HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Two Tidbits
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Date: 13 Nov 1992 17:43:34 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com



In article <1992Nov13.013326.14626@athena.mit.edu> mckinney@athena.mit.edu 
(Ethan L Mckinney) writes:

>Gee, presurrization (sp?) of a gunship sounds like a really bad idea.  
>You have to expect them to get shot up -- what happens then?


Everybody's head explodes.  :)

Where cabin pressurization would be most useful for the crew of an AC-130
would be not during the actual mission, but during transit to and from
the area of operations.  You can save a lot of fuel by flying at higher
altitudes, often avoid hostile ground fire and rough weather, and most 
important of all, the air conditioning works better. 

When I was in the Coast Guard out in Hawaii, one of our HC-130s was on
a routine overnight stay at Midway.  The crew encountered an AC-130 on
the flight line when they arrived.  Talking to the Air Force crew later
and comparing notes, it was discovered that the plane had flown in from
Clark Field in the Phillippines on its way back to the States, and was
restricted to altitudes of 10,000 feet and below due to lack of pressur-
ization and a finite oxygen supply.  



Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM  + + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: 003166j@ace.acadiau.ca (JASON WILLIAM JARVIS)
Subject: Spitfires
Summary: Used by?
Keywords: Info on them.
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:18:45 GMT

I'm just wondering if anybody out there can recommend a good source book on 
the Spit; i.e., who flew her (as in non-Commonwealth countries), what 
models, how many, any mods, and for how long.  Thanks.
From: augustho@aludra.usc.edu (August Horvath)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Mystery B-58
Date: 11 Nov 1992 13:50:54 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu
Keywords: Mystery B-58


In article <1992Nov11.160806.27240@news2.cis.umn.edu> rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin) writes:

>The FAA has a list of "certifiable" warbirds.  It's one of those strange
>things that are "carved in stone."  If your aircraft isn't on it, you
>won't fly it.  Period, end of statement.

Maybe not as a certified type, but can't you still register it in the
"limited" or the "experimental" category and fly it that way?  Granted,
there are limitations on how you can then fly it ...

August Horvath
augustho@aludra.usc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: Reason for Retirement (was Re: SR-71 Blackbird)
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 02:55:17 GMT

Kerry Kurasaki writes
> I'm surprised that no one has described what it takes to stage
> an SR-71 mission.  Something like 3 tankers (KC-135/KC-10?) are
> required to be on station.  If one of them doesn't make it, then
> the mission is scrubbed.
> 
Not only that, but I seem to remember that because of special fuel  
requirements, dedicated tankers had to be used (ie not your standard  
line KC-135).  Perhaps someone can either correct me or supplu  
additional details (ie what exactly where the requirements?)
--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
spagiola@FRI-nxt-Pagiola.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: simms@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (dan simms)
Subject: Re: SR-71 Blackbird
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 21:57:21 GMT

James_Zuchelli@qm.claris.com (James Zuchelli) writes:

>In article <1992Nov5.182717.27349@cbnews.cb.att.com>, watk@cbnews.cb.att.com (e.l.watkins) writes:
>> 
>> In article <1992Nov4.115631.14579@ugle.unit.no> borud@solan.unit.no writes
>> >I'm looking for some info on the SR-71 Blackbird. Generally data like
>> >when it was designed, when it was built, it's performance spec's
>> >(speed, altitude, climb-rate, manouverability etc. etc.), how many 
>> >were made.....

>I was researching some stuff earlier this year and talked to a PR person at 
>the Pentagon.  She made some calls and got back to me and said the top speed
>of the SR-71 is still classified.

True.  However there is some data available for the YF-12A, since it set
several records. (bummer that only three were ever made).  What I would
like to know is, what the differences in hardware were between the YF-12A
and the SR-71 ??  The few that come to mind are the lack of a weapons bay
(I assume) in the SR-71, the nose change, added surveilance equipment..
were there engine changes? what?

		
					dan

-----
artie@uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: mtissand@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael D Tissandier)
Subject: Re: OV10A BRONCO
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:04:39 GMT

  [some, but not much, deleted]

>strangest thing about the OV-10 was the cargo compartment in the rear designed
 to
>carry a fire team of paratroops.  Check out "A Lonely Kind of War" written by
an
>OV-10 FAC pilot who operated in SVN as well as Laos/Cambodia.  You'll be sick
of
>OV-10s by the time your done...

 A LONELY KIND OF WAR was written by Marshall Harrison, who was a FAC on his
third tour, I believe.  It is a well-written account of OV-10 operations as
well as telling of dropping SF paratroopers out the cargo bay.  If I
remember correctly, Harrison flew Thuds Downtown originally....

