HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25
Keywords: SR-71 bomber (was SR-71/MiG-25)
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 11:55:04 GMT


hagood@sabre.den.mmc.com (Dave Hagood) writes:
 >mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney) writes:
 >|> I am quite sure the Air Force deployed stream-lined bomb-pods 
 >|> for the SR-71 with 1MT hydrogen warheads.  I have seen this 
 >|> in more than one pace.  Will check around if I get the chance.

Please do...

 >I have *never* (well, other than this thread) read or heard anyone
 >mention that production SR-71 aircraft were armed with anything.

Same here.  I am quite sure that nothing like that was ever "deployed" at 
least.  It's possible they had envisioned something of that sort for the
supposed "Reconnaissance/Strike" mission, but it never went beyond an
"idea" stage.

 >This is in itself kind of interesting, because it would have been an 
 >extremely effective bomber.  

I don't really think so.  Nothing in it's design is suited for that purpose.
Mach 3.2 and 80,000 feet is not a particularly effective place for ground
attack, and except for something like a tactical nuclear weapon, the SR-71
does not have the stores space or excess lifting ability to carry all that
significant a bomb load.

 >Hell, other than the bomb load, it's a little B-70...

But without a bomb load, you don't have a bomber.  :-)

 >I do recall reading somewhere that the hypersonic drone attached to
 >the (A-12? YF-12?) 

That would be the M-12 / GTD-21A program.

 >could have carried armament instead of reconnaisence (sp) gear.

I expect it would have been possible to outfit a D-21 drone to function
as a "cruise missile", but it would have been a very expensive one and I
doubt it was ever seriously contemplated.  These systems were all designed
VERY specifically to perform the mission of intelligence gathering...
From: gunter@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: RF-4 Phantom
Date: 16 Nov 1992 23:39:33 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: tartarus.uwa.edu.au

jem3@pyuxf.uucp (25312-mc killop) writes:

>In article <rick.721817895@chronos> rick@imp.phys.ethz.ch (Riccardo Sibilia) writes:
>>Does somebody know for which missions is the RF-4 Phantom thought?
>>
>>Is it still flying these days? Or is it a museum piece?
>>
>>Thanks

Japan also has some RF-4EJ's manufactured by Mitsubishi
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Re: Subject: SR-71 / MIG-25
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:12:24 GMT

In article <9211161431.AA06914@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil> davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov14.043322.20437@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> "Toby . Hughes"
><thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu> writes:
>
>>The primary arresting gear on most USAF installations, even 10 years ago,
>were the
>>BAK-9 and BAK-12, which were (and are) arresting cables. Kinda hard to engage
>>one without a hook!
>
>You've probably flown a T-38, then.  See a hook?  There are tabs on the main
>gear doors that are
>supposed to catch the cable after the nosewhhel kicks it up.  Sounds like one
>of those "trust me"
>things.


The T-38 came on-line as a basic trainer in 1962, when the primary USAF
arresting gear was the MA-1A.  This is the "tennis net" that stretched
across the departure end of the runway.  The nose gear would snag the net,
which then lifted the cable to catch the main gear. Those tabs on the gear
doors were for the MA-1A, not the BAK series. In 1964, when I was
first checking out in the T-38, aircrews were not allowed to view the barrier
engagement tests movie;  rumor had it that the film showed 12 attempted MA-1A
engagements, 5 of which were successful.

The T-38 is NOT compatible with the BAK-9 or the BAK-12.  The nosewheel will
not 'kick up' the cable.  The best current barrier for the 38 is the 61QS-II,
the 'rabbit catcher."  This thing is deployed in the 'down' position until
needed. On a call from the aircrew, or anyone else for that matter, tower
personnel, by pushing a button, can raise the barrier to full up.  In the
'up' configuration, it stands just over 10 feet high at the runway centerline,
up to 17 feet at the stanchions.  It's a huge net, similar to the 'fouled
deck' rigging on a carrier.  On engagement, the aircraft drags the net,
which plays out an inertia reel, stopping the aircraft.  The 61QS-II has
successfully stopped aircraft at engagement speeds up to 200 knots.  Aircrews
who have used it comment jokingly that the thing would probably stop the
Space Shuttle.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Subject: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25
Keywords: SR-71 bomber (was SR-71/MiG-25)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:43:47 GMT

mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney) writes:

>My original source is, I believe, a late 60's National Geographic on the Air
>Force, although I could be mistaken.  I am quite sure the Air Force deployed
>stream-lined bomb-pods for the SR-71 with 1MT hydrogen warheads.  I have seen
>this in more than one pace.  Will check around if I get the chance.

