From owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Mon Jul 30 20:10:09 2001 Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 11:54:12 -0500 From: skunk-works-digest Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V10 #28 skunk-works-digest Monday, July 30 2001 Volume 10 : Number 028 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** U-2 over Iraq Re: U-2 over Iraq Re: U-2 over Iraq RE: U-2 over Iraq RE: U-2 over Iraq Re: U-2 over Iraq Re: U-2 over Iraq Re: U-2 over Iraq Global Hawk bases selected (fwd) U-2 Crash in Thailand and other stealth information (fwd) FWD (TLCB) Re: B-52 and KC-10 (U-2 Question) Re: skunk-works-digest V10 #26 (fwd) U-2 Crash in Thailand and other stealth information Re: SR Manual on-line Re: SR Manual on-line *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 09:23:55 -0700 From: "Jon Price (PJ)" Subject: U-2 over Iraq And now, for something completely different! 8<) It appears that Iraq almost succeded in downing a U-2 over the no-fly zone a couple of days ago. Now, the U.S. says that they will not directly overfly these areas any longer, but will gather the information they want by flying around the edges of the areas of interest. Might work good for elint, but what about optical intel? Looks like a job for the obsolete 40 year old SR. "But we can doo the same job with satellites." Then why are they overflying the area with manned aircraft in the first place? PJ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 12:28:12 -0400 From: "Pat Griffith" Subject: Re: U-2 over Iraq >Looks like a job for the obsolete 40 year old SR. >From what I gather, the near-shootdown was just lucky. The missile wasn't guided and didn't have any sort of tracking system -- it was just fired blindly in the general direction of the U2. So if the Iraqis can blindly almost hit a U-2, they can probably blindly almost hit anything (including an SR-71). :) Pat _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 13:18:31 -0400 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: Re: U-2 over Iraq 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_01C116C0.2F03D31A Content-Type: text/plain There was a close call for an Orion too, I think it was just a few days ago... and they weren't even over Iraq, they were in Kuwaiti airspace! Greg W - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C116C0.2F03D31A Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: U-2 over Iraq

There was a close call for an Orion = too, I think it was just a few days ago... and they weren't even over = Iraq, they were in Kuwaiti airspace!  

Greg W

- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C116C0.2F03D31A-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 12:28:03 -0700 From: "T. Toth" Subject: RE: U-2 over Iraq This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C11697.94AFB360 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Re: U-2 over IraqActually it was an E-2C Hawkeye, I'm not even sure that shot was that close but since they seemed to be the closest to where the missile exploded, and that they managed to track it... Apparently they may also have taken the guidance system of several missiles to increase payload ; fuel or explosives (this was reported by CNN). Since they only use surveillance radars and not tracking radars taking the tracking system off makes sense. It also means that the flyers out there are only aware of surveillance radars and do not know when they are being shot at, unless they have an active Missile warning system and that the missile comes close enough, of course there is still the old eyeball MK1 tracking/warning system :-). So basically since they have to calculate trajectory they only have a (even if remote) chance against aircraft flying predictable trajectories, such as surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, which have to fly straight and steady. T. T. -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Weigold, Greg Sent: July 27, 2001 10:19 AM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: U-2 over Iraq There was a close call for an Orion too, I think it was just a few days ago... and they weren't even over Iraq, they were in Kuwaiti airspace! Greg W - ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C11697.94AFB360 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: U-2 over Iraq
Actually it was an E-2C Hawkeye, I'm not even sure that shot = was that=20 close but since they seemed to be the closest to where the missile = exploded, and=20 that they managed to track it...
Apparently they may also have taken the guidance = system of=20 several missiles to increase payload ; fuel or explosives (this was = reported by=20 CNN). Since they only use surveillance radars and not tracking=20 radars taking the tracking system off makes sense. It also means = that the=20 flyers out there are only aware of surveillance radars and do not know = when they=20 are being shot at, unless they have an active Missile warning = system and=20 that the missile comes close enough, of course there is still the old = eyeball=20 MK1 tracking/warning system :-).
So=20 basically since they have to calculate trajectory they only have a (even = if=20 remote) chance against aircraft flying predictable trajectories, such as = surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, which have to fly straight and = steady.
 