  --Mike

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Well, boys, I reckon this is it:  nuclear combat toe to toe,
  with the Rooskies!

        ---Slim Pickens, as Maj. TJ "King" Kong in
            Dr. Strangelove

                  mtissand@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Re: SR-71 Blackbird
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 14:06:29 GMT


ashabana@agsm.ucla.edu (Ahmed Shabana) writes:
 >There is a picture of an A-12 on the flight deck of the USS Intrepid
 >with the editorial staff of Popular Science in the December issue of
 >the magazine. The photo credit says " Location courtesy of the
 >Intrepid Sea Air Space museum". Can I assume that this plane is included
 >in the totals above or is it a copy?

No copy, and yes it was part of that "50".  The Intrepid Sea-Air-Space 
Museum in New York has the second Blackbird built: A-12 #60-6925.

The very first Blackbird, the prototype A-12 #60-6924, is located quite 
fittingly at the Blackbird Airpark in Palmdale, Ca. (Air Force Plant 42).
This is where Lockheed Advanced Development Company did a considerable
amount of ongoing work on SR-71 program.

-dean

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: pettypi@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Carl Pettypiece)
Subject: Re: Aurora (again)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 07:29:48 GMT


Erratum:  That should be Aircraft Illustrated, November 1992
                                               ^^^^^^^^
Sorry
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Pettypiece (pettypi@gaul.csd.uwo.ca)        Disclaimer:  Hell, I don't
Department of Computer Science                   even know if these are MY
University of Western Ontario                    opinions!
From: hill@madrone.eecs.ucdavis.edu (Rich Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Beale AFB open day (11/14)
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:30:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U.C. Davis - Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science

Anybody know anything about this event?  I heard the Thunderbirds will be
there but haven't heard anything else.  Is there likely to be anything
special to see at this one?

Thanks
From: wwxiong@champ.ksu.ksu.edu (Weize Wade Xiong)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Wanted: World War 2 Fighter Aircraft Gif.
Date: 8 Nov 1992 17:26:10 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: champ.ksu.ksu.edu


If anyone has WW2 fighter plane pictures (including combat pictures) please
post them. 
Thanks!


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: Reason for Retirement (was Re: SR-71 Blackbird)
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:51:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.042732.29265@athena.mit.edu> cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo) writes:
>
>Shouldn't the SR-71 be kept for these reasons?
>Is it much to expensive?  I find it hard to accept it being
>out of date, its still a hell of a soph aircraft for
>its age.

As someone else already pointed out, $$$ is probably the primary reason.

I'm surprised that no one has described what it takes to stage an SR-71
mission.  Something like 3 tankers (KC-135/KC-10?) are required to
be on station.  If one of them doesn't make it, then the mission is
scrubbed.

A mission profile is something like:  (definitely subject to errors)
after takeoff, tank.

Get to mission area, tank.

Go supersonic.  This is somewhat interesting in that the airplane is
actually more efficient in the supersonic regime.  For each part of
the flight, there is a specific mission profile.  Once they start
heading towards subsonic, there's no turning back [towards highspeed
flight].

Go subsonic, tank.  (I cannot answer if they go supersonic multiple times.)

Go home, possibly tank on the way, and land.

With a minimum of 3 or more tankers and the associated crews, you can
imagine how $$$ operating SR-71s are.  And not only is there maintenance
for the Blackbird, but for the supporting aircraft as well.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: steinarb@idt.unit.no (Steinar Bang)
Subject: Height records and Yeager (Was: SR-71 / MIG-25)
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim, Norway
	<1992Nov11.150014.695@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:21:33

>>>>> dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) writes:

>> I have heard the rate of climb world record still belongs to 
>> MIG-25, I am not sure about the speed record. May be someone
>> could help...

> I believe the only one it still holds is the absolute height record of 
> 123,524 ft., which was set on August 31, 1977.  Rocket planes like the
> X-15 have certainly surpassed that however, and certain newer vehicles
> with "exotic propulsion" methods may have done the same...

What about that Starfighter version mentioned near the ending of "The
Right Stuff", the one Yeager nearly was killed in. Did that plane
really exist? The book is supposedly a documentary.

It was an F-104 fitted with an auxillary rocket engine and maneuvering
jets a la X-15. I don't remember the exact designation, NF-104
something, I think...