	Sounds more like a description of the pod for a B58.  If you can
find your material, do let us know.

Duane

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: pettypi@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Carl Pettypiece)
Subject: Re: Advanced Tactical Fighter
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 07:43:12 GMT
Keywords: ATF advanced YF-22 YF-23 grey ghost lightning fighter

In article <1992Nov21.000855.12903@u.washington.edu> strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (Randy Haskin) writes:
>> Added to the budget problems was an unscheduled meeting
>> between one of the YF-22 aircraft and the ground. Pilot-induced-oscillations
>> are currently blamed. Don't know much more than that,

I've seen video of this crash.  I could be wrong but it looked
like a FBW problem to me (although the oscillations could have
been a factor).  As the plane was trying to climb (or abort or
whatever, wasn't clear), the tailplanes were just going wild.  It
seemed that the pilot had no chance of recovery from somrthing
like that.  A similar thing happened to the first prototype of
the JAS-39 Gripen.  Put it at least a year behind schedule (pity).

>> but I would guess that this might be holding up the production
>> process.
>
>	Actually, this incident had very little adverse effect on the F-22
>production scheme.  The accident occurred at a time when the YF-22 flight
>test program was well over 90% complete, so the damage of the flight test
>vehicle posed no significant problem.  The aircraft was actually allowed to
>burn after the pilot egressed to test the burn characteristics (no joke!).  
>The second flight test aircraft cannot be used, since it had already been
>de-engined and sent to Marietta, GA for static ground testing.
>	Cuttently, production aircraft are scheduled for introduction in 
>1996, I believe.  The only forseeable problems are further budget cuts.
>Fortunately, the Senate is behind the F-22 (that's a first!), but there will
>be a serious debate in the future between the USAF and the Navy, regarding
>(of course!) Carrier groups and fighters.
>	I have the official YF-22 crash report - if anyone's interested, I
>can post that.

Please do!!



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: d.j.piatak@larc.nasa.gov (David Piatak)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: WPAFB F117 was SR-71 / MIG-25
Date: 17 Nov 1992 19:54:24 GMT
Organization: NASA-Langley Research Center
Distribution: world
Reply-To: d.j.piatak@larc.nasa.gov (David Piatak)
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac153.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Nov16.124812.1829@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil>, 
dsnyder@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil writes:
> > (Notice I made no mention of the Desert Storm A-10 sitting in the Annex at
> > selfsame Museum ;)
> > 
>   The skin is so rippled because it is not the original skin for the 
aircraft.
> They took the original skin off due to security reasons.  Wouldn't want 
every
> one to just walk up and pull off a piece of history to take home would you?  

> They had to pull quite alot of stuff off this bird before it went on 
display.
> Had guards standing by while the restorers did their work.  David-- 


That's terrible...How can this aircraft be considered a F-117 still.
What kind of "restoration" was done on the aircraft?  Obviously it
was not a Smithsonian quality restoration.  I guess it is understand-
able, because certain aspects of the F-117 are very secret, but I 
think it is in bad taste.  Besides, when is the last time someone
ripped a piece of aluminum off of the AF Museum's B-52?

Just wondering.....

