From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V9 #90 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, December 27 2000 Volume 09 : Number 090 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: Cuban Overflights in 1962 Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #89 - wonderful to see Mary back. Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #89 - wonderful to see Mary back. *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 16:12:03 -0600 From: "Albert H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: Cuban Overflights in 1962 "Jack C. Lockhart" wrote: > > Hope this ain't too far off topic: > > Just saw the movie "Thirteen Days". A decade or so I read a couple books > about the Cuban Missle Crisis and can not remember any mention of F8 > Crusaders or F4 Phantoms flying 1000 feet of less off the deck (Cuban > Soil) to confirm the Soviet missile construction progress. > > I thought we only used high altitude U2 flights to do this. > > Were the low level overflights 'Hollywood' fiction or did they really > happen. > > Or did we (USA) use other means of verifying how far along the Soviets > were in their missile construction project? > > ~jack_ > Anybody know for sure? Well, I'm relying on various tv documentaries so please bear that in mind. I recall seeing RF-101 aircraft flying low to get close-up photos. I don't remember their speed but I assume it was as fast as they could go and still get usable, detailed photos. I do not recall seeing any other aircraft being mentioned other than the U-2 after it was shot down. The A-12, predecessor of the SR-71, was considered for some overflights but I think the plane was not considered to be fully operational, and they did not want to risk losing 1 over Cuban soil. I wonder if the RF-101s were used in conjunction with other aircraft such as EWACS aircraft. I also wonder if any of the Voodoo's were shot down. That's all I can remember as far as aircraft go. Al ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 22:35:24 -0500 From: "Martin Hurst" Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #89 - wonderful to see Mary back. To Mary: Don't listen to those few bone-heads on this list. Since the SR-71 is no longer in active service, your insider information is extremely valuable and worthwhile. I really enjoy reading your's and others intelligent discussions on this bird. Don't leave us Mary on account of few proud individuals, just because you know more, and they wish they did. - -Martin > >Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 01:40:16 -0500 (EST) >From: Mary Shafer >Subject: RE: Smashing paradigms > >On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Gavin Payne wrote: > >> > It is wonderful to see Mary back. I have missed her. > >> Must admit I noticed her posting and noticed the same thing. >> Any news from Dryden? > >I have to apologize for being gone so long, but I'd had trouble with my >home computer and the ISP and then had trouble with the firewall from >Dryden and ended up not participating here. The problem with accessing >the list from home is that all my reference material is at work, of >course, so I couldn't provide first-hand information from home, but I >couldn't get through the firewall at work to provide it from there. > >I finally decided that any access from home was better than silence, so >now I'm back. > >Incidentally, a major reason that I stopped responding on this list is >that one of the members of the list sent me e-mail complaining that my >postings made me sound too much like an insider, which upset him because >he thought I was being condescending and trying to show him up, and that >what I thought were concise messages were being interpreted by a friend >of his, and a couple other subscribers, as being really snotty (I'm >paraphrasing here--he phrased it better, but the message is gone beyond >recall and I can't quote it). I can't help having been the Chief >Engineer on the SR-71 for three years, which did make me an insider, and >I write brief responses because the amount of time I can spend on the >list is limited and I don't feel that long, rambling messages are proper >on a mailing list. I also can't write long detailed messages because, >as I mentioned above, my reference materials are at work and I don't >want to make errors. > >So to this person, and his two or three buddies, all I can suggest is >that they not read what I write as they find it so objectionable. If >the rest of you feel the same way as they do, though, let me know >(privately--no need to clutter the list) and I'll drop out entirely. >I'm not here to make people feel inadequate or insulted, after all. I'm >here to provide as much inside information as I can to those of you who >don't otherwise have the access you'd like. > >Regards, >Mary > >Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com >"Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard >Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." > >------------------------------ > >Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 05:19:55 EST >From: SecretJet@aol.com >Subject: Re: Harrier Wings... > >Happy New Year! > ><< From: Mary Shafer > Subject: Re: Smashing paradigms > ><<... the Harrier anhedral is there to help trap the bubble >of thrust in hover. Again, a ground effect thing. >> > >I seem to recall that the original P1127 ('Kestrel'), GR1/3 Harrier, >and AV-8A's