- Steinar
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: cpetersn@iastate.edu (Clifton R Peterson)
Subject: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 03:44:16 GMT

In <1e1bbmINN6q9@bigboote.WPI.EDU> megazone@hikita.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23) writes:
>>  F-15 did they hook up the chains to?
   ^^^^^^

>Close to the tailhook mount. 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Funny, I don't remember the navy buying any F-15's? <g>
-- 
 _________________________________________________________________________
/ Clifton R. Peterson    1108 Burnett		(515)232-5254	    	  \
| B.S. Chem E            Ames IA  50010                                   |
\_______________"42"_is_one_hell_of_an_answer!!___________________________/
From: prm@genesis.ecn.purdue.edu (Philip R. Moyer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Aircraft in Museums (was: SR-71 / MIG-25)
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:48:19 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes:
>Given their cost and the presumed need for them in squadron service, it
>surprises me that so many examples of current frontline aircraft are in
>museums.  The B-1A is a test article, of course, and was probably not easily
>modifiable to the operational B-1B configuration.  But the A-10 mentioned
>above is an example of an airframe that I'd have thought would be needed
>out in the field, as is the USAF Museum's F-117A.  Sounds like a waste

The Air Force Museum's 117 is not an F model, but a YF.  It is, like the
B-1 (which is, btw, an A, not a B), a test article.

Many of the current A/C at the Museum have been damaged or in some way
fulfilled their purpose for existing.  I believe the only A/C there that
are still in active service are (this is from memory, so correct me
if I'm wrong :-):

	FB-111
	A-10
	F-15	Streak Eagle
	T-38

I can't think of any others offhand.  Note that they do not have a Falcon
yet.  They also do not have an AC-130 (or any 130 variant, for that matter)
which distresses me to no end....

Cheers!
Phil (who spends entirely too much time at the AF Museum :-)
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: SR-71 Altitude (Was Re: B
Date: 6 Nov 92 17:52:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

RW> .Which reminds me of the Bob Stevens cartoon:

RW> .(Scene:  ATC facility with fairly-new controller working)

RW> ."Center, this is Blackbird 012, we'd like clearance for 120,000 feet."

RW> ."Blackbird 012, if you think you can make it, you're cleared to
  > .try, hee, hee..."

RW> ."Roger, center, Blackbird 012 is out of 130,000, heading down to 120."

RW> .(Undoubtedly an aviation urban legend, but fun nevertheless)

Definitely aviation.urban.legend, but cute...

ATC really doesn't exercise any control above FL600, but they do provide
advisory information.  And the Blackbirds, when operating above FL600
used coded altitudes.  Some reference altitude ("Charlie") was
designated each day, and altitudes were reported as "Charlie +
(something)"

        D/

 * OLX 2.2 * Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                                                       
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Re: SR-71/YF-12
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 10:25:45 GMT


simms@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (dan simms) writes:
 >there is some data available for the YF-12A, since it set
 >several records. 

60-6936 set a series of 12 world records for speed and altitude 
on May 1, 1965... although the SR-71 has since broken them (all?).

 >(bummer that only three were ever made).  

Yep... and only ONE of them still exists.  #935 at the USAF Museum.
936 crashed and burned at Edwards, and the 934 airframe was used
to build the final SR-71 #64-17981.

 >What I would like to know is, what the differences in hardware were 
 >between the YF-12A and the SR-71 ??  The few that come to mind are the 
 >lack of a weapons bay (I assume) in the SR-71, the nose change, added 
 >surveilance equipment..  were there engine changes? what?

Except for early A-12 flight testing, all Blackbirds used the Pratt & Whitney
J-58 turbojet engine.  The YF-12 weapons bays intended to hold four AIM-47
missiles became the SR-71 equipment bays (located in the p/s chines)...
The back seat on the YF-12 is for a WSO (Weapons Systems Officer), which
of course becomes a RSO (Reconnaissance Systems Officer) on the SR.  About 
the most visible difference is the large nose added to the YF to house the 
Hughes ASG-18 radar, and the blunted forward chines where IR sensors were
placed.  The other major external difference is the two ventral fins found
on the YF-12...

-dean

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Subject: Re: Reason for Retirement (was Re: SR-71 Blackbird)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:28:44 GMT

thumper@engin.umich.edu (Bob Topping) writes:


>  That would be the KC-135Q tanker, which could carry the fuel.  I
>  believe, but I'm not positive, that it was very corrosive, which
>  was one of the reasons for the special variant.


	SR crew chiefs have told us of standing around soaked in the
stuff because below 20,000 or 30,00 feet the Blackbird leaks a fair amount
of fuel.  At higher speeds (read as heat expansion) it seals up nicely.
So during ground prep for a mission it was not uncomon for the ground crew
to get a good dousing of JP7.

	Really, I don't get the impression that the fuel made the KC135Q
as different as other systems did.  Not being an expert on the KC I
am probably missing a few things, but I have gotten the feeling that
it has as much to do with things like secure comm links in the boom
and possibly special radio channels as anything else.

	Corrosive? Not really.  Tough to burn, definately.  Guys tried
to light this stuff in buckets with a match and the match would go out.
A propane torch would work - eventually.  To light off an SR engine
reguired a shot of TEB (i think this was tetraethylborane) to get the flash
point down enough to start ignition.