T.=20 T.
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com = [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On=20 Behalf Of Weigold, Greg
Sent: July 27, 2001 10:19=20 AM
To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com
Subject: Re: U-2 = over=20 Iraq

There was a close call for an Orion too, = I think it=20 was just a few days ago... and they weren't even over Iraq, they were = in=20 Kuwaiti airspace!  

Greg W =

- ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C11697.94AFB360-- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 15:39:10 -0400 From: "Weigold, Greg" Subject: RE: U-2 over Iraq 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_01C116D3.D1C36F62 Content-Type: text/plain What I read said that they saw the flash and a missle plume, but that it was not even considered a near miss... But since it was over Kuwait, there is no excuse that the plane was in Iraqi airspace.... And of course they are unarmed.... GW "T. Toth" 07/27/2001 15:28 Please respond to skunk-works To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com@SMTP@BlytheExchange cc: Subject: RE: U-2 over Iraq Actually it was an E-2C Hawkeye, I'm not even sure that shot was that close but since they seemed to be the closest to where the missile exploded, and that they managed to track it... Apparently they may also have taken the guidance system of several missiles to increase payload ; fuel or explosives (this was reported by CNN). Since they only use surveillance radars and not tracking radars taking the tracking system off makes sense. It also means that the flyers out there are only aware of surveillance radars and do not know when they are being shot at, unless they have an active Missile warning system and that the missile comes close enough, of course there is still the old eyeball MK1 tracking/warning system :-). So basically since they have to calculate trajectory they only have a (even if remote) chance against aircraft flying predictable trajectories, such as surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, which have to fly straight and steady. T. T. -----Original Message----- From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com]On Behalf Of Weigold, Greg Sent: July 27, 2001 10:19 AM To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Subject: Re: U-2 over Iraq There was a close call for an Orion too, I think it was just a few days ago... and they weren't even over Iraq, they were in Kuwaiti airspace! Greg W - ------_=_NextPart_001_01C116D3.D1C36F62 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: U-2 over Iraq

          What I read said that they saw the = flash and a missle plume, but that it was not even considered a near = miss...

          But since it was over Kuwait, there is = no excuse that the plane was in Iraqi airspace....

          And of course they are = unarmed....

          GW






        "T. Toth" <ttoth
@primus.ca>

        07/27/2001 15:28
        Please respond to skunk-works
                =        =20

        To:     skunk-works@netwrx1.com@SMTP@BlytheExchange
        cc:    
        Subject:        = RE: U-2 over = Iraq      

          Actually it was an = E-2C Hawkeye, I'm not even sure that shot was that close but since they = seemed to be the closest to where the missile exploded, and that they = managed to track it...

          Apparently they = may also have taken the guidance system of several missiles = to increase payload ; fuel or explosives (this was reported by CNN). = Since they only use surveillance radars and not tracking = radars taking the tracking system off makes sense. It also means = that the flyers out there are only aware of surveillance radars and do = not know when they are being shot at, unless they have an active = Missile warning system and that the missile comes close enough, of = course there is still the old eyeball MK1 tracking/warning system = :-).

          So basically since = they have to calculate trajectory they only have a (even if remote) = chance against aircraft flying predictable trajectories, such as = surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft, which have to fly straight = and steady.

           
          T. T.

            -----Original Message-----
            From: owner-skunk-works@netwrx1.com [mailto:owner-skunk-works@n= etwrx1.com]On Behalf = Of Weigold, Greg
            Sent: July 27, 2001 10:19 AM
            To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com
            Subject: Re: U-2 over Iraq



            There was a close call for an Orion = too, I think it was just a few days ago... and they weren't even over = Iraq, they were in Kuwaiti airspace!  