had 'drooped' wings also to simply reduce the length >of the otherwise over-long 'outrigger' stabilizing wheels! > >(And can I humbly add that the amazing Harrier is one of only a few >aircraft programs that we Brit's have managed to 'sell' to the USA?!) > >Happy Holidays! >- ----------------------------------------- >Regards, >Bill Turner, 'Admin'. >Black-Triangle E-Group HQ. >Near London Heathrow, UK. >AIM:Secretjet2 ICQ: 29271956 >http://members.aol.com/Secretjet/index.html >- ----------------------------------------------------------------- >No Door is Closed - To an Open Mind! >- ----------------------------------------------------------------- >Black-Triangle NEW >Homepage! > >Black-Triangle Links > > >------------------------------ > >Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 09:20:26 -0500 (EST) >From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl >Subject: Re: Cuban Overflights in 1962 > >Jack C. Lockhart , wondered: > >>Just saw the movie "Thirteen Days". A decade or so I read a couple books >>about the Cuban Missle Crisis and can not remember any mention of F8 >>Crusaders or F4 Phantoms flying 1000 feet of less off the deck (Cuban >>Soil) to confirm the Soviet missile construction progress. > >>I thought we only used high altitude U2 flights to do this. > >>Were the low level overflights 'Hollywood' fiction or did they really happen. > >They did happen. Most of the high-resolution photos you see in books, etc., >were actually made by very low-flying (500 ft. or less) USAF RF-101C Voodoos >and USN RF-8A Crusaders (I am not sure about RF-4C Phantom IIs, though), >rather than by high-altitude CIA/USAF U-2Cs. > >Check out for example the FAS CMC IMINT site at: > > http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/cuba.htm > >>Or did we (USA) use other means of verifying how far along the Soviets were >>in their missile construction project? > >That too. Local and other spies provided additional information. This in turn >triggered the more intense high-altitude U-2 and low-altitude fighter over >flights. But those photos provided only one part (even though a very crucial >one) of the big picture. > >And of course P-2 Neptunes and P-3 Orions, as well as many other USN aircraft >involved in the blockade, made photos of the ships (and maybe also of the port >facilities). > >I haven't seen "Thirteen Days" yet, but its on my to-do list. > >- -- Andreas > >- --- --- > Andreas Gehrs-Pahl E-Mail: GPahl@wazoo.com > 1517 Michigan Avenue or: Andreas@Aerospace-History.net > Alamogordo, NM 88310 Web Site: http://www.wazoo.com/~gpahl/ > Tel: (505) 434-6276 or: http://www.Aerospace-History.net >- --- --- > >------------------------------ > >Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 09:01:59 -0600 (CST) >From: Todd Madson >Subject: Aurora Borealis > >FYI: > >I routinely see Aurora Borealis here in Minneapolis, but you really >have to get to the outlying suburbs or somewhat farther (like 25 >miles outside of city center) in order to really see anything beyond >the usual light pollution we see here. If you venture a bit farther >out, you'll see them even better. Just north of Northfield, MN is >a good place, but that's closer to 50 miles away to the south. You >can not only see the aurora borealis, but many constellations, light >pollution from the twin cities, aircraft flying into MSP among other >things. > >Skunky Content: the Minneapolis Air Guard museum has one of the >original A-12 blackbirds. Worth a look see for sure. Members of >my company's R&D staff used to head out there on lunch hour and >would try and let it inspire them to write better software. > >- -t > >- -- > >------------------------------ > >Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 13:22:13 -0500 >From: "Weigold, Greg" >Subject: RE: AURORA WATCH: > >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_01C07032.8F12A194 >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > >I saw them twice from south Jersey when I was a teenager... it was quite a >show!! > >Some folks thought the world was ending!! I remember the phone calls to >the radio stations! > >- -----Original Message----- >From: Albert H. Dobyns [mailto:ahdobyns@worldnet.att.net] >Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 09:59 AM >To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com >Subject: Re: AURORA WATCH: > > >wayne binkley wrote: >> >> Space Weather News for Dec. 22, 2000 >> http://www.spaceweather.com >> >> AURORA WATCH: Conditions may be favorable for high-latitude auroras >> tonight. The interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) near Earth turned >> sharply southward after a solar wind disturbance arrived in the >> neighborhood of our planet. South-pointing IMFs make our magnetosphere >> more vulnerable than usual to solar wind gusts -- additional gusts could >> trigger Northern Lights. >> >> For more information visit http://www.spaceweather.com >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com > >Has anyone here ever seen them from the Chicago area? >Maybe we aren't up north far enough. Also there are so >many lights on at night that it's hard to see anything >that might be dim. >Al > > >- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C07032.8F12A194 >Content-Type: text/html; > charset="iso-8859-1" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > > > >charset=3Diso-8859-1"> >5.5.2650.12"> >RE: AURORA WATCH: > > > >