"Yes, I to, wish   \              David Piatak  
I owned a P-51    /              Penn State Co-Op Student
Mustang"             \              Flight Research Branch
                           /              NASA-Langley Research Center
   

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: pettypi@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Carl Pettypiece)
Subject: Re: Name of F-111
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 06:03:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.035809.8246@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) writes:
>In article <1emsh9INNlm5@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> gunter@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt) writes:
>>zell@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Joseph Zell) writes:
>>
>>>Could someone tell me the name of the F-111. It's driving me nuts, and I
>>>can't think of it. E-mail would be appreciated. Thanks
>>>Joe
>>
>>F-111's are Aardvark's
>>RF-111's are Raven's
>
>These are popular nicknames, bestowed by aircrews.  To call a 111 an Aardvark
>is like calling an F-105 a Thud, an A-10 a Warthog, or a T-37 a Tweet.  The
>111 was never given an officially sanctioned nickname, ala "Phantom", "Eagle",
>or "Fighting Falcon (gag!)"
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wasn't the F-16 called the Condor at one time?  What's the story here?
(I do have references to this)




-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: d.j.piatak@larc.nasa.gov (David Piatak)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: P-40B found in former USSR
Date: 17 Nov 1992 17:57:13 GMT
Organization: NASA-Langley Research Center
Distribution: world
Reply-To: d.j.piatak@larc.nasa.gov (David Piatak)
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac153.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Nov17.162343.12748@u.washington.edu>, 
strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (Randy Haskin) writes:
> 
> I heard of this in a British aero enthusiast mag in September or so.  I'm
> not sure which magazine it was (Perhaps Fly Past, but I'm not sure), but 
> anyhow, it was recovered by one of the major warbird restoration groups
> there.  If you are really interested, I'll go look that article up and
> perhaps post it.
> 
> Randall Haskin
> L-17 N77BH
> strega@u.washington.edu


If it's not too much trouble that would be great.

I like to keep up with new warbird restorations...was it 
perhaps Doug Arnold (I think that's his name) who recovered
it.  He has the largest private collection of WW2 fighter 
aircraft in Britain. (I could be wrong though)

Thanks

"Yes, I to, wish   \              David Piatak  
I owned a P-51    /              Penn State Co-Op Student
Mustang"             \              Flight Research Branch
                           /              NASA-Langley Research Center
   

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca (Fengxi Zhou)
Subject: Re: New CIS plane data
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:15:05 GMT

danmcd@cs.arizona.edu (Daniel L. McDonald) writes:
: 
: Over the course of the past few months, the Sukhoi and Mikoyan-Gurevich
: design bureas (are they companies now?) have still been updating Su-27 and
: MiG-29 designs.  Does anyone out there have hard facts on some of these
: new designs?  I think there's a MiG-29M, and a 2-seater version of the Su-27
: which is close to the US F-15E Strike Eagle.  I'm asking on behalf of Charlie

Only that the Su-27IB(?) is side-by-side and doesn't have radar, IR, laser, etc.
(Don't ask me why).

: Moylan, who's working on a new version of his game Strike Jets for the
: Macintosh.  I'm looking for numbers, and other data on any new CIS planes.
: 
: Also, any data on the NATO designations for new CIS missiles (i.e. AMRAAMSKI)
: will be most appreciated.
:
Check out the article "Rapidly going nowhere" in October issue of Air 
International.  It has pretty good description and pictures.
 
: Post it, mail it, regardless, I'll see it.
: 
: Thanks!
: --
: Dan McDonald    |Internet: danmcd@cs.arizona.edu, UUCP: ..!uunet!arizona!danmcd
: U. of Arizona   |BITNET: danmcd%cs.arizona.edu@arizona.BITNET
: Computer Science| "We will pay the price,
: Graduate Student|  but we will not count the cost." - Rush (N. Peart)


Fengxi
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: dlevy@viper.engin.umich.edu (David W Levy)
Subject: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 09:12:54 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Aerospace Engineering, Ann Arbor, MI
Distribution: usa
Keywords: SR-71 bomber (was SR-71/MiG-25)
Originator: dlevy@viper.engin.umich.edu


In article <1992Nov17.233317.13401@den.mmc.com>, hagood@sabre.den.mmc.com (Dave Hagood) writes:
> 
> 	I have *never* (well, other than this thread) read or heard anyone
> mention that production SR-71 aircraft were armed with anything.  This is
> in itself kind of interesting, because it would have been an extremely
> effective bomber.  Hell, other than the bomb load, it's a little B-70...
> 
> 	I do recall reading somewhere that the hypersonic drone attached to
> the (A-12? YF-12?) could have carried armament instead of reconnaisence (sp)
> gear.