            Greg W =



- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C116D3.D1C36F62-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 12:44:41 +0100 From: Art Hanley Subject: Re: U-2 over Iraq Pat Griffith wrote: > > >Looks like a job for the obsolete 40 year old SR. > > >From what I gather, the near-shootdown was just lucky. The missile wasn't > guided and didn't have any sort of tracking system -- it was just fired > blindly in the general direction of the U2. So if the Iraqis can blindly > almost hit a U-2, they can probably blindly almost hit anything (including > an SR-71). :) > > Pat > Basic difference: U-2, good as it is, is not cabbala of performing defensive maneuvering to change course and put a significant distance between it and an unguided SAM. SR is. BTW, I don't mean 6g turns like a fighter would at lower altitudes. At 80,000 ft and M3.2, any turn puts a lof of ditance between you and where you would have been if you hadn't turned. Since the SAM in this case is unguided, it won't make nay attempt to follow you. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 12:45:14 +0100 From: Art Hanley Subject: Re: U-2 over Iraq Pat Griffith wrote: > > >Looks like a job for the obsolete 40 year old SR. > > >From what I gather, the near-shootdown was just lucky. The missile wasn't > guided and didn't have any sort of tracking system -- it was just fired > blindly in the general direction of the U2. So if the Iraqis can blindly > almost hit a U-2, they can probably blindly almost hit anything (including > an SR-71). :) > > Pat > Basic difference: U-2, good as it is, is not cabbala of performing defensive maneuvering to change course and put a significant distance between it and an unguided SAM. SR is. BTW, I don't mean 6g turns like a fighter would at lower altitudes. At 80,000 ft and M3.2, any turn puts a lot of distance between you and where you would have been if you hadn't turned. Since the SAM in this case is unguided, it won't make any attempt to follow you. Art ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 13:18:15 +0100 From: Art Hanley Subject: Re: U-2 over Iraq I have no idea why my previous message showed up twice. Sorry ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 21:56:16 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Global Hawk bases selected the Air Force selected Beale Air Force Base, Calif., as the first Global Hawk main operating base. http://www.af.mil/news/n20010727_1023.shtml ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 10:25:55 -0500 From: George R. Kasica Subject: (fwd) U-2 Crash in Thailand and other stealth information On Sat, 28 Jul 2001 08:32:43 -0700, "Terry W. Colvin" wrote: George, Please post this to Skunk-Works. Perhaps the Air Force Association web article is not a duplicate. Guess I forgot this one, wonder where it went down? Mac < http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2001/0701secrets.html > When Secrets Crash Less than a month before Powers's fateful flight, another U-2 had made a crash landing, this time into a rice paddy in Thailand. In contrast to the Atsugi incident, the only publicity in this case was an article in a local newspaper reporting on the crash of a jet airplane. Because the area was inaccessible to large vehicles, the airplane could not simply be hauled out of the rice paddy. Instead, it had to be cut into pieces. Then, with the assistance of local villagers, those pieces were hauled by oxcart to a place where they could be loaded on trucks. One night, the trucks carried the dismembered aircraft through Bangkok to Don Muang airfield. There, it was loaded onto a C-124 cargo airplane and flown back to the US. The CIA, to show its appreciation for the villagers' efforts, provided $500 to build a new school. - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@mindspring.com > 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 >[Vietnam veterans, Allies, and CIA/NSA are welcome] ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 677 0766 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 206 374 6482 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com Jackson, 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 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:53:48 -0500 From: George R. Kasica Subject: (fwd) FWD (TLCB) Re: B-52 and KC-10 (U-2 Question) On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 08:35:48 -0700, "Terry W. Colvin" wrote: George, Please forward this to the Skunk-Works list. Terry - ----- Terry There seem to be a lot of gray area about the early U-2 IFR capabiities. I've seen several different versions since this discussion got started. Each source I run across seems to have a slightly different opinion, although most don't go back to the late 50s or very early 60s. I personally believe the following statement covers the reason why inflight refueling wasn't