I saw them twice from south Jersey when I was a = >teenager...  it was quite a show!! >

> >

Some folks thought the world was ending!!   = >I remember the phone calls to the radio stations! <grin> >

> >

-----Original Message----- >
From: Albert H. Dobyns [HREF=3D"mailto:ahdobyns@worldnet.att.net">mailto:ahdobyns@worldnet.att.n= >et] >
Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 09:59 AM >
To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com >
Subject: Re: AURORA WATCH: >

>
> >

wayne binkley wrote: >
> >
> Space Weather News for Dec. 22, 2000 >
> TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.spaceweather.com >
> >
> AURORA WATCH: Conditions may be favorable for = >high-latitude auroras >
> tonight.  The interplanetary magnetic = >field (IMF) near Earth turned >
> sharply southward after a solar wind = >disturbance arrived in the >
> neighborhood of our planet. South-pointing IMFs = >make our magnetosphere >
> more vulnerable than usual to solar wind gusts = >- -- additional gusts could >
> trigger Northern Lights. >
> >
> For more information visit HREF=3D"http://www.spaceweather.com" = >TARGET=3D"_blank">http://www.spaceweather.com >
> >
> = >_________________________________________________________________= > >
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at HREF=3D"http://explorer.msn.com" = >TARGET=3D"_blank">http://explorer.msn.com >

> >

Has anyone here ever seen them from the Chicago = >area? >
Maybe we aren't up north far enough.  Also = >there are so >
many lights on at night that it's hard to see = >anything >
that might be dim. >
Al >

> > > >- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C07032.8F12A194-- > >------------------------------ > >Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 13:31:25 -0500 >From: "Weigold, Greg" >Subject: RE: Smashing paradigms > >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_01C07033.D7ABDBC2 >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > >I, for one, am ALWAYS glad to see your postings, as I feel that they are >always based in truth or actual experience (at least regarding the SR-71 and >related systems). How many of us insider-wannabes get a glimpse of the real >inside from you I don't know, but for me, > >Please keep posting!!! > >Greg W > >- -----Original Message----- >From: Mary Shafer [mailto:shafer@spdcc.com] >Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 01:40 AM >To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com >Subject: RE: Smashing paradigms > > >On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Gavin Payne wrote: > >> > It is wonderful to see Mary back. I have missed her. > >> Must admit I noticed her posting and noticed the same thing. >> Any news from Dryden? > >I have to apologize for being gone so long, but I'd had trouble with my >home computer and the ISP and then had trouble with the firewall from >Dryden and ended up not participating here. The problem with accessing >the list from home is that all my reference material is at work, of >course, so I couldn't provide first-hand information from home, but I >couldn't get through the firewall at work to provide it from there. > >I finally decided that any access from home was better than silence, so >now I'm back. > >Incidentally, a major reason that I stopped responding on this list is >that one of the members of the list sent me e-mail complaining that my >postings made me sound too much like an insider, which upset him because >he thought I was being condescending and trying to show him up, and that >what I thought were concise messages were being interpreted by a friend >of his, and a couple other subscribers, as being really snotty (I'm >paraphrasing here--he phrased it better, but the message is gone beyond >recall and I can't quote it). I can't help having been the Chief >Engineer on the SR-71 for three years, which did make me an insider, and >I write brief responses because the amount of time I can spend on the >list is limited and I don't feel that long, rambling messages are proper >on a mailing list. I also can't write long detailed messages because, >as I mentioned above, my reference materials are at work and I don't >want to make errors. > >So to this person, and his two or three buddies, all I can suggest is >that they not read what I write as they find it so objectionable. If >the rest of you feel the same way as they do, though, let me know >(privately--no need to clutter the list) and I'll drop out entirely. >I'm not here to make people feel inadequate or insulted, after all. I'm >here to provide as much inside information as I can to those of you who >don't otherwise have the access you'd like. > >Regards, >Mary > >Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com >"Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard >Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." > > > >- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C07033.D7ABDBC2 >Content-Type: text/html; > charset="iso-8859-1" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > > > >charset=3Diso-8859-1"> >5.5.2650.12"> >RE: Smashing paradigms > > > >

