From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V10 #21 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Tuesday, April 24 2001 Volume 10 : Number 021 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** SR-71 Re: SR-71 Re: SR-71 Re: SR-71 RE: SR-71 Re: SR71/A-12 SR-71 EP-3 vs SR-71 or RC-135 Re: SR-71 Re: SR-71 RE: SR-71 Re: EP-3 vs SR-71 or RC-135 Server Downtime For Disk Upgrades beginning at 1200 CDT (1700 GMT) 22 April 2001 Interesting video of thrust vectored SU37.... Fwd: A washingtonpost.com article from a washingtonpost.com user OT - ANZAC Day Re: OT - ANZAC Day *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 21:24:35 -0700 From: David Lednicer Subject: SR-71 Art - get over it. The EP-3E co-existed with the SR-71 for most of the late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. The reason is that there is no space in an SR-71 to cram in 20 or so Ravens, actively operating SIGINT, ELINT and COMINT gear. Additionally, the EP-3E has far more volume for monitoring gear and it has a take time 10 times greater than the SR-71, due to its low speed. I'll say it again: read the memoirs of the crews, especially Graham's "SR-71 Revealed, the Inside Story". They all say it wasn't a very good platform for signals work. If someone's asking about alternative platforms, the answer is RC-135s or ships. BTW - The SR-71 program was originally canceled under George Sr., not Clinton. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 22:28:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Wei-Jen Su Subject: Re: SR-71 On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, David Lednicer wrote: > If someone's asking about alternative platforms, the answer is RC-135s or > ships. How about in 5 years for now, using a UAV (bigger and more capable than the Global Hawk of course) to replace EP-3 as suggested by Time? I wonder if the EP-3 electronics are passive or active. If it is passive, another replacement can be a stealth manned airplane for far future. 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: Thu, 19 Apr 101 05:50:59 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: SR-71 On 4/18/01 9:24PM, in message , David Lednicer wrote: > Art - get over it. The EP-3E co-existed with the SR-71 for most of the > late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. The reason is that there is no space in an > SR-71 to cram in 20 or so Ravens, actively operating SIGINT, ELINT and > COMINT gear. Additionally, the EP-3E has far more volume for monitoring > gear and it has a take time 10 times greater than the SR-71, due to its > low speed. I'll say it again: read the memoirs of the crews, especially > Graham's "SR-71 Revealed, the Inside Story". They all say it wasn't a > very good platform for signals work. > > If someone's asking about alternative platforms, the answer is RC-135s or > ships. > > BTW - The SR-71 program was originally canceled under George Sr., not > Clinton. > > > > Well, I have read crew memoirs and talked with them as well. I've even talked extensively with Col. Graham. Your interpretation doesn't seem to jibe completely with theirs. No one claims that an SR-71 could do all that an EP-3 can (apparently, neither can an RC-135). I said as much in my post. If the requirement also involves loiter, the SR-71 is particularly unsuited. The thing is that if you have a specific known point target to go after, which in this case we apparently did, the SR-71's capabilities can do the job. This is especially true when working with another platform such as an SSN. What made the SR unique and would have certainly resulted in a different outcome is that a J-8 would have had zero chance of ramming it. The SR's biggest asset (aside from the area it could cover over time) was that it could be used in seriously defended airspace. I also find it doubtful that an RC-135 would have been able to avoid the situation any better than an EP-3, neither being known as high-agility aircraft. A final note: The last sentence of my post was, "I guess Cheney and Clinton have been proven right once again that we'd never need that plane anymore". Unless memory fails me, Cheney was the Secretary of Defense, under George Sr, who first killed the SR-71. It was the desire not to embarrass him, again under George Sr, that kept the request in the Fall of 1990 to reactivate the SR-71 from going anywhere. Art ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 101 05:55:45 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: SR-71 On 4/18/01 10:28PM, in message , Wei-Jen Su wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, David Lednicer wrote: > > > If someone's asking about alternative platforms, the answer is RC-135s or > > ships. > > How about in 5 years for now, using a UAV (bigger and more capable than > the Global Hawk of course) to replace EP-3 as suggested by Time? > I wonder if the EP-3 electronics are passive or active. If it is passive, > another replacement can be a stealth manned airplane for far future. > > The time it takes us to develop anything, we'd never get it operational in five years even if we had the money to develop such a vehicle. The bigger limitation is that if you are flying in an "Economic Interest Zone" of someone this belligerent in an Unmanned aircraft, they'd probably just shoot it down. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 07:15:12 -0400 From: "Frank Markus" Subject: RE: SR-71 The problem that I see for a UAV is that, while it may be able to accomplish its data-collection mission, it is unable to defend itself. Of course, most intelligence gathering aircraft are unarmed but the presence of people onboard who can report (and possibly record) attempts to interfere with the aircraft would be lacking in a UAV. Assume that out P3 had been a Global Hawk (or other UAV), all that the Chinese need to have done would be to shoot it down and then act perplexed. Do messages from the crew, no crew, no problem. This is yet another reason that there is still a need for a "man in the loop" who can react flexibly to unforeseen situations. There are, of course, many situations in which it is entirely acceptable - and even preferable - to send an expendable (and, hopefully, cheap) machine rather than risk a man. But I believe that the mission of off-shore intelligence gathering and the equipment required to accomplish it are too complex and expensive and are best accomplished by manned aircraft. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Wei-Jen Su Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 1:28 AM To: Skunk Works Group Subject: Re: SR-71 On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, David Lednicer wrote: > If someone's asking about alternative platforms, the answer is RC-135s or > ships. How about in 5 years for now, using a UAV (bigger and more capable than the Global Hawk of course) to replace EP-3 as suggested by Time? I wonder if the EP-3 electronics are passive or active. If it is passive, another replacement can be a stealth manned airplane for far future. 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: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 08:12:02 -0400 From: John Stone Subject: Re: SR71/A-12 Hello Skunkers and David, David wrote: >Can anyone tell me: > 1. Total number of SR71/A-12 produced ? >2. Where are they now ? > >3. History of the bird now at Duxford (was it ever stationed at >Mildenhall ?) > >Just idle curosity I'm afraid, and yes you can "phone a friend" I have that info on my Blackbirds web page: http://www.blackbirds.net , hey there's even an article by Art Hanley! BTW there were 50 produced..... >David Lednicer > wrote: > > > > Art - get over it. The EP-3E co-existed with the SR-71 for most of the > > late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. The reason is that there is no space in an > > SR-71 to cram in 20 or so Ravens, actively operating SIGINT, ELINT and > > COMINT gear. Additionally, the EP-3E has far more volume for monitoring > > gear and it has a take time 10 times greater than the SR-71, due to its > > low speed. I'll say it again: read the memoirs of the crews, especially > > Graham's "SR-71 Revealed, the Inside. I think David Lednicer needs to read Grahams book again. The SR was considered an excellent, signals int platform. In fact, if David L. was at the Virginia Aviation Museum SR Forum, last year, he would have heard an excellent description of why the SR is an excellent elint platform. Best, John John Stone http://www.blackbirds,net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:28:31 -0500 (CDT) From: Todd Madson Subject: SR-71 Hypothetical question: If the SR-71 aircraft should prove to be needed again (unlikely, but go with it) would it be possible to pull some of the museum duty aircraft from static display to flyable again? This is discussing aircraft that hasn't had their wings torn off and reattached or other structural problems. It sounds very unlikely, but it seems stupid that such a capable national resource is being grounded by politics. This, of course, is presuming that nothing better was ever created. - -- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:27:55 -0500 From: "Robert S. Hopkins, III" Subject: EP-3 vs SR-71 or RC-135 >No one claims that an SR-71 could do all that an EP-3 can >(apparently, neither can an RC-135).I also find it doubtful that an >RC-135 would have been able to avoid the >situation any better than an EP-3, neither being known as high-agility >aircraft. I have to disagree with these generalized assessments. Readers may well recall the debate in the late 1990s about the future of the U.S. strategic reconnaissance fleet, which was well documented in AW&ST. One significant solution was to park the RC-135 fleet and beef up the EP-3 fleet. This was rejected because of the limitations of the EP-3 versus the RC-135 in terms of range, endurance, payload, and operational demands. Moreover, interservice rivalry meant that neither service would yield what it saw as its rightful and preeminent place in peacetime operations of a critical nature. The issue of agility is irrelevant to the collision, as the F-8 ran into the EP-3. In this case, it wouldn't have mattered if the U.S. was flying an F-15 or a 747---it is a matter of who struck who through poor airmanship. If it matters, an RC-135 doesn't have propellers, which one may speculate, *might* have prevented the loss of the F-8. Although my own bias toward the value of the RC-135 is apparent, I am sure that my colleagues in the EP-3 world will agree that the RC-135's altitude advantage, for example, gives it the ability to "hear" farther than the EP-3 at lower altitudes. Moreover, specific technical advantages are component specific, rather than airframe specific. If you can put it in an EP-3 you can put it in an RC-135 (which, incidentally, is