used very often. The U-2 had decent long range and loiter time, and just how long would you want to keep a pilot cramped in the cockpit? They were bear to fly because of the narrow airspeed window. Most deployments were launched fairly close to the target area. IFR wasn't a requirement. I know the pilots on my deployment missions were glad to climb out, walk around and grab a bite to eat. Edwards to Loring to Upper Heyford, with only a 2 hour refueling stop at Loring would wear anyone out. Operational missions of eight hours over hostile territory would be even worse. I witnessed one fly from Hickum to Anderson, which took it about eight hours. A RON at Guam. The U-2 always launched before the Tanker and landed afterward. >As Jay Miller has pointed out, the long wing U-2 models have no need for in-flight refueling as they can carry enough gas to out-last their pilots.< All IMHO, and personal observation as a Tanker troop along for the ride in the late 60s. Hap Howard S. "Hap" Wyman TLCB Membership Committee Aircraft Radio Maintenance 56th AEMS ~ 56th Air Commando Wing Nakhon Phanom RTAFB, 1968-69 Oxcart Support ~ "Black Shield" Ops 903rd ARS/KC-135Q ~ Kadena AB, 1967 456th AEMS ~ Beale AFB, 1966-68 Member ~ ACA ^Õ TLCB ^Õ VFW #10249 At 09:58 AM 1/28/01 -0700, you wrote: >Terry, > >I hope this is the one you're requesting. I am forwarding the reply from >my buddy at Beale. > >Bzaza > >********************************************************* >To the best of my knowledge the U2 has never had a successful in air refueling >capability. They (SKUNK WORKS) tried it on the C model. The system worked good >on the ground but caused too much air turbulence when they tried to refuel in >the air. From what I learned and pictures that I've seen the two aircraft that >were modified crashed trying to refuel. SAC had 4 U-2E IRS-equipped aircraft beginning in about 1962. They conducted many successful missions using in-flight refueling including Cuba missions from Del Rio and overseas deployments to the Far East. The CIA had a number of U-2F IRS-equipped aircraft. They usually had 3 or 4 on strength from 1962 till the late 1960s. The Agency also used in-flight refueling frequently and, just as SAC did, kept its pilots proficient in the technique. One SAC pilot was killed during refueling practice in a CIA aircraft in March 1962. The other in-flight refueling loss occurred in Feb. 1966 when another CIA U-2 was over-stressed and broke up as the pilot began his climbout after successfully refueling. As Jay Miller has pointed out, the long wing U-2 models have no need for in-flight refueling as they can carry enough gas to out-last their pilots. >Also note that the early U2s that were used to take photos of foreign >countries did not return to the same base that they departed from. A blanket statement which is untrue. Some missions recovered at bases distinct from their launch points but by no means all. Joe Donoghue - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@mindspring.com > 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 >[Vietnam veterans, Allies, and CIA/NSA are welcome] George, MR. Tibbs, Nazerene & The Beast Kasica(8/1/88-3/19/01) Jaxkson, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com http://www.netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 Zz zZ |\ z _,,,---,,_ /,`.-'`' _ ;-;;,_ |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'_' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 02:23:54 GMT From: anodyne@senet.com.au Subject: Re: skunk-works-digest V10 #26 > Re: YF-113G > "The U.S. Air Force' YF-113G aircraft has been identified as a 1970s stealth > testbed and as a MiG-23, but both of these are wrong, according to an > observer and some USAF documentation. The YF-113G was a 'classified > prototype' that was brought from 'design to first flight' in a 'classified > flight test squadron' in the 1993-96 time frame. Alright (seeing no one else has ...) I'll put this forward - is this the famed Aurora? (Groans of derision from the back noted). I have not read anything else about the 'YF-113G', the YF designation might as well be ignored bearing in mind the other misinformation - can someone provide more information? Steve P.S. Any replies as to it crashing at Boscombe Down will be ignored... - ------------------------------------------- This message was sent using SE Net Webmail. http://webmail.senet.com.au/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 11:25:48 -0500 From: George R. Kasica Subject: (fwd) U-2 Crash in Thailand and other stealth information On Sat, 28 Jul 2001 08:32:43 -0700, "Terry W. Colvin" wrote: George, Please post this to Skunk-Works. Perhaps the Air Force Association web article is not a duplicate. Guess I forgot this one, wonder where it went down? Mac < http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2001/0701secrets.html > When Secrets Crash Less than a