused by the explosion (presumably) in the forward 
torpedo room, some of the ballast tanks on one side may have been penetrated and 
subsequently flooded unevenly causing it to list 60 degrees to one side. I am 
not familiar with the ocean floor in that area, however it has been reported 
that rescuers were having difficulty with unsettled sand and other debris 
resulting in reduced visibility and making the rescue operation much more 
difficult. That would indicate that the bottom in that area is at least 
partially sandy and it might further indicate that the sub may be partially 
submerged in sand at the bottom, which if true would further complicate the 
situation.

</speculation>

I am just speculating as the false-html tags indicate. Please correct me if I'm 
wrong.

Humble Sam

CIO - Dark Entertainment LLC
http://www.darkent.com

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 21:53:27 -0700
From: "Terry W. Colvin" <fortean1@frontiernet.net>
Subject: FWD (Multiple) Re: Concorde Down

> >Being an unreconstructed aerospace nut (and spending way too much time on
> >airplanes), I've followed the Concorde crash story with morbid fascination.
>
> Then you would probably find the following site of interest:
>
> < http://www.airdisaster.com >

The recommended site was enormously informative, Zero, and
I thank you.

Greg -- I share your fascination although I don't perceive it as
morbid. I've no interest whatever in other types of transport
disaster, or in generic disaster scenarios of any kind. It's true
that "nuts" tend to have "morbid" interests, but I would describe
myself as "an unreconstructed aerospace fanatic" so that my
attention, while socially borderline, is otherwise asymptomatic.
Seriously -- how do you interpret this specific interest?

And while I've got you on the line, Greg, please appreciate that
I DO regard serotonin reuptake neuropathy as correlated with
suicide, or an apathy sufficiently profound to justify a diagnosis
of "quasi-neonatal failure to thrive" You see, we really have no
category for this illness [c.f. involutional melancholia] and I
regard the word "depression" as a metaphor rather than a
satisfactory diagnostic category, supposing that phrases such
as "neurochemically induced mood disorder" [in endogenetic
cases] not only more accurate, but less prejudicial. One may
consider this disorder as analogous to diabetes, either of
which may or may not contribute to the death of an otherwise
viable person.

My regards,

Bob

- ------------------

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

- --------------------

> <> 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.
> 

Actually I've read many businesspeople coming from Europe take the Concorde
over (arriving in US around same time of day that they left), do their
biz here, and then grab a normal slower flight back to sleep on. In that
case I can see that it makes sense.

- -------------------

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


- ----------------------

> <> 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?

A few reasons come to mind.  The intake has access to less turbulent
air {and so higher pressure} if they are below the wing, and secondly
having the engines above the wing would raise the center of gravity, which
is bad for stability.  Further, if the center of thrust were above the center
of pressure, then getting on the gas would push the nose down instead
of up.  The way it is, a pilot can control the aircraft in a hydraulics-out
sitch to a certain extent as was demonstrated by the pilot in the Sioux City
crash a few years ago.

The high mounted engines would still be vulnerable to exploding tires,
perhaps less so.  Rubber frags would be thrown forward and ingested by
the screaming engines on takeoff.
spike

- -------------------

My question is this:

Repeated news reports talk about the Concorde having difficulties
with tires exploding on landing gear.

Military aircraft, the SR-71 in particular are considerably smaller
than the Concorde but travel in similar regimes.

So why would the Concorde have tire difficulty and you never hear
about tire problems on other supersonic aircraft.  Yes, they are
smaller but you get the idea.  Since the Concorde is a civilian 
airliner perhaps it's more noted.  Most military craft don't 
report to the media that there were issues.

The news this morning discussed a "cow catcher" on the landing 
gear coming loose, puncturing the fuel tank thus causing a leak
and thus the fire..  Big ouch but it also appears that the British
saw an issue with this and devices a leash to keep the catcher 
affixed to the landing gear in the event it did come loose, a novel
idea but one the french evidently didn't adopt.

I read Dan Zinngrabe's excellent article on Brilliant Buzzard on 
his old website and it talked about very large aircraft having 
landing gear requirements where manufacturers didn't want to have
to re-invent the wheel if they didn't have to, thus re-using
landing gear designs for other aircraft.   

I'm curious if indeed the Concorde used an existing design or
if it was unique to that aircraft.  Might be an interesting read
even though it's off-topic.  

Thoughts?

- -------------------

You cannot compare military and civilian aircraft like that.
As I understand it, the Concorde's flaw has to do with the placement of the 
landing gear in front of the engines. In the event a tire explodes, debris from 
the explosion will end up puncturing the skin and or being ingested by the 
engines, causing FOD (foreign object damage) and possibly disabling one or more 
engines, which is what apparently happened in this case.

In the SR-71's case the engine intakes are far away from the landing gear and 
the gear is aft of the engines anyway (the engines are rooted in the wings).

In most military aircraft the landing gear is well aft of the engine intakes or 
is placed far enough to the port or starboard of the intakes so that it does not 
pose a risk to the engines or any critical parts of the airframe.


