HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kerch@reynaldo.parc.xerox.com (Berry Kercheval)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: Questions: logbook entries at cross country stops
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:08:48 GMT
	<1hsu8mINN358@pongo.West.Sun.COM>
Reply-To: kerch@parc.xerox.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, CA

>>>>> On 30 Dec 92 19:45:26 GMT, brianh@smaug.West.Sun.COM (Brian Horn) said:
Brian> geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) writes:
> hull@sybil.cs.Buffalo.EDU (Jon Hull) writes:
>> Re:  the three solo takeoffs and landings at a tower
>> controlled field that are required for student pilots.
>> 1.  Are the landings required to be to a full stop?  
>
>No.

Brian> Urrr, ummm Geoff, the previous poster (at least from my machine's point-of-view)
Brian> was correct.  The answer is "yes" they need to be to a full stop.
Brian> The 1993 FARS 61.109 (b) (3) "Three solo takeoffs and landings to a full
Brian> stop at an airport with an operating control tower".

That doesn't apply to the cross country flights.  You just have to do
three takeoffs and landings to a fill etc. etc. to get your license.
The fact that three are required and three XC's are required is a
COINCIDENCE. 

You can do the control-tower solo full stops at your home field in
half an hour on a not-busy weekday morning if you want.  (And your
home field has a tower, of course...)

  --berry

P.S. Note new address: was berry@pei.com, now kerch@parc.xerox.com.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette)
Subject: Re: American kill...
Reply-To: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette)
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:21:05 GMT

In article <C032x3.ABC@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>  
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
> In article <65510003@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com>  
tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates) writes:
> >The nightly news reported the downed aircraft as MiG 23 (flogger) type.
> >
> >But then, the news screws up everything a lot of the time.
> 
>    Yes, it was a MIG Su-27 Foxbat equipped with twelve SS-20
> air-to-air missiles.  The Iraqi aircraft was shot down by a Navy F-16
> possibly flown from the USS Kitty Hawk, which fired an AMRAAM
> heat-seeking missile from a range of 20 miles.

Actually it was a Marine P-51 that shot down that MIG Su-27
with a Genie nuclear rocket, and finished it off with it's
GAU 30mm laser-guided cannon.

>    Well, maybe they aren't _that_ bad.

For almost a half-million f-cking bucks they had better work!

--
Nathan Janette
PPP link from hilbert.csb.yale.edu

Please reply to: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (NeXT)

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Aircraft beauty: B-17
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 11:55:28 GMT


	I split my vote between the Focke-Wulf "Condor" and the
	Me-262.  The Condor in particular seems to go with the
	saw about looking good and flying good.

	Alec Chambers
From: zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Dr. Strangelove)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: American kill...
Date: 28 Dec 1992 22:47:55 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

Does anybody know what type of aircraft the US shot down over Iraq today?
The paper didn't say... All it said was an Iraqi MIG was shot down 
by an F-16, after two other aircraft were escorted out by F-15's minutes
before hand.

So if you have better details like which type of Iraqi Mig, and maybe
what base the Mig came from that would be good.


Thanks,
Ken
-- 
 Dr. Strangelove      "You just can't let nature run wild." -Gov. of Alaska
 U.Wisconsin Milwaukee    
 Major: Political Science  track." 
 Why that Alias? From the Movie Dr. Strangelove.
From: tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates)
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 21:45:23 GMT
Subject: Soviet "Flashlight" bomber
Organization: the HP Mtn.View Resp. Cntr.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

Does anyone remember a cold war Soviet bomber nicknamed "Flashlight"...
I dont believe this was the NATO designation, but as a kid, I oogled
over a model kit of this bomber and "Flashlight Bomber" was what it
was called.  I have tried looking through aviation mags, references 
with no luck.   