month before Powers's fateful flight, another U-2 had made a crash landing, this time into a rice paddy in Thailand. In contrast to the Atsugi incident, the only publicity in this case was an article in a local newspaper reporting on the crash of a jet airplane. Because the area was inaccessible to large vehicles, the airplane could not simply be hauled out of the rice paddy. Instead, it had to be cut into pieces. Then, with the assistance of local villagers, those pieces were hauled by oxcart to a place where they could be loaded on trucks. One night, the trucks carried the dismembered aircraft through Bangkok to Don Muang airfield. There, it was loaded onto a C-124 cargo airplane and flown back to the US. The CIA, to show its appreciation for the villagers' efforts, provided $500 to build a new school. - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@mindspring.com > 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 >[Vietnam veterans, Allies, and CIA/NSA are welcome] ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 677 0766 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 206 374 6482 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com Jackson, 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 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 11:52:49 -0500 From: George R. Kasica Subject: Re: SR Manual on-line On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 12:00:58 -0400, you wrote: >George?? > > LOL>..thats what I get for going on a 2.5 day SCUBA class...LOL... Address is: Netwrx Consulting Inc. N165 W20901 Glencoe Lane Jackson WI 53037 USA ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 677 0766 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 206 374 6482 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com Jackson, 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 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 11:54:04 -0500 From: George R. Kasica Subject: Re: SR Manual on-line Send it to ftp.netwrx1.com and place it in the pub/incoming directory. George >Better yet, if George can provide me with an ftp address, I can upload >it to his server for those with broadband access. And the option is >still open for those that want it on a CD. > >Greg M > >-----Original Message----- >From: Greg Meland >Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 12:00 PM >To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com >Subject: RE: SR Manual on-line > > >I can do that with an address. > >Greg M > >-----Original Message----- >From: Weigold, Greg [mailto:GregWeigold@mynd.com] >Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 11:58 AM >To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com >Subject: RE: SR Manual on-line > > > > Greg, >Why don't you burn that file onto the CD and then send it to George... >That way folks who have broadband connections can get it from there and >those with dialup can get it from you.... > > Thoughts gang? > > Greg W > > > > > > > Greg Meland @meland.net> > > > 07/27/2001 11:49 >Please respond to skunk-works > > > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com@SMTP@BlytheExchange > cc: > Subject: RE: SR Manual on-line > > > I'm rather new to the list, but I've downloaded the SR-71 Flight >Manual >entirely and put it in a *.pdf file. I would be happy to put it on a CD > >and mail it to those individuals interested if I could get reimbursed >for the CDs and postage. Let me know either on the list or privately. > >Greg Meland >greg@meland.net > > -----Original Message----- >From: Weigold, Greg [ mailto:GregWeigold@mynd.com > ] >Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 10:15 AM >To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com >Subject: Re: SR Manual on-line > > > > That would be cool... I have a free/shareware >downloader called >GetRight, it will restart and do all kinds of stuff, but you have to pay > >for it if you want the filtering functions that will let it go against a > >site and download all *.pdf or *.doc files or whatever... I'd pay for >it, but in 3 years of using it this is the first time I ever wanted to >do this and I'm not sure I'd ever want the extra functionality again... > > Greg W > > > > I've got a smart downloader (downloaded from the Web a >year or >two ago) >that will restart if it gets stopped in a long document, but I don't >know if it will work for a lot of documents instead of just one. > > Might this fit on a 100MB Zip disk? If so, maybe we >could break >up the >task and have a round robin of Zip disk copying. > > > > > > > ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 677 0766 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 206 374 6482 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com Jackson, 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 #28 ********************************* 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