better suited to support the electrical demands of all that equipment). Although this is superficially off topic, it does suggest that allegiance to a platform (SR-71 versus something else, for example) can---but not necessarily---obscure the real value of the sensors on board that platform. Robert ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:18:25 -0400 From: John Stone Subject: Re: SR-71 All, Todd Madson wrote: >Hypothetical question: >If the SR-71 aircraft should prove to be needed again (unlikely, but >go with it) would it be possible to pull some of the museum duty aircraft >from static display to flyable again? It's possible but expensive, more then likely they would take back NASA's birds. Though this will never happen of course! >It sounds very unlikely, but it seems stupid that such a capable national >resource is being grounded by politics. It sounds unlikely, but that was exactly why the SR was killed, politics. >This, of course, is presuming that nothing better was ever created. If something better has been created where and what is it......and why has so many folks asked for SR usage, after it was brought back, but was denied by AF officials and told the U-2 could do the job as well. Best, John John Stone http://www.blackbirds,net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 08:49:39 +0000 From: Robin Hill Subject: Re: SR-71 crash@waste.org wrote on 19/04/01: >Hypothetical question: >If the SR-71 aircraft should prove to be needed again (unlikely, but >go with it) would it be possible to pull some of the museum duty aircraft >from static display to flyable again? It's not just a matter of topping up the hydraulic systems and flushing the fuel tanks. You'd have to creat a lot of backup infrastructure. Just restarting the paperwork trails would be a massive job. Unless you co-opted, say, the NASA high-speed research facilities I'd say it was nigh impossible without spending shed loads of money. Static display specimens tend to have had sensitive items removed from them and replaced with non-flight equipment or, in extreme cases, faked bits, space replicas or just plain ordinary "looks good" junk - the TSR-2 in Hendon has a system ground test set bodged into a gap in an equipment bay just to fill a hole. No matter how well looked-after a grounded aircraft is, stuff like seals, hoses and the like deteriorates and corrosion starts its insidious work. Moving parts that are not exercised regularly gradually force lubrication away from contacting points and eventually seize. Storing a complete aircraft is a different kettle of fish than an inventory of parts that can be properly packaged and protected. You either keep the aircraft flying - which means continuing consumables bills and expensive maintenance - or not at all. >It sounds very unlikely, but it seems stupid that such a capable national >resource is being grounded by politics. That is a prime function of politics - it's not about providing a service it's about scoring points off your opponents. >This, of course, is presuming that nothing better was ever created. Ah, there's the rub... Robin Hill, STEAMY BESS, Brough, East Yorkshire. ******************************************************************** This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person. ******************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 21:49:47 +0100 From: "Amanda & David Linthwaite" Subject: RE: SR-71 Thanks to all sources for the replies to my email. 50 Blackbirds,wow! Can't believe that such a national asset has been wasted so effectively. Any chance of Dubya reinstating some of these now that Cold War II ("Just when you thought it was safe to turn swords to ploughshares") seems to heading towards theatres near you? Can't think of a better thing to swoop over those rice paddies ! - -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of John Stone Sent: 19 April 2001 23:18 To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: SR-71 All, Todd Madson wrote: >Hypothetical question: >If the SR-71 aircraft should prove to be needed again (unlikely, but >go with it) would it be possible to pull some of the museum duty aircraft >from static display to flyable again? It's possible but expensive, more then likely they would take back NASA's birds. Though this will never happen of course! >It sounds very unlikely, but it seems stupid that such a capable national >resource is being grounded by politics. It sounds unlikely, but that was exactly why the SR was killed, politics. >This, of course, is presuming that nothing better was ever created. If something better has been created where and what is it......and why has so many folks asked for SR usage, after it was brought back, but was denied by AF officials and told the U-2 could do the job as well. Best, John John Stone http://www.blackbirds,net ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 20 Apr 101 23:47:57 GMT From: betnal@ns.net Subject: Re: EP-3 vs SR-71 or RC-135 On 4/19/01 8:27AM, in message , "R > > I have to disagree with these generalized assessments. > > Readers may well recall the debate in the late 1990s about the future > of the U.S. strategic reconnaissance fleet, which was well documented > in AW&ST. One significant solution was to park the RC-135 fleet and > beef up the EP-3 fleet. This was rejected because of the limitations > of the EP-3 versus the RC-135 in terms of range, endurance, payload, > and