I, for one, am ALWAYS glad to see your postings, as I = >feel that they are always based in truth or actual experience (at least = >regarding the SR-71 and related systems).  How many of us = >insider-wannabes get a glimpse of the real inside from you I don't = >know, but for me,

> >

Please keep posting!!!   >

> >

Greg W  >

> >

-----Original Message----- >
From: Mary Shafer [HREF=3D"mailto:shafer@spdcc.com">mailto:shafer@spdcc.com] >
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 01:40 AM >
To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com >
Subject: RE: Smashing paradigms >

>
> >

On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Gavin Payne wrote: >

> >

> > It is wonderful to see Mary back.  I = >have missed her. >

> >

> Must admit I noticed her posting and noticed the = >same thing. >
> Any news from Dryden? >

> >

I have to apologize for being gone so long, but I'd = >had trouble with my >
home computer and the ISP and then had trouble with = >the firewall from >
Dryden and ended up not participating here.  = >The problem with accessing >
the list from home is that all my reference material = >is at work, of >
course, so I couldn't provide first-hand information = >from home, but I >
couldn't get through the firewall at work to provide = >it from there. >

> >

I finally decided that any access from home was = >better than silence, so >
now I'm back. >

> >

Incidentally, a major reason that I stopped = >responding on this list is >
that one of the members of the list sent me e-mail = >complaining that my >
postings made me sound too much like an insider, = >which upset him because >
he thought I was being condescending and trying to = >show him up, and that >
what I thought were concise messages were being = >interpreted by a friend >
of his, and a couple other subscribers, as being = >really snotty (I'm >
paraphrasing here--he phrased it better, but the = >message is gone beyond >
recall and I can't quote it).  I can't help = >having been the Chief >
Engineer on the SR-71 for three years, which did = >make me an insider, and >
I write brief responses because the amount of time I = >can spend on the >
list is limited and I don't feel that long, rambling = >messages are proper >
on a mailing list.  I also can't write long = >detailed messages because, >
as I mentioned above, my reference materials are at = >work and I don't >
want to make errors. >

> >

So to this person, and his two or three buddies, all = >I can suggest is >
that they not read what I write as they find it so = >objectionable.  If >
the rest of you feel the same way as they do, = >though, let me know >
(privately--no need to clutter the list) and I'll = >drop out entirely. >
I'm not here to make people feel inadequate or = >insulted, after all.  I'm >
here to provide as much inside information as I can = >to those of you who >
don't otherwise have the access you'd like. >

> >

Regards, >
Mary >

> >

Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR  = >shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com >
"Some days it don't come easy/And some days it = >don't come hard >
Some days it don't come at all/And these are the = >days that never end...." >