> So why would the Concorde have tire difficulty and you never hear
> about tire problems on other supersonic aircraft.  Yes, they are
> smaller but you get the idea.  Since the Concorde is a civilian 
> airliner perhaps it's more noted.  Most military craft don't 
> report to the media that there were issues.
> 
> The news this morning discussed a "cow catcher" on the landing 
> gear coming loose, puncturing the fuel tank thus causing a leak
> and thus the fire..  Big ouch but it also appears that the British
> saw an issue with this and devices a leash to keep the catcher 
> affixed to the landing gear in the event it did come loose, a novel
> idea but one the french evidently didn't adopt.


Yes, it is quite possible.

 
> I read Dan Zinngrabe's excellent article on Brilliant Buzzard on 
> his old website and it talked about very large aircraft having 
> landing gear requirements where manufacturers didn't want to have
> to re-invent the wheel if they didn't have to, thus re-using
> landing gear designs for other aircraft.   


It is common practice to re-use existing landing gear assemblies on new designs.
However this does not necessarily impact the placement of those assemblies on 
the airframe (placement is usually impacted by other factors such as 
load-factors and balance and center of gravity issues).

 
> I'm curious if indeed the Concorde used an existing design or
> if it was unique to that aircraft.  Might be an interesting read
> even though it's off-topic.  


I don't know if they used an existing design or whether they designed one from 
scratch, although I suspect they may have done so, since the Concorde "probably" 
had rather unique requirements.

Sam

- ------------------

I couldn't tell from the video or front shot with at 
least 1 engine on fire where the main landing gear was
in relation to the nacelle's inlets.  It did seem like
they "about even" with each other so if an engine blew
some pieces out some might hit the tires.  I believe it
is more likely that tire blowouts would have an
unfortunately good chance of being ingested by the
innermost engine or both.

Also I didn't know that the Concorde takes off at
250mph!!!  That's pretty damn fast!  I believe the
SR-71's usually rotated near 150 mph and got airborne
before reaching 200 mph.  It's tires are pretty tough
but someone mentioned that new tires are put on after
10 flights...or sooner if major wear "flat spots" are
discovered.  I have read that if one SR-71 main tires
fails, the other 2 will fail also because the loads
are too high for just 2 tires.  And usually the plane
just grinds down the wheels and starts on the struts
next!!  I believe these tires, which are very expensive,
are rated for a maximum of 249 mph.
> 
> In the SR-71's case the engine intakes are far away from the landing gear and
> the gear is aft of the engines anyway (the engines are rooted in the wings).
> 
> In most military aircraft the landing gear is well aft of the engine intakes or
> is placed far enough to the port or starboard of the intakes so that it does not
> pose a risk to the engines or any critical parts of the airframe.
> 
> > So why would the Concorde have tire difficulty and you never hear
> > about tire problems on other supersonic aircraft.  Yes, they are
> > smaller but you get the idea.  Since the Concorde is a civilian
> > airliner perhaps it's more noted.  Most military craft don't
> > report to the media that there were issues.

Perhaps not or maybe only in local newspapers.  I get
most of my info from various books and info that is
posted here.  I don't remember reading much about tire
failure on the Concordes before the recent crash but
I recall tv reports and articles about a Concorde that
lost a major portion of the tailfin/rudder.  I thought
that was attributed to the crew trying to set a speed
record..
> >
..snip...

- ---------------------

   It's also worthy of note that the Concordes have a shield on the gear that 
is used to keep spray from being ingested.  The British experienced a problem 
with the original design shredding and flying up and impacting the fuel tanks 
and other areas.  They modified all of their Concordes and the problem has not 
reoccurred.  Although they had the same data, the French chose not to perform 
the modification on their Concordes.  Parts of the shield, as well as tires 
were found on the runway...

- ---------------------

> > Ja, well Lockheed kicked Boeing butt that time.  Of course, they
> > kicked ours in the 747 vs L1011 contest...  {8-[  spike
>
> The L-1011 is my favorite air liner. I used to love to fly on them with
> TWA when flying from Seattle to Boston nonstop. The huge legroom that
> coach seats had was incredible (wide seats too).

Mine too.  Even my modern standards it is a very comfortable aircraft
for the long haul.  If you want an interesting discussion of the L1011
vs its real competitor the Douglas DC 10, Ben Rich discusses it in his
book Skunk Works.  The DC10 had the straight thru tail engine, which
forced the rudder to be shorter, which required the wing engines to
be closer inboard so that in a one-engine-out condition, the shorter
rudder could overcome the resultant yaw.  The L1011 had the more
expensive and complicated (Lockheed loves to do things this way
whenever possible) S-shaped thrust duct, allowing a longer rudder,
allowing the wing engines to be further outboard, so the passenger
compartment is quieter.  The company calculated it would need to
sell 250 of the 1011s to break even, and it sold 246 if memory
serves correctly.  spike

- ------------------

Robin sez:


> I do have a lot of concern that the media tends to grab extremely firmly onto the
> wrong ends of sticks and then worries it to death while the real story gets
> submerged in the mire of obfuscation. Regarding Concorde, at the moment 
> there is no real confirmation of anything and there won't be at least until
> the Accident Investigation Board (AIB) has presented its findings. There's
> a huge amount of information to examine before the actual cause of the
> accident can be proposed. In the meantime a fine aircraft with a
> previously excellent safety record is being tarred with accusations
> that it (and by association civil aviation in general) is fundamentally
> unsafe.
> 
> Eyewitness accounts are notoriously inaccurate - the existence
> of photographs and video of the event are powerful pieces of evidence
> in the accident investigation, but they are only symptoms of the
> accident, they do not usually point unequivocably at the actual
> cause. In this incident, the engines, in particular a rotor failure,
> was implicated - Rolls Royce would naturally be alarmed to find
> that the incident was blamed on their engines, from design to
> manufacture and maintenance thereof. Ditto the thrust reverser,
> problems with which were hilighted immediately before flight. (The
> suggestion that the maintenance crew "rushed" the repairs -
> implying that they did a botched job - does them a huge disservice.
> Robbing components from a "christmas tree" aircraft is common
> practice and is a perfectly reasonable way to maintain a small 
> fleet of aircraft whose spares are in limited supply.)
> 
> The video and photographs have mostly put paid to the engine failure
>  theory in showing that the fire appears to originate from the undercarriage 
> bay, which is why the blame has shifted to a tyre-burst that has thrown
> debris into the bay, puncturing fuel tanks and severing control
> lines and triggering a fire away from the engine. This still doesn't mean
> that the engine is entirely off the hook, and it will be examined as if still
> a suspect just to make sure.
> 
> Even so, this doesn't actually identify the trigger for the accident, whatever 
> caused the tyre to fail in the first place, so we turn to examining such things as
> the brakes. Concorde travelled two-and-a-half miles from the terminal
> building to the end of the runway - a binding brake would have caused
> it to overheat. The heat takes a finite time to soak through into the
> wheel and wheel hub, the wheel and tyre overheating could cause a
> failure of the tyre, which could have happened as the aircraft began
> it's take-off roll applying the final amount of strain to an already overloaded
> tyre. 
> 
> But (and it's a Big But) this is still all conjecture until the wheels, hubs and 
> brakes are recovered and examined, and it still doesn't explain why the tyre failed
> when it did - aircraft tyres are expensive and undergo re-tread procedures. 
> Cocncorde tyres are different from conventional civil aircraft tyres, but not
> markedly so. BA inspects after so many landings and allows (AFAIR) 8 retreads 
> before scrapping  the tyres, AF performs a post-landing check after every flight 
> and allows 15 re-treads (again, AFAIR - may have to check the actual figures, 
> but it does represent a slightly different approach to tyre inspections by the 
> two companies.)
> 
> There are also different modification states to the undercarriages between the
> two companies - BA have debris deflectors on their main u/cs, AF do not,
> despite there being a history of tyre failures on Concordes. The deflectors are
> mainly there to protect the engines from ingestion of debris that causes foreign 
> object damage (FOD) - in the case of the AF Concorde this may (note "may")
> have penetrated fuel tanks and service lines as well, as indicated by the
> pilot reporting the inability to raise the undercarriage and the roll stability
> control problem (basically, it appears he only had control of the starboard side
> of the aircraft). This is *still* all conjecture until the control systems and 
> structure
> can be examined.
> 
> It is also possible that Concorde ran over debris on the runway, which may have 
> damaged the tyre. This has implications for the operations procedures for
> the airport itself. Again, all conjecture, but may have contributed to the incident.
> 
> It takes a long time to properly inspect and sweep a runway, and day-time 
> operations mean that it cannot be performed until the evening, or even at night
> when the airport is quiet. Things can be missed, especially when you're more
> concerned with checking a runway when the debris might be on a taxiway or
> the terminal apron. Aircraft safety is down to everybody involved, not
> just the designers, builders and operators!
> 
> It could even be something as simple as a flat-spot on a tyre caused by
> accidental heavy braking, in which case the *actual* cause of the accident may
> never be known. The fact that it is possible to check almost every other
> cause is testament to how thorough the AIB's job has to be.
> 
> Aircraft designers, manufacturers and operators do not fear the results
> of an AIB. While we hope that they are never needed, when they are their
> findings contribute to the ever-expanding sphere of knowledge as to how
> all machines (not just aircraft) function in adverse conditions. Hazard
> evaluation is part of the safety analysis that is performed as part of the 
> design of a new product. We need to find the actual causes of these
> incidents so we can protect against them happening again. We need
> to find the real causes so we don't mislead ourselves into thinking that
> we've fixed the problem when we might have made it worse.
> 
> Oops. Sorry. It's turned into a bit of a thesis. Hope this helps, illuminates
> or whatever.
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> Robin Hill, STEAMY BESS, Brough, East Yorkshire.

- -- 
Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@frontiernet.net >
     Alternate: < terry_colvin@hotmail.com >
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)

------------------------------

End of skunk-works-digest V9 #62
********************************

    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