From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V10 #4 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Tuesday, March 6 2001 Volume 10 : Number 004 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** RE: HYPERSONIC VEHICLE ENTERS FLIGHT PHASE; SECOND VEHICLE ARRIVES Re: IR stealth RE: IR stealth Re: Dummy Cockpits 13 Days (fwd) Tu-142 MZ RE: Tu-142 MZ Re: Tu-142 MZ RE: Tu-142 MZ Test Honey, I shrunk the budget (X-33, X-34 dead) Re: Honey, I shrunk the budget (X-33, X-34 dead) Re: Honey, I shrunk the budget (X-33, X-34 dead) Re: those SR-71 files Re: those SR-71 files Re: Honey, I shrunk the budget (X-33, X-34 dead) Re: Honey, I shrunk the budget (X-33, X-34 dead) Re: those SR-71 files Re: those SR-71 files Re: those SR-71 files Re: those SR-71 files Skunk Works topic SR-71 Dash One Story Re: SR-71 Dash One Story *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 20:29:28 -0800 From: Larry Smith Subject: RE: HYPERSONIC VEHICLE ENTERS FLIGHT PHASE; SECOND VEHICLE ARRIVES Martin Hurst writes: >This just in ... >>From: Dennis daCruz >>To: press_release@cs2.dfrc.nasa.gov >>Date: Monday, February 05, 2001 5:26 PM >>Subject: HYPERSONIC VEHICLE ENTERS FLIGHT PHASE; SECOND VEHICLE ARRIVES >> >>... >> >>HYPERSONIC VEHICLE ENTERS FLIGHT PHASE; SECOND VEHICLE ARRIVES >> >>... >>"The Project team is excited about this milestone. Everyone is anxious >>to fly," said Joel Sitz, Dryden X-43 project manager. "We have worked >>extremely hard on improving the chances for Hyper-X mission success. >>All the organizations at Dryden were involved and very helpful. Thanks Martin, you beat me to posting this. I'm looking forward to these flights too! Interesting phrase: "worked extremely hard on improving the chances for Hyper-X mission success". Dear Mr. Sitz, You're already a success! - We're finally going to fly something! Larry ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 00:00:16 EST From: Xelex@aol.com Subject: Re: IR stealth Robin Hill wrote: <> It's been done. YF-117A (792) was used for ARPA tests of exactly that type of coating to try to reduce the aircraft's IR signature in July 1993. The project was reportedly called SENIOR SPUD. Tests took place in late morning or early afternoon and in the predawn and early morning hours. The coating was applied mainly to the the left side of the aircraft. The aircraft performed various maneuvers in the vicinity of Edwards AFB, including low passes over the main runway. IR measurements were taken by sensors onboard the NKC-135A (55-3135) Flying Infrared Signatures Technology Aircraft (FISTA). Peter Merlin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 21:29:02 -0000 From: "Gavin Payne" Subject: RE: IR stealth Someone mentioned the other day about decoy markings on an aircraft. I remember a few years ago the Canadians on their CF-18s used to paint a dummy cockpit on the underside. It looked very effective on the ground hate to think what it'd look like in a dogfight. Ps I'm surprised more interceptors don't have floodlights like theirs do. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Xelex@aol.com Sent: 07 February 2001 05:00 To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: IR stealth Robin Hill wrote: <> It's been done. YF-117A (792) was used for ARPA tests of exactly that type of coating to try to reduce the aircraft's IR signature in July 1993. The project was reportedly called SENIOR SPUD. Tests took place in late morning or early afternoon and in the predawn and early morning hours. The coating was applied mainly to the the left side of the aircraft. The aircraft performed various maneuvers in the vicinity of Edwards AFB, including low passes over the main runway. IR measurements were taken by sensors onboard the NKC-135A (55-3135) Flying Infrared Signatures Technology Aircraft (FISTA). Peter Merlin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:40:59 EST From: SecretJet@aol.com Subject: Re: Dummy Cockpits Hiya! In a message dated 07/02/01 21:32:13 GMT Standard Time, gbpayne@btinternet.com writes: << I remember a few years ago the Canadians on their CF-18s used to paint a dummy cockpit on the underside. >> Several others do too, including USAF A-10's, & Eurofighter ('Typhoon') - ----------------------------------------- Regards, Bill Turner, 'Admin'. Black-Triangle E-Group HQ. Near London Heathrow, UK. AIM:Secretjet2 ICQ: 29271956 http://members.aol.com/Secretjet/index.html http://members.aol.com/BlackTriangles/index.html - ----------------------------------------------------------------- No Door is Closed - To an Open Mind! - ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://members.aol.com/Secretjet/index.html http://members.aol.com/Secretjet/Links.html Black-Triangle Links ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:47:33 -0500 (EST) From: David Allison Subject: 13 Days (fwd) Hello, This was covered a few weeks ago, but not in this kind of detail. Glenn Chapman, author of "Me and U2: My Affair with the Dragonlady" (http://www.habu.org/meandu2) offers the following opinions of the film, and he should know; he was there when Anderson's U-2 was launched. - D - David Allison webmaster@habu.org 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 - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:16:51 -0700 From: glenn To: David Allison Subject: 13 Days Hi, David; If you haven't seen the movie "Thirteen Days," make it a point to go see it. It is very, very accurate. However, a little "movie license" was taken with the aircraft. It shows a great representation of the "B" camera hatch, very close, but not right. It appears to have rubber around the windows, where ours did not. The inside of the cockpit, although close, is not the real thing. The worst part is where the have Rudy Anderson banking the bird all over the place and, from what I know, the hit was nearly instantaneous with no chance of avoiding it. Regardless, the U-2 probably would have come apart at altitude with the gyrations shown in the movie. The one and only time I saw a U-Bird doing anything like that was when George Bull pulled his shenanigans in Australia that I have described in my book. And I still don't know how the bird came through that. Rivets were popped all over the place and it took a while to get it flyable afterwards. Outside of these, however, the movie is fantastic and absolutely true. It is one of only two representations that are close, the other being "Call to Glory" with Craig Nelson. In that one, I noticed only one small mistake, and that was where Craig Nelson, apparently playing Colonel DesPortes, was on the phone with SecDef and it showed the 4028th SRS patch on his flight suit, then a pan to his wife, then back to him and he had the Edwards AFB patch, back to his wife, then back again to him with the 4028th patch. Very small mistake that only fools like me would notice. Both movies are very realistic, and Thirteen Days is well worth the money. As far as ratings, I would give it: Believability: 10 Accuracy: Aircraft: 7 Events: 9 Overall: 9 to 9.5 One scene shows Kenny O'Donnell talking directly to Rudy Anderson just prior to his last flight. In actuality, I highly doubt this happened, just a little poetic license. However, John DesPortes (later Brigadier General), who was the 4080th SRW commander and on-site commander during the crisis, was in communication with the White House all the time and kept all of us updated as to what was going on. Based on this is how I feel I can determine how accurate the scenes at the White House are given. I think McNamara probably called DesPortes that morning regarding Anderson's flight, just as he wanted to know about all of them. I highly doubt that O'Donnell was the one, and that Rudy Anderson probably didn't talk to anyone at that level. That's not the way things were done at all. But, it made for interesting viewing. I believe it was just to give the public a little more insight into what was happening and it came out pretty well. Also, as I said, the actual U-2 sections were not quite realistic, but were close enough for government service, so what does it matter whether the public knows what the hatch windows looked like, so long as the portrayal was close. Glenn R. the Driftsight Dragon ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 08:17:43 -0600 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Tu-142 MZ This isn't a very skunky question, but does anyone here know what the "MZ" in Tu-142MZ (aka Bear F mod 4) stands for? Likely the M is "Modernizirovanniy," but what's the Z? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:00:29 -0800 From: "T. Toth" Subject: RE: Tu-142 MZ I don't think there is a TU-142MZ. There is however a TU-142M2 aka Bear F mod 3, the Bear F mod 4 being an other designation for the TU-142M3. The TU-142 are antisubmarine aircraft, and are basically TU-95 with a new designation to avoid being categorised as heavy bombers because of limitations from START 1. The TU-142M2 enterd service around 1982 with a new MAD and a bigger sonobuoy bay. The TU-142M3 aka F mod 4 still in production in the 90's has a new sensor package under the nose. T.T. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Allen Thomson Sent: February 17, 2001 6:18 AM To: Skunk Works Subject: Tu-142 MZ This isn't a very skunky question, but does anyone here know what the "MZ" in Tu-142MZ (aka Bear F mod 4) stands for? Likely the M is "Modernizirovanniy," but what's the Z? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 12:10:02 -0600 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: Tu-142 MZ T. Toth said, > I don't think there is a TU-142MZ. There is however a TU-142M2 aka Bear F > mod 3, the Bear F mod 4 being an other designation for the TU-142M3. That's certainly possible: the Cyrillic Z looks like the number 3 and I know of other cases where the two have been confused, e.g. 3M65 -> ZM65. OTOH, it seems possible that the confusion is the other way, as other Tu-142 variants have one- or two-letter suffixes. (MK, MR). There are a number of Web references to both -MZ and -M3 as the mod 4, so it isn't clear to me which is right... (My source for the MZ version was the Jan-Feb 2001 issue of Combat Aircraft, p.97.) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 19:08:59 -0800 From: "T. Toth" Subject: RE: Tu-142 MZ T. Toth said, > I don't think there is a TU-142MZ. There is however a TU-142M2 aka Bear F > mod 3, the Bear F mod 4 being an other designation for the TU-142M3. That's certainly possible: the Cyrillic Z looks like the number 3 and I know of other cases where the two have been confused, e.g. 3M65 -> ZM65. OTOH, it seems possible that the confusion is the other way, as other Tu-142 variants have one- or two-letter suffixes. (MK, MR). There are a number of Web references to both -MZ and -M3 as the mod 4, so it isn't clear to me which is right... (My source for the MZ version was the Jan-Feb 2001 issue of Combat Aircraft, p.97.) Yes that's true. There is however the example of the TU-22M2 and TU-22M3 but I know of no other aircraft with an MZ designation. TT ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 08:22:51 +0800 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Test Please disregard. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 14:53:46 -0800 From: Dan Zinngrabe Subject: Honey, I shrunk the budget (X-33, X-34 dead) http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_space.jsp?view=story&id=news/sx330301.xml With the X-33 dead, funding will probably come through for Boeing's Common Aero Vehicle and the military spaceplane. The X-33 has often been the reason the spaceplane budget requests have been killed. Dan - -- Have you exported RSA today? print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0 Subject: Re: Honey, I shrunk the budget (X-33, X-34 dead) Dan Zinngrabe said, > With the X-33 dead, funding will probably come through for Boeing's > Common Aero Vehicle and the military spaceplane. The X-33 has often > been the reason the spaceplane budget requests have been killed. I have no particular opinion about the X-34, not having followed it much. But the LockMart X-33 has to be the poster child for fraud, abuse, misfeasance, malfeasance and other such things. Not that the ultimate goal -- a lifting body SSTO pushed by a linear aerospike -- was particularly unreasonable, but the "business-plan" justification for awarding LockMart the program and the one-and-only-one flight test article nature of the program were bizarre. Said program having to test several new, demanding technologies and getting them all to work together, no mistakes, no smoking craters, then go on to an 8X (mass) operational follow-on SSTO. People, IMO, should go to jail for that. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Mar 101 20:37:36 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Honey, I shrunk the budget (X-33, X-34 dead) On 3/1/01 3:28PM, in message <006601c0a2a7$43fbfdc0$19cdc2d0@dzn.com>, "Allen Thomson" wrote: > Dan Zinngrabe said, > > Said program having to test several new, demanding technologies and getting > them all to work together, no mistakes, no smoking craters, then go on to an > 8X (mass) operational follow-on SSTO. > > People, IMO, should go to jail for that. I don't have a particular problem with rolling the dice on trying a whole bunch of technologies at once I have severe heartburn that money continued to be spent after it became obvious that the X-33 design was silly (you had to Truck it back to Edwards after each flight, and it wouldn't fit under bridges), was no longer going to provide significant useful data for the operational vehicle, and the manufacturer o the operational vehicle was admitting that the production version would still require auxiliary boosters and even then they wouldn't build it unless they were guaranteed business by the Government. It's sad that after all this money we aren't as far along as we were in the early '90s with Clipper Graham (DC-X). G. Harry Stine analyzed the X-33 program way back then and essentially predicted what would happen. Art ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Mar 101 21:28:46 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: those SR-71 files Jay, I've been away ever since that last time I mailed you, and am leaving again, so I'm just mailing them directly to you. Ther e're all together, but they aren't in chronological order so you may have to re arrange them a bit. Sorry I haven't been able to make them "neater". Generally, they're transcripts with the resultant typos. This is because the original way these documents were imaged made them almost illegible, so I downloaded the transcripts. I did include a couple in original format. You'll be able to see the exact day in 1966 when McNamara killed the F-12B. Regardless of any actions by anyone after that date, it was dead. I was wrong, BTW on there being 3 SRs configured for nuclear strike, at least from these documents. Reading from the original images, it looked like that was what they were saying. However, after reading the typo-prone transcripts, I could tell that what they were recalling saying was that there were budgeting 3,000 people(!) assigned to the SR program. Came across something else you might find interesting. Here are two URLS: http://www.enygmag.com/aviation/photos/tsrcover.htm http://www.enygmag.com/aviation/update01/tsrcover2.htm the latter one being harder to find via links on their site. They are two pictorial CDs with extensive detail on the British TSR.2, the former being a walk around of the restored XR220 and British aerospace archives, and the latter bhistoryhistthe of teh design and test. I just got both of them, and there's a lot of stuff in both I had never seen before, and I have a pretty decent TSR.2 file. Anyway, sorry for the delay in getting the files to you, and also sorry I couldn't sort them better. I'm leaving today for a couple more weeks, but I'll get them mailed this weekend. Art ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Mar 101 21:49:22 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: those SR-71 files AAAAARRRRGGGHHH! Fumblefingers strikes Again! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 15:54:21 -0600 From: "Allen Thomson" Subject: Re: Honey, I shrunk the budget (X-33, X-34 dead) Art said, > I don't have a particular problem with rolling the dice on trying a whole > bunch of technologies at once I don't mind trying a collection of newish technologies together either, if they so strongly interact that that's the only way that makes sense. To some extent, that was true of X-33, with lifting body, aerospike and flight controls pretty much inseparable. But the probability of getting all that to work together successfully isn't large with one test article. Therefore you need a program that envisages several test articles, spoiling a few, crashing a few, learning what went wrong and forging ahead. Not something that has to work the first time. Still less something that would have to be scaled up 8x in mass and 2x in velocity to get to the operational SSTO (VentureStar). With, note, no prototype VentureStar -- the first one would have been an operational version, intended to haul cargo and make money. X-33, despite many statements to the contrary, wasn't a prototype V*: it was an R&D vehicle. Rolling the dice is OK in extremis or if you want the thrill. But I don't think circumstances were that extreme, and I don't think the thrill of X-33 has been worth it. I'd rather have gotten a cheap way to get to orbit. > I have severe heartburn that money continued to > be spent after it became obvious that the X-33 design was silly (you had to > Truck it back to Edwards after each flight, and it wouldn't fit under bridges), > was no longer going to provide significant useful data for the operational > vehicle, and the manufacturer o the operational vehicle was admitting that the > production version would still require auxiliary boosters I didn't even look into those things. What preceded them was bad enough. > and even then they > wouldn't build it unless they were guaranteed business by the Government. The "financial" aspects of the LM X-33 win are one of the things that need some very close scrunity. I'm not real fond of Congressional inquiries, but this might be a case where one is called for. > It's sad that after all this money we aren't as far along as we were in the > early '90s with Clipper Graham (DC-X). G. Harry Stine analyzed the X-33 > program way back then and essentially predicted what would happen. Indeed. We're basically still in the early to mid 1980s as far as such things go. :-( ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 02 Mar 101 22:23:37 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: Honey, I shrunk the budget (X-33, X-34 dead) On 3/2/01 1:54PM, in message <000a01c0a363$5772b940$72ccc2d0@dzn.com>, "Allen Thomson" wrote: > > Rolling the dice is OK in extremis or if you want the thrill. But I don't > think circumstances were that extreme, and I don't think the thrill of X-33 > has been worth it. I'd rather have gotten a cheap way to get to orbit. That was one of the main drivers behind what became DC-X. The SDI folks needed cheap, reliable, quick turnaround and no need for massive ground support. They didn't care if it was elegant. However, since it originally arose from an SDI-type requirement, many of the powers that be in the last decade treated it like a tool of the devil. > > The "financial" aspects of the LM X-33 win are one of the things that need > some very close scrunity. I'm not real fond of Congressional inquiries, but > this might be a case where one is called for. > I wonder if LM would have proposed such a big vehicle if they didn't think that was something NASA would salivate over and it would assure them the win. I mean, I Really want us to go into space. But in the near term, what market could they possibly be thinking of that would support a reusable vehicle with a 50,000 lb. payload to LEO? Art > > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 00:05:56 -0600 From: "Albert H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: those SR-71 files betnal@ns.net wrote: > > AAAAARRRRGGGHHH! Fumblefingers strikes Again! Anyone can fumble fingers but I can't figure out why the dates on your messages appear in the inbox with a date of 12/31/69!!! Al another longtime Blackbird fan! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 10:02:47 -0500 (EST) From: Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl Subject: Re: those SR-71 files Albert H. Dobyns wondered: >betnal@ns.net wrote: >>AAAAARRRRGGGHHH! Fumblefingers strikes Again! >Anyone can fumble fingers but I can't figure out why the dates on your >messages appear in the inbox with a date of 12/31/69!!! That's because Art's email program (Quarterdeck Message Center -- or some other program down the line) is putting a corrupted "Date:" field in the header, using the following format: >Date: Fri, 02 Mar 101 22:23:37 GMT using "101" instead of "2001" as Year. Looks like a "Y2K bug" to me. And your email program, Al, can't handle such malformed dates, and uses the earliest allowed date instead, which (for Mozilla) seems to be "12/31/1969". - -- 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: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 23:03:20 -0600 From: "Albert H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: those SR-71 files Kathryn & Andreas Gehrs-Pahl wrote: > > Albert H. Dobyns wondered: > > >betnal@ns.net wrote: > > >>AAAAARRRRGGGHHH! Fumblefingers strikes Again! > > >Anyone can fumble fingers but I can't figure out why the dates on your > >messages appear in the inbox with a date of 12/31/69!!! > > That's because Art's email program (Quarterdeck Message Center -- or some > other program down the line) is putting a corrupted "Date:" field in the > header, using the following format: > > >Date: Fri, 02 Mar 101 22:23:37 GMT > > using "101" instead of "2001" as Year. Looks like a "Y2K bug" to me. I had a hunch it might be a Y2K quirk, but .... > > And your email program, Al, can't handle such malformed dates, and uses the > earliest allowed date instead, which (for Mozilla) seems to be "12/31/1969". > > -- 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 > --- --- your comment about Mozilla using a certain date as the earliest date sounds logical. Sort of like NASA using Sept 1, 1957 (not sure about the year) as "day 1" for the space age. The initial Mozilla message sits in my Netscape inbox, and the only messages that are listed above it are ones with a funny date. Al ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 11:43:38 -0500 (EST) From: David Allison Subject: Re: those SR-71 files Hello, Dec 31 1969 is the UNIX new year. Any machines running UNIX will revert to that date if their clock is reset. - D - David Allison webmaster@habu.org 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 > > >Anyone can fumble fingers but I can't figure out why the dates on your > > >messages appear in the inbox with a date of 12/31/69!!! > > > > And your email program, Al, can't handle such malformed dates, and uses the > > earliest allowed date instead, which (for Mozilla) seems to be "12/31/1969". ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 01:21:10 -0800 (PST) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Skunk Works topic Q:What did the judge say to the skunk? A: Odour in the court! :P Sorry, just keep the list a little busy, funny and "on-topic" :) Feel bad that they cancelled the X-33. May the Force be with you Wei-Jen Su E-mail: wsu@its.caltech.edu - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Whether outwardly or inwardly, whether in space or time, the farther we penetrate the unknown, the vaster and more marvelous it becomes." Charles A. Lindbergh ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 21:54:55 -0700 From: Brent Clark Subject: SR-71 Dash One Story With all the current frenzy regarding the sale of SR-71 Dash Ones on E-Bay ($450.00 on up), I was wondering if someone could relate the story as to why the manual was discontinued after only one printing. I understand that James Goodall received the manual through proper channels and had permission to print the Dash One, but after doing so it met with disapproval from certain channels. The manuals " rarity " has led to high prices and weekly auctions of the photo copied document. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity, Brent ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 01:55:11 -0600 From: "Albert H. Dobyns" Subject: Re: SR-71 Dash One Story Brent Clark wrote: > > With all the current frenzy regarding the sale of SR-71 Dash Ones on > E-Bay ($450.00 on up), I was wondering if someone could relate the story > as to why the manual was discontinued after only one printing. > I understand that James Goodall received the manual through proper > channels and had permission to print the Dash One, but after doing so it > met with disapproval from certain channels. > The manuals " rarity " has led to high prices and weekly auctions of the > photo copied document. > Thanks for satisfying my curiosity, Brent $450.00!!! Wow now I feel like I got mine when Zenith Books, aka Motorbooks, sold them for $100. Jim Goodall told me that originally 1500 copies were printed and all of them were sold. I had heard that there were some copies with skewed pages or folded pages. These were sold at a lower value. I have read one or two posts about some problems that came about having the manual available, but I don't want to post incorrect info because I don't remember it well enough. I notice a few pages missing and called ZB's customer service to see if I got a bad copy. The woman said "they" didn't realize that some sections were not included, so their ad in their catalog made it seem like it was 101% complete. It could be that ad was already written and integrated into the catalog before they became aware of it. I asked her if she had many calls about this and she said yes, several calls everyday!! I am assuming that the still classified pages are kept under lock and key and perhaps with an armed guard around. We may never them. Al ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V10 #4 ******************************** 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