>
> > > >- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C07033.D7ABDBC2-- > >------------------------------ > >Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 14:52:39 -0500 (EST) >From: Mary Shafer >Subject: RE: AURORA WATCH: > >I've only ever seen the aurora borealis once and it was very far south, >as it happened during a year when the sun was very active. It was in >Patterson, CA, in the San Joaquin Valley (you probably won't find it on >a US map, but you may find Turlock, which is at the same latitude). >This would have been in about 1958-60 and it was described as the >furthest south the aurora had been since some date lost in my memory, >about a century before. I know we were all allowed to stay up late to >see it, so it was a Big Deal. > >I'd hoped to see the southern aurora one of the time we were in the >southern hemisphere (Punta Arena, Chile; Tasmania, Australia; and the >South Island of New Zealand), but we've only been there in the summer, >making it even more unlikely. We've seen penguins but no aurora. > >Regards, >Mary > >Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com >"Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard >Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." > >------------------------------ > >Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 14:50:22 -0500 >From: "Weigold, Greg" >Subject: RE: AURORA WATCH: > >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_01C0703E.DEFA0C4A >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > >Penguins are cool.... > >- -----Original Message----- >From: Mary Shafer [mailto:shafer@spdcc.com] >Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 02:53 PM >To: 'skunk-works@netwrx1.com' >Subject: RE: AURORA WATCH: > > >I've only ever seen the aurora borealis once and it was very far south, >as it happened during a year when the sun was very active. It was in >Patterson, CA, in the San Joaquin Valley (you probably won't find it on >a US map, but you may find Turlock, which is at the same latitude). >This would have been in about 1958-60 and it was described as the >furthest south the aurora had been since some date lost in my memory, >about a century before. I know we were all allowed to stay up late to >see it, so it was a Big Deal. > >I'd hoped to see the southern aurora one of the time we were in the >southern hemisphere (Punta Arena, Chile; Tasmania, Australia; and the >South Island of New Zealand), but we've only been there in the summer, >making it even more unlikely. We've seen penguins but no aurora. > >Regards, >Mary > >Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com >"Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard >Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." > > > >- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0703E.DEFA0C4A >Content-Type: text/html; > charset="iso-8859-1" > > > > > > >RE: AURORA WATCH: > > > >

Penguins are cool....  >

> >

-----Original Message----- >
From: Mary Shafer [mailto:shafer@spdcc.com] >
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 02:53 PM >
To: 'skunk-works@netwrx1.com' >
Subject: RE: AURORA WATCH: >

>
> >

I've only ever seen the aurora borealis once and it was very far south, >
as it happened during a year when the sun was very active.  It was in >
Patterson, CA, in the San Joaquin Valley (you probably won't find it on >
a US map, but you may find Turlock, which is at the same latitude). >
This would have been in about 1958-60 and it was described as the >
furthest south the aurora had been since some date lost in my memory, >
about a century before.  I know we were all allowed to stay up late to >
see it, so it was a Big Deal. >

> >

I'd hoped to see the southern aurora one of the time we were in the >
southern hemisphere (Punta Arena, Chile; Tasmania, Australia; and the >
South Island of New Zealand), but we've only been there in the summer, >
making it even more unlikely.  We've seen penguins but no aurora. >

> >

Regards, >
Mary >

> >

Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR  shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com >
"Some days it don't come easy/And some days it don't come hard >
Some days it don't come at all/And these are the days that never end...." >

>
> > > >- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C0703E.DEFA0C4A-- > >------------------------------ > >End of skunk-works-digest V9 #89 >******************************** > > 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 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 22:47:54 -0600 From: George R. Kasica Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V9 #89 - wonderful to see Mary back. >To Mary: >Don't listen to those few bone-heads on this list. >Since the SR-71 is no longer in active service, your insider information is >extremely valuable and worthwhile. >I really enjoy reading your's and others intelligent discussions on this >bird. >Don't leave us Mary on account of few proud individuals, just because you >know more, and they wish they did. >-Martin Martin & Mary: You said it well Martin. Mary, your knowledge and experience with the SR-71 are priceless now that they are not flying....Noone else will be gaining that experience and knowledge, which WILL be needed someday for other things I'm sure. PLEASE continue to post and be involved with this list...I for one highly value your input. {Listowner hat on} If anyone has any complaints about a user I'd suggest that they direct them to ME -- OFF-LIST and I will deal with it. That email again is georgek@netwrx1.com {Listowner hat off} Merry Christmas & Happy New Year to ALL! ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 513 8503 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 206 374 6482 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com Waukesha, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works S L O W E R T R A F F I C K E E P R I G H T tm / \ / \ _/ ___ \_ ________/ \_______/V!V\_______/ \_______ \__/ \___/ \__/ www.habu.org The OnLine Blackbird Museum ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V9 #90 ******************************** 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