Thanks
From: wardml@rtsg.mot.com (Matthew L. Ward)
Subject: Aircraft Beauty Contest
Summary: The Most beautiful of all warbirds is...
Keywords: none
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: global
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 22:34:14 GMT

I personally feel the best looking of all WWII warbirds was the FW Condor.  This
little known plane was the second terror of the Atlantic after the U-boat wolf-
packs.  Derived from a proposed but never built commerical aircraft, I feel
that this little baby definitley deserves a vote for most beautiful aircraft.


mlw
From: greg@perry.berkeley.edu (Greg Anderson)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: What happened to the Blackjack?
Date: 29 Dec 1992 15:51:31 GMT
Organization: UC Berkeley
Distribution: global
NNTP-Posting-Host: andy.berkeley.edu
Keywords: none


For some reason or another, I was wondering about this last night.  Does
anyone out there know what ever happened to the (then-)Soviet "Blackjack"
bomber?  As I vaguely recall, it was supposed to be a sort of super-Backfire,
but I don't remember having heard much about it after about the late '80s.

Any thoughts, ideas, vague memories, etc.?

Greg Anderson
greg@perry.berkeley.edu
From: prince@fund.omsk.su (Rustam Kh. Yusupov)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: MERRY CHRUSTMAS TO ALL WHO LIKE'S WARBIRDS
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 17:02:06 +0500
Distribution: world
Organization: Omsk Property Fund
Reply-To: prince@fund.omsk.su
From: v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Aurora
Date: 22 Dec 92 20:41:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Recently put up for discussion: the aurora spyplane.

Q: What kind of ejection seat / survival system would be needed  to get the
pilot down from mach 8+?

A: One, the pilot must wear a an astronauts space suit to prevent his blood
from evaporating and his skin from flaking off. Two, no seat / spacesuit
could survive the "windblast" at altitude and speed. Therefore, either the
AF doesn't expect pilots to survive a break up at cruise and havn't put a 
survival system in, or they would have to have an escape capsule, perhaps
like the F-111 series or the B-58's and XB-70's personal ejection capsule.

What does everyone else think?
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: AIRCRAFT BEAUTY CONTE 
From: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 08:21:46 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Me? Organized?


In article <1395.417.uupcb@the-matrix.com> rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com writes:

  > 
  > -> Has anybody nominated the WW I German Albatross (VIII, I think?)?  It
  > -> has real smooth lines for its era.
  > 
  > Nope, if you want to nominate WWI fighters then it would have to be the
  > Fokker D VII, hands down. Probably the best all around fighter produced
  > during that period.
  >                                         Rocky

Yeah, but it doesn't actually LOOK all that flash :-)

  >                                                               
  > 
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: GULF WAR LOSSES
Date: 22 Dec 92 08:38:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 

-> I was watching a movie last night about the Tornado jet, and they
-> mentioned its role in the gulf war.  They said the tragically 5 were
-> lost, but mostly due to accidents.  Does anyone know of the details?
-> Also, does anyone know how many planes were lost, why, and by whom in
-> the

The Tornado's mission profile calls for high speed, low level attacks.
That always put a strain on air crews. In the European theater where
that profile was developed it made good sense since terrain masking
could be used to good effeect. In the Gulf, I suspect that is less the
case and the standard mission profile would place the plane in a
relatively vulnerable position to ground fire around well defended air
fileds. In addition visual cues from European terrain provide a lot more
contrast than the relatively featureless terrain in Iraq. I understand
that the mission profiles were changed radically to high level flights
after several were lost. While I don't have the information directly, I
remember thinking when I heard the Tornados were going to be committed
that that low level stuff was going to be "Not Good" in that
environment.                                         Rocky
                                                                                             
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Re: F-86 question...
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: rec
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 20:43:10 GMT

In article <BOWERS.92Dec24111553@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov> bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) writes:
>
>Just who was the high scoring ace in F-86s?  I have seen info that
>says it was Major James Jabara (16.5) and other sources claim it was
>Captain Joseph McConnell (16).
>
>Looking at it, I'd say Jabar is it, but why the controversy?
>
>
>Al Bowers                       bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov


Al,

It's not so much a controversy as a bookkeeping thing.  Jabara's total of 16.5
includes 1.5 scored in WWII.  His 15 in Korea put him one behind Joe McConnell
for top honors in that war.