I thought the original A-12 was designed to carry a nuclear warhead
internally.  In the SR-71 design, the bombay was converted to carry
recon equipment.
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Advanced Tactical Fighter
Keywords: ATF advanced YF-22 YF-23 grey ghost lightning fighter
Date: 22 Nov 92 18:16:25 GMT
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
NNTP-Posting-Host: obsidian.wpi.edu

In article <1992Nov21.000855.12903@u.washington.edu> strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (Randy Haskin) writes:
>	I have the official YF-22 crash report - if anyone's interested, I
>can post that.

Please do, or email me a copy. I'm very interested in the F-22. (I'm sort of a
Lockheed buff...) The skunk-works mailng list would most likely appreciate it
too (sci.military,sci.aeronautics too) I can send it there, or give you the
mailing address....

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################
From: schaefer@sal-sun81.usc.edu (Peter Schaefer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Advanced Tactical Fighter
Date: 20 Nov 1992 16:47:06 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sal-sun81.usc.edu
Keywords: ATF advanced YF-22 YF-23 grey ghost lightning fighter


In article <1992Nov21.000855.12903@u.washington.edu>, strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (Randy Haskin) writes:
|> > Added to the budget problems was an unscheduled meeting
|> > between one of the YF-22 aircraft and the ground. Pilot-induced-oscillations
|> > are currently blamed. Don't know much more than that,
|> > but I would guess that this might be holding up the production
|> > process.
|> 
|> 	Actually, this incident had very little adverse effect on the F-22
|> production scheme.  The accident occurred at a time when the YF-22 flight
|> test program was well over 90% complete, so the damage of the flight test
|> vehicle posed no significant problem.  The aircraft was actually allowed to
|> burn after the pilot egressed to test the burn characteristics (no joke!).  
|> The second flight test aircraft cannot be used, since it had already been
|> de-engined and sent to Marietta, GA for static ground testing.
|> 	Cuttently, production aircraft are scheduled for introduction in 
|> 1996, I believe.  The only forseeable problems are further budget cuts.
|> Fortunately, the Senate is behind the F-22 (that's a first!), but there will
|> be a serious debate in the future between the USAF and the Navy, regarding
|> (of course!) Carrier groups and fighters.
|> 	I have the official YF-22 crash report - if anyone's interested, I
|> can post that.
|> 
|> 
Actually, it's not surprising that the Senate is backing the F-22.  Recall that
the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Comittee is Sen. Sam Nunn (D) of Georgia
where Lockheed will build the F-22.  (No pork here, folks. -cough-)  
By the way, a while back, NASA made a deal to do some ACM tests (high-alpha stuff
I believe) with the F-22.  Now that the existing aircraft are toast, the test
are to be done using  a YF-23 (still working fine). Could this be an omen?
					Peter Schaefer
					schaefer@usc.edu
From: bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Missile types (was Re: TR-3a)
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:18:56 +1100
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

nyo@dcs.exeter.ac.uk (Neil Youngman) writes:
> geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes:
>
>    What's a "semi-active" missile?  Does this mean that it's controlled from
>    the aircraft that fired it?
>
> Active missiles use active sensors eg. radar, which actively attempts to
> illuminate a target with radio signals.  Passive missiles use passive sensors,
> which passively listen for signals emitted by a target, eg. IR radiation.
>
> Semi-active missiles are a hybrid, I think they use radar to acquire a
> target and then use IR homing for the terminal phase (or the other way
> round).

        Not quite. A semi-active missile homes in on radar waves
generated from another source (eg the Sparrow and Sky-Flash missiles).
The radar in the aircraft carrying the missile locks onto a target and
continues to track the target after the missile has been fired. The
missile can detect the radar waves reflected from the target and homes
in on the reflection. The missile does not generate the radar waves.
The system requires an active radar to work, but the radar is not in
the missile.

        There are 2 problems with this meathod. The aircraft which fired
the missile must continue to hang around to give the missile a clear
signal it can home in on, making the aircraft vulnerable to return fire,
and if there is some tight maneuvering going on, the missile might lock
onto the radar of the aircraft which fired it, and home in on the
active radar, killing it's own aircraft.