Duane

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: brndlfly@athena.mit.edu (Matthew T Velazquez)
Subject: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:37:52 GMT

geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes:

>Given their cost and the presumed need for them in squadron service, it
>surprises me that so many examples of current frontline aircraft are in
>museums.  The B-1A is a test article, of course, and was probably not easily
>modifiable to the operational B-1B configuration.  But the A-10 mentioned
>above is an example of an airframe that I'd have thought would be needed
>out in the field, as is the USAF Museum's F-117A.  Sounds like a waste
>of assets to put such aircraft on display while the types they represent
>are still in active service.

The A-10 out in front of the Museum is one of the prototypes, so it was donated
to the museum after Fairchildand the Air Force were done with it.  The F-117
there is a YF-117 that was used for static and vibration testing and has 
definitely seen better days.  The skin on the fuselage is just as rippled as
that of the B-52 next to it!

(Notice I made no mention of the Desert Storm A-10 sitting in the Annex at
selfsame Museum ;)

>Until I read this, I'd always assumed that the Streak Eagle was returned
>to a standard configuration and passed along anonymously to a squadron
>as just another F-15.  After all, I take it that this wasn't an extra
>airframe built for the sole purpose of breaking performance records, but
>an airplane diverted from the regular production run.

It would have cost a lot more to reconfigure it than to just get rid of it.
Anyone know the history of Streak Eagle after it set its records?
Besides, the Air Force is kind of sentimental that way.:o)#

			-T

				T Velazquez
				MIT Aero/Astro
				brndlfly@athena.mit.edu
"Crayolas are one of the few things the human race has in common."
				-Robert Fulghum

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Subject: Re: TR-3a
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:08:40 GMT

wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick) writes:

>diskwiz@maple.circa.ufl.edu writes:
>>Oh, by the way, the YF-12 was intended to carry eight AIM-47 semi-active
>                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	Eight? I doubt that very much.  Not enough room.  Someone else
>had posted four and my understanding was three.  I'll have to go
>back and check my Crickmore....

	OK, I checked.  Four was the intended *operational* configuration.
During flight testing the fourth missile bay carried test equipment.
This info. from Steve Pace's book, "X-fighters", page 180.

Duane
From: hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25
Date: 13 Nov 92 17:51:02 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <BxML3v.sC@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, tz10956@meibm13.cen.uiuc.edu (Thomas Zych) writes:
|> davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil writes:
|> >in article <BxK6sF.Eqn@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>
|> >JHan <jhan@descartes.uwaterloo.ca> writes:
|> >>A modified F-15A (the Streak Eagle) took the climb world record (60,000 ft in
|> >>less than two minutes.  I think.)
|> 
|> >Can't argue with success...but take a look at the Streak Eagle.  No avionics,
|> >_no paint_, all excess weight stripped.  Calling it an A model was a definite
|> >stretch of the imagination.
|> 
|> Not to mention the fact that it was chained to the end of the runway so that
|> it could work up to full afterburners _before_ the explosive bolts were fired,
|> starting the clock.  Probably accounted for at least a couple of seconds...

  Chained!?  Explosive Bolts!?  What, the brakes wouldn't hold?!

  Gee... I hadn't heard that one.  I guess they could have removed
  them as part of reducing weight.  So, huh, like what part of the
  F-15 did they hook up the chains to?

  TRAVIS
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: TR-3a
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Date: 12 Nov 1992 18:55:10 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com



In article <1992Nov9.164506.436@math.ufl.edu> diskwiz@maple.circa.ufl.edu 
writes:

>Oh, by the way, the YF-12 was intended to carry eight AIM-47 semi-active
>predecessors to the AIM-54 Phoenix. 


What's a "semi-active" missile?  Does this mean that it's controlled from
the aircraft that fired it?


Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM  + + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Subject: Re: TR-3a
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:23:26 GMT

diskwiz@maple.circa.ufl.edu writes:

>Oh, by the way, the YF-12 was intended to carry eight AIM-47 semi-active
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	Eight? I doubt that very much.  Not enough room.  Someone else
had posted four and my understanding was three.  I'll have to go
back and check my Crickmore....

Duane

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: mtissand@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael D Tissandier)
Subject: Re: Aircraft in Museums (was: SR-71 / MIG-25)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:49:24 GMT

  I was there last month and the 16 was still sitting out.  It has
South Carolina ANG markings.  Does anyone know the history of this
particular airframe, specifically, its record with respect to those
markings.  Sorry, I don't have the tail number handy...

  --Mike

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

                       When in Rome...
                               Avoid the lions....


                   mtissand@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------