BTW, Jabara WAS the first Korea ace, and if memory serves, was also the pilot
involved in history's first all-sweptwing encounter.

Happy Christmas,

TH
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: AIRCRAFT BEAUTY CONTE
Date: 24 Dec 92 06:22:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 

-> Has anybody nominated the WW I German Albatross (VIII, I think?)?  It
-> has real smooth lines for its era.

Nope, if you want to nominate WWI fighters then it would have to be the
Fokker D VII, hands down. Probably the best all around fighter produced
during that period.
                                        Rocky
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: FW-190 (WAS RE: BF 10
Date: 22 Dec 92 08:26:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 

->   BTW, Herr Dr. Ing. Tank didn't engage the Mustangs, he outran them.
-> Turn, as they say, and burn.

SPEED KILLS.....but only if the other guy is slower.
                                        Rocky
From: urf@icl.se (Urban F)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: A-10 friendly fire in the Gulf
Date: 20 Dec 92 06:55:05 GMT
Organization: None. On USENET I speak only for myself.
X-Alt.reply-Address: n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk

According to some, rumour has it that the A-10 pilots had not
been briefed on the add on armour on the Warriors, which 
changed their nose profiles to look just like something from
the opposition.

_If_ this is true, we can't blame the pilots, the aircraft nor
the tactics used.
--
 Urban Fredriksson  urf@icl.se
From: avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au (Darren Reed)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Aurora spy-plane
Date: 23 Dec 92 04:17:34 GMT
Organization: Australian National University
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.76.2
Keywords: aurora spy-plane skunkworks sr71

byrnes@cbr.hhcs.gov.au writes:

>. where did the Aurora get it's name from: presumably from the trail of
>ionisation it must leave behind it when operating at altitude. Must make it
>easy to see in the night sky!

Easy to see it or see where it has been ? :-)

Not that seeing a plane doing mach 8 will help..

"...ready...aim..."

"aim at what sir ?"

Darren
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: wardml@rtsg.mot.com (Matthew L. Ward)
Subject: Cheap Fighters
Summary: Has anyone heard about
Keywords: fighters, Rutan
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: global
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 16:51:13 GMT

In following with the recent thread about prop driven CAS and the argument that
"FIVE OF US BEAT ONE OF YOU!" I'll ask if anyone has heard about the following fighters


1) P-51 mimic by Piper
2) A mach 2 homebuilt by the same guy who built the James Bond Pocket Jet, I 
don't remember the name
3) Burt Rutan's tank buster

What I would like are details on performance, loadout, and range..

********************************************************************************
*Matthew Ward, formerly McDonnell Douglas F-15E program                        *
*            , formerly General Dynamics F-16A/B program                       *
********************************************************************************
From: urf@icl.se (Urban F)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: What happened to the Blackjack?
Keywords: none
Date: 30 Dec 92 07:54:28 GMT
Organization: None. On USENET I speak only for myself.
X-Alt.reply-Address: n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk

jfb200@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes:

>The NATO code name of this aircraft is *Blackjack*.  The aircraft is, in
>fact, in squadron service with the Russian Air Force. 

As well as the Ukrainan air force, but they are trying to get rid
of theirs. (Around 20, isn't it?)

Not because they're bad, but because they have to reduce the number
of aircraft in service to comply with CFE, and then of course you
sell off and scrap what you have least use for.