operational demands. Moreover, interservice rivalry meant that > neither service would yield what it saw as its rightful and > preeminent place in peacetime operations of a critical nature. All of this is true. However, at this point in time, it seems that the EP-3, was the type needed for this mission, and that's what I was referring to. BTW, if teh the3 had uncovered in addition to wht withwas sent out for, totally new signals, it's likely that an RC-135 from USAF's 55th Wing would hafollowown a folow-up mission. > > The issue of agility is irrelevant to the collision, as the F-8 ran > into the EP-3. In this case, it wouldn't have mattered if the U.S. > was flying an F-15 or a 747---it is a matter of who struck who > through poor airmanship. This is not completely true, but I think you're reading a slam against the - -135 into my message that wasn't there. What I was simply saying is that neither the EP-3 or the RC-135 would have been able to evade a J-8 doing what Wong Wei was reported as doing. Either one would have been hit. . Neither of the above platforms are stars at evasive maneuvering. That's why the fault of the collision lies with the fighter. In fact, even if the F-8 was "struck" by the EP-3, it's still the fault of the fighter for forcing it into a lumbering evasive maneuver. > If it matters, an RC-135 doesn't have > propellers, which one may speculate, *might* have prevented the loss > of the F-8. On the other hand, it does have engines on pylons below the wings which would have been even more likely to be hit. Also, if one of those engines got hit, there's not just a propeller to get dented. The whole engine could have probably come off messily, and probably causing damage from which the RC-135 would not have been able to recover. Again, this isn't a slam at the RC-135. > > Although my own bias toward the value of the RC-135 is apparent, I am > sure that my colleagues in the EP-3 world will agree that the > RC-135's altitude advantage, for example, gives it the ability to > "hear" farther than the EP-3 at lower altitudes. Moreover, specific > technical advantages are component specific, rather than airframe > specific. If you can put it in an EP-3 you can put it in an RC-135 > (which, incidentally, is better suited to support the electrical > demands of all that equipment). Yes, but not cheaply. For whatever reason there may have been a choice not to, or USAF didn't have assets available or interest in this type of mission, or whatever. In this case an EP-3 was sent rather than an RC-135, but if the reverse had happened it's quite likely that the situation still would have arisen. > > Although this is superficially off topic, it does suggest that > allegiance to a platform (SR-71 versus something else, for example) > can---but not necessarily---obscure the real value of the sensors on > board that platform. > The SR never could carry the sensors either of these aircraft could. Although its sensors would be kept up to current technology, max sensor weight (of all types) that could be carried on a mission remains 8,000 lbs. An SR is not an appropriate vehicle to go out and see if anything is happening, or use without a specific target in mind. It's not a good vehicle if you're going to have to spend hours in an area trying to collect SIGINT on the entire spectrum (SR would have to change out equipment to cover different portions whereas both of the above platforms could carry enough to cover the whole range). In the mission in question, though, we were reportedly looking for a specific target with specific objectives. In this type of mission, the SR works quite well. Part of the collection could be with onboard assets. However, one other way this was often done was for the SR to "stimulate" the objective into radiating (which is what we were trying to collect). Other platforms, airborne or subsurface, could also collect (maybe even the lion's share) during this period but could remain safely distant out of harm's way. That's really all I was trying to say. For this mission's reported objectives, if we still had the SR-71, we could have flown it more successfully with much less risk. As far as cost goes, for what we're probably going to pay to replace the EP-3 (if we do) we could have maintained the SR capability we had from when it was vetoed in '77 right up to today. Add in what we'll have to spend to compensate for the Chinese selling their reverse-engineered versions of our equipment and you get to quite a tidy sum. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 19:54:25 -0500 From: George R. Kasica Subject: Server Downtime For Disk Upgrades beginning at 1200 CDT (1700 GMT) 22 April 2001 Hello: Beginning at 1200 CDT (1700 GMT) on April 22, 2001 all server systems that run this list will be unavailable so that the disk drives can be upgraded. This upgrade will result in the disk capacity increasing from its present 16GB up to 120GB. The duration of the outage is expected to be no longer than 12 hours ending at 0000 CDT (0500 GMT) April 23, 2000. No data will be lost during this upgrade. Thank you, ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 513 8503 President +1 206 374 6482 FAX Netwrx Consulting Inc. Waukesha, WI USA http://www.netwrx1.com georgek@netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 07:08:00 -0500 From: Todd Madson Subject: Interesting video of thrust vectored SU37.... Hello all: I found an interesting video at the Art Bell website of all things of the Russian SU37 doing some what I'd say are AMAZING maneuvers. Since I don't know how long he keeps stuff up there I'm hosting it off my OSX box at http://pod.ath.cx/su37.mpg and it's quite the little video. Comments? I've never seen aircraft doing things quite like this - somersaults, etc. Can the F-22 do similar things? It's almost like an aerial ballet. Enjoy. - -Todd ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 17:32:51 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Fwd: A washingtonpost.com article from a washingtonpost.com user they have already replaced the F.E.