        Semi-active systems are also used in some SAMs and ASMs,
eg HARM, a missile designed to hit ground based radar transmitters.

In the case of HARM, the aircraft does not guide the missile once it
has been fired. The missile locks onto the active transmitter of the
hostile radar and guides itself. If the transmitter is turned off,
the missile contiues to home in on the point the radar waves were
transmitted from.

           Bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au  OR  bull@monu1.cc.monash.oz
                    DOD# 251  '84 VF 750   Closet Ducatisto
             Disclaimer. If you love your llama, let it lambada.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bailey@emunix.emich.edu (Grand Moff Tarkin)
Subject: Re: Name of B-52
Organization: Detroit Institue of Criminal Arts and Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:54:00 GMT

In article <By5F9y.IBu@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> steve@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges) writes:
>chena@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Cheng) writes:
>
>>Can anyone name any famous B-52 bomber?
>
>Sure -- Stratofortress
>
>And now for the trivia minded -- try to supply the name of the following
>Boeing military airplanes -- they are pretty easy, some are a bit harder.
>
>	B-17
>	B-29
>	B-47
>	KC-135
>	E-3A
>-- 
>Steve Bridges, Programmer/Analyst| NCR - Law Department, WHQ-5
>steve@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM   ___| Phone:(513)-445-4486 622-4486 (VOICEplus)
>Sci.military moderator        | "The airplane does not recognize attitude,
>providing a maneuver is conducted at one G" -- A.M. "Tex" Johnston

B-17 Flying Fortress
B-29 Super Fortress
B-47 ?
KC-135 Super Tanker
E-3A-Sentry

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Kenneth Bailey                  |  "Fear will keep the local systems 
e-mail:  bailey@emunix.emich.edu    |  in line.  Fear of this battle 
snail-mail:  Right                  |  station."--Gov. Tarkin
				    |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 379LSSCC@strathost.stratcom.af.mil (379LSSCC)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Name of B-52
Date: 23 Nov 1992 19:10:12 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

The first B-52H, 60-001, was delivered to Wurtsmith AFB, MI and was named
"The State of Michigan."  And the aircrew members still call the best
strategic bomber in the world the "BUFF!"

Bill Gillespie (former BUFF pilot)
379lsscc@strathost.stratcom.af.mil
From: arjanh@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Hulsebos)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Advanced Tactical Fighter
Keywords: ATF advanced YF-22 YF-23 grey ghost lightning fighter
Date: 21 Nov 92 15:47:37 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <1992Nov21.000855.12903@u.washington.edu> 
>   strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (Randy Haskin) writes:
>	I have the official YF-22 crash report - if anyone's interested, I
>can post that.


 Yeah, please do!

The crash was shown here (or in the Netherlands, I don't remember) on TV,
and I'd like to know what happened. It sure looked funny, I must say, in as
far as plane crashes can look funny.

Cheers,
           Arjan H

 .sig? OK, here comes ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Arjan Hulsebos      arjanh@castle.ed.ac.uk

Quotation : Heinrich Heine, Ideen. Das Buch Le Grand, Kapitel XII.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Re: Advanced Tactical Fighter
Keywords: ATF advanced YF-22 YF-23 grey ghost lightning fighter
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:30:44 GMT

In article <1ehjb8INNhd6@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> dwhall@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Dean W Hall) writes:
>  The AirForce chose the YF-22 (a much uglier plane) and then. . .
>-Dean Hall


Dean,

As a career fighter jock, with a combat tour in the F-4, the ugliest airplane
built until the F-117, I'm wondering if you'd explain to me what ugly has to do
with capability. And why it's even worth mentioning.

TH
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: strohm@mksol.dseg.ti.com (john r strohm)
Subject: Re: Advanced Tactical Fighter
Keywords: ATF advanced YF-22 YF-23 grey ghost lightning fighter
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:28:35 GMT

strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (Randy Haskin) writes:

>I have the official YF-22 crash report - if anyone's interested, I
>can post that.

Yes, definitely, PLEASE post that.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military