(Another case is the scrapping of perfectly good aircraft by
Germany. As the chief of their air force said: "It is not
because the MiG-29's were the best aircraft we retained them,
Su-22 and MiG-27 are quite good too, but for political reasons
we do not want to have attack aircraft stationed close to the
borders of our new neighbours".)
--
 Urban Fredriksson  urf@icl.se
From: shafer@spdcc.com (Mary Shafer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: A-10 Replacement
Date: 22 Dec 92 21:56:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Dec22.215607.3328
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <BOWERS.92Dec22124608@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov> bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.162959.1838@med.umich.edu> caraher@pn32.petnet.med.umich.edu writes:
>
>>In article <wardml.724683000@catfish26> wardml@rtsg.mot.com (Matthew L. Ward)
>>writes:
>>>On the subject of an A-10 replacement.
>
>>>A few years ago [ <5 ] a read an article in that great aviation
>>>magazine "Popular Mechanics" (sarcasm) that described a company
>>>building an updated P-51 airframe coupled with a modern engine for the
>>>CAS role.  The plane was touted as being only 1 million per plane
>>>while the A-10 was 10 million per plane.
>
>>>Anybody know what happened to that plane ?
>
>>Yes, it's sitting in the USAF museum at Wright-Pat. Quite a beast. It was in
>>the annex when I saw it in August. Don't know why it didn't pan out, though.
>>If I recall correctly it had a big turboprop engine, with an ugly exhaust port
>>just behind the cockpit on the left side. The entire underside of the wing was
>>littered with hardpoints for carrying stores, and it had more the look of one
>>of those counterinsurgency planes than a battlefield CAS platform.
>
>Actually there were two of them.  They were built by the Cavalier
>Aircraft Corporation in the late '60s and early '70s.  Cavalier
>specialized in P-51 restorations, parts, refits, rebuilds, etc.
>Cavalier tried to compete the aircraft (unsolicited) as a COIN
>(COunter-INsurgency) aircraft, quite unsucessfully.  Neither was flown
>and Cavalier dropped out, selling everything off to Piper Aircraft.
>Piper completed both and both aircraft were evaluated here at Edwards
>AFB in the late 70s and early 80s.  While both aircraft were quite
>suited to the COIN and CAS role, they did not fit into the scheme of
>things, and would not have survived long in a high tech battlefield
>environment for too long (most recent wars have been low tech threat
>environments, and this same complaint is made about the A-10 as well).
>Only 13 percent of the airframe was made from Mustang tooling,
>everything else was new tooling.

I've got a very nice set of photos of this plane, showing all the hard
points on the wings, etc.  I haven't the faintest idea where I got
them, but I know that it was a fairly current proposal at the time.

It's a very odd looking plane, sort of not-quite-right.

-- 
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR  shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: PROP-DRIVEN CAS
Date: 22 Dec 92 08:04:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 

-> CAS platforms- in low threat environments of course.  During the
-> early 'eighties Piper built a turboprop version of the P-51 and
-> called it the PA-48 Enforcer.  It had good speed, range, load, and
-> loiter time.  It was tested by the USAF but no one ever bought it.
-> There's also a small prop-driven plane

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it sold in some quantities in South
America for Counter Insurgency operations?
                                        Rocky
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: B-25'S ON CARRIERS WA
Date: 22 Dec 92 08:12:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 

-> This sounds like the film "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo" with Van
-> Johnson in the starring role and Spencer Tracy playing Jimmy
-> Doolittle.  Seemed to be relatively factual up until the point of the
-> dropping of the bombs.  Then things get pretty Hollywood as a lot
-> more explosions occurred than what would have been occurring
-> considering what was being dropped (mostly incendiaries).
-> Interestingly, during the filming, the

Yes, I do remember that. I was surprised and amused at how a dozen B-25
managed to level Tokyo with a small handful of light bombs. Shows just
how shabby Japanese construction was. Must have been some of those "John
Wayne" bombs. <grin>
                                        Rocky
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Soviet "Flashlight" bomber 
From: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 05:34:36 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Me? Organized?


In article <1992Dec29.022944.1182@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.cb.att.com writes:

  > 
  > In article <65510001@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com>, tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com  >  (Tony Zugates) writes:
  > > Does anyone remember a cold war Soviet bomber nicknamed "Flashlight"...
  > > I dont believe this was the NATO designation, but as a kid, I oogled
  > > over a model kit of this bomber and "Flashlight Bomber" was what it
  > > was called.  I have tried looking through aviation mags, references 
  > > with no luck.   