(on C-130Js) with a computer,hmmmnn,i wonder if some day some thing will replace the pilot(s). wayne >You have been sent this message from a washingtonpost.com user as a >courtesy of the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com). > >To view the entire article, go to >http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24800-2001Apr16.html > >The Robot With the Mind of an Eel > >Scientists at Northwestern University have combined a mechanical device >with living tissue, using an immature lamprey eel's brain to control a >robot the size of a hockey puck. > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 11:00:40 -0700 From: Dennis Lapcewich Subject: OT - ANZAC Day I recently returned to the USA after a number of years In Australia. Some habits die hard, like staying on this list, even if my contributions can never match the quality of so many here. :) Another habit that dies hard is to remember. As I type this, dawn is breaking in Australia - 25 April 2001. ANZAC Day. With the recent incidents America has faced with respect to a submarine and its crew, and a few flyers aboard an EP-3, we must not forget why they do what they do. I make no apologies for this OT post. On 25 April 1915, soldiers from the combined Australian and New Zealand military forces (the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, or ANZACs) were ordered to storm the beaches at Suvla Bay, Turkey. Better known as Gallipoli, this decision by their British commanders (who remained offshore as typical of British military commanders of the day who regularly ordered their colonies' men to battle while British soldiers were kept out of harms way), would result in the greatest military defeat in Australian history. For 86 years, one day in the year has involved the whole of Australia in solemn ceremonies of remembrance, gratitude and national pride for all our men and women who have fought and died in all wars. That day is ANZAC Day - 25 April. Every nation, sooner or later, must come for the first time to a supreme test of quality; and the result of that test will hearten or dishearten those who come afterwards. For the fledgling nation of Australia that first supreme test was at Gallipoli. As an American who lived DownUnder, I am amazed that on one day of the year, Aussies of all ages, including ever-increasing numbers of young people, put aside *everything* and remember. I am amazed because Australians could give a rat's ass for anything ceremonial other than to enjoy a casual lifestyle, a cold beer and a shrimp on the barbie. But on this day, they all remember. And you don't have to be an Australian here to feel what freedom is all about. Lest we forget.... "They shall grow not old ... as we that are left grow old "Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn* "At the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we will remember them ..." ANZAC Australia New Zealand Army Corps * "contemn" original interpretation for "contempt" To all on this list who served, who are serving, and especially to those made the supreme sacrifice in the defense of freedom, thank you. Thanks Dad (Sgt - United States Marine Corps, WWII), Mom (Sgt - United States Army, WWII), and Big Brother (Sgt - United States Army, Vietnam). Dennis - ------------------------------------------- Dennis Lapcewich Techno-GandyDancer Intira Corporation Pleasanton, California 94588 http://www.intira.com dlapcewich@intira.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:53:06 -0500 From: George R. Kasica Subject: Re: OT - ANZAC Day >Lest we forget.... > >"They shall grow not old ... as we that are left grow old >"Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn* >"At the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we will remember them >..." > >ANZAC Australia New Zealand Army Corps >* "contemn" original interpretation for "contempt" > >To all on this list who served, who are serving, and especially to those >made the supreme sacrifice in the defense of freedom, thank you. > >Thanks Dad (Sgt - United States Marine Corps, WWII), Mom (Sgt - United >States Army, WWII), and Big Brother (Sgt - United States Army, Vietnam). > > >Dennis I don't see it as off topic Dennis, and I'll add my own bit in term of a signature for my Dad & Uncle who both served in WW-II with the US Army...Uncle Ralph was 19 at the time and he was awarded a silver star, unfortunately it was a posthumous award for his service at Anzio Beach Italy. Dad served a bit later at Okinawa, and was 100% disabled as a result. Thanks Dad - Raymond S. Kasica (2/24/27 - 3/2/01) Thanks Ralph Kasica George ===[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 V10 #21 ********************************* 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