  > There was a later version of the basic design given the code name
  > *Firebar*.  It was an uprated *Flashlight*, and contained more powerful
  > afterburning turojets and a radar installation in a more pointed
  > nose.  It was capable of marginal supersonic performance at altitude.
  > A bomber version of the *Firebar* design was also produced.  Given
  > tne NATO code name *Brewer, it was a light tactical bomber featuring
  > a bombardier/observer housed in a transparent nose in place of the
  > intercept radar.
  > 
  > I don't know the Yakovlev bureau numbers of either the *Firebar* or the
  > *Brewer*.  Anyone out there in Netland know?

Yak-25   =   Flashlight
Yak-27P  =   Flashlight C (small numbers only - afterburning engines)
Yak-28(?)=   Brewer (attack versions with glazed noses)
Yak-28P  =   Firebar (all weather interceptor)
Yak-28R  =   Brewer D (multi-sensor recce)
Yak-28U  =   Maestro (trainer)
 




Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: mru@ida.liu.se (Mats Rundqvist)
Subject: Re: (Royal) Swedish AF aircraft 1926-
Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:02:12 GMT

urf@icl.se (Urban F) writes:

[Lots and lots of text removed...]
>Updated: 1992-12-24          number     in service

>AJ 37   Saab Viggen             108     72-
>SF 37   Saab 37 Viggen           28     77-    photo reconnaissance
>SH 37   Saab 37 Viggen           27     73-    maritime surveillance

In the next couple of years these aircraft will be modified
into AJS 37, making them "multirole attack" aircraft.
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: A10 RE:AF CAREER TYPE
Date: 24 Dec 92 06:26:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 

-> the brass, whom everyone loves to criticize, had made things so safe
-> for the flyboys that some missions were milk runs. Same was more
-> evident in the Gulf conflict.

Huh!? If it was so safe, why did we lose so many planes? Must have been
pilot error eh? The poor bored flyboys kept running intot he hills and
each other.
                                        Rocky
         
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin)
Subject: Re: B-25'S ON CARRIERS WA
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:35:02 GMT

In article <1341.417.uupcb@the-matrix.com> rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins)  writes:
>-> This sounds like the film "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo" with Van
>-> Johnson in the starring role and Spencer Tracy playing Jimmy
>-> Doolittle.  Seemed to be relatively factual up until the point of the
>-> dropping of the bombs.  Then things get pretty Hollywood as a lot
>-> more explosions occurred than what would have been occurring
>-> considering what was being dropped (mostly incendiaries).
>-> Interestingly, during the filming, the
>
>Yes, I do remember that. I was surprised and amused at how a dozen B-25
>managed to level Tokyo with a small handful of light bombs. Shows just
>how shabby Japanese construction was. Must have been some of those "John
>Wayne" bombs. <grin>

Well, not shabby, no.

However, it must be kept in mind that Japanese construction used a lot of
wood and paper products in their construction.  The heavy us of paper and
similar for decoration was well known.

One of the reasons incendiaries were occasionally chosen was because of the 
high percentage of flammable material used in construction.  It was known 
that a single incendiary could, if allowed to fuel itself, burn quite a 
large area.   Of course, standard explosive iron bombs could also do a lot 
of fire damage, but isn't as likely to.  Psychologically, burning down large
areas of housing or the city can be much more effective than bombing the
crud out of it.

Does anyone have an exact knowledge of the payload carried during the 
Doolittle Raid?  I'm embarassed to not know for certain (and me, personally 
acquainted with one of the crew on Doolittle's own bomber during that raid... 
Sheesh! :-).  

-- 
// Robert J. Granvin                                         rjg@stat.umn.edu
// School of Statistics - University of Minnesota        System Administrator
// ``One of the `right' people.''
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military