HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: leem@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Lee Mellinger)
Subject: Re: F-22 Name? (FAQ Question?)
Keywords: F-22 Name Black Widow
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:18:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.140550.24845@rtsg.mot.com> wardml@rtsg.mot.com (Matthew L. Ward) writes:
:We at McDonnell Douglas always called the YF-23 the "Ghost" or the "grey Ghost"
:both in reference to the aircrafts stealth and coloring.
:
:Also MDC or rather John S. McDonnell like to name planes with supernatural names
:re: phantom, banshee, goblin, voodoo, bat.  I personally have never heard of the
:name "Black Widow" until I saw it here in this news group
:
:*Matthew Ward, formerly McDonnell Douglas F-15E program                          *

According to AV Leak the Northrop folks at Edwards AFB took to calling
it the Black Widow because of the red hourglass marking on the belly
and in honor of the P-63.  The following week Av Leak then reported
that management had forbidden workers on the program from referring to
the YF-23 as the Black Widow.

Lee

"Mit Pulver und Blei, die Gedanken sind frei."

|Lee F. Mellinger                 Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA
|4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/354-1163  FTS 792-1163     
|leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: smccoy@dw3g.ess.harris.com (Scott McCoy)
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:20:33 GMT
Organization: Harris Corporation Information Systems Division

I went back and checked my sources, so I'll correct my own post:

According to Jablonski:

	The South African Air Force, Squadrons No.6 and No.7, flew
	Hurricane IID's, outfitted with a 40mm cannon under the
	wing, to great effect during Montgomery's breakout at El 
	Alamein against Rommel's armour.

So, it was a 40mm cannon, not 70mm, as I had previously speculated.

-- 
Scott McCoy
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: creps@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps)
Subject: Media mistakes (was Re: Iraq attacks U.S. Navy planes)
Keywords: international, fighting, non-usa government, government, military
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:26:54 GMT


   Weren't we having a discussion recently about how the media never
get things right?

In article <iraq-usU3JN915pe@clarinet.com> clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI) writes:

[ stuff deleted ]

>	A Navy A-6 Intruder fighter-bomber from the carrier USS Kitty Hawk,
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>stationed in the Persian Gulf, then bombed the Iraqi unit.

   I'm not quite sure how an A-6 can be called a "fighter-bomber" when
I don't think it's even capable of carrying air-to-air weapons.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: stephan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Stephan Eggermont)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: CIWS vs Artillery
Date: 21 Jan 93 13:13:14 GMT
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

T.M.Haddock (hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com) wrote:
: 
:  Someone posted awhile back about Close In Weapon Systems being 
:  incapable to hit incoming shells.
: 
:  But, according to the WINGS program on the Discovery channel,
:  the British CIWS SEA WOLF missile system "outperforms any other
:  CIWS in the world".  It is capable of shooting down aircraft,
:  missiles, and "even shells from 5.4 inch guns".

I would bet on the Nike Hercules. That is, the one with the "special" warhead.
It should take out incoming battleships quite nicely, and at an even longer
range than seawolf :-)
  There is of course that old story about the american and british captains
bragging about their weapon systems. The american ship fired a 5in shell and
the seawolf hit it. From a cost-effectiveness point of view, this is not a
very smart thing to do. With the VL-seawolf frigates, the gun-destroyer is
going to hit something within five minutes, because then the frigate hasn't
got any missiles anymore.
  This sort of commercials should be taken with a grain of salt. The RN added
goalkeeper or phalanx to their seawolf frigates because the defence wasn't
good enough, even if it was the best in the world. Multi-layer defence 
outperforms single-layer defence consistently.

Groetjes,
  Stephan
  stephan@stack.urc.tue.nl


Xref: sparky rec.aviation.military:2191 rec.models.scale:918
From: augustho@aludra.usc.edu (August Horvath)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military,rec.models.scale
Subject: Japanese Heinkels
Date: 22 Jan 1993 16:40:47 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

I'm thinking about building a model of one of the three Heinkel He 100D's
delivered to Japan for evaluation by the Japanese Navy.  Does anyone know
where there is a photo of one of these Heinkels in Japanese colors?

Thanks!

August Horvath <augustho@usc.edu>
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Need info on SR-71 video
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 11:36:14 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department

ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu (Wm. L. Ranck) writes:

> Bruce@hoult.actrix.gen.nz wrote:
> : This sounds rather like the film they show in the SR-71 exhibit onboard
> : the "Intrepid" carrier in New York (the one with the YF-12 on the deck).
> : It's pretty hokey with a real "saving the world for democracy as we know
> : it" attitude, but was worth seeing for all that.
> 
> OK, this may be a dumb question, but does this meant the SR-71 could be
> carrier launched?  I just never heard of it, but then I don't follow 
> spy planes all that closely either.  Just curious.

No, it was lifted on there by cranes. I happened to be flying back from
D.C. the day they did it, and took some neat photos from my 172. Seeing
a Blackbird being lifted out of the barge it was shipped up in was
pretty funny.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jeffc@sad.hp.com (Jeff Crowell)
Subject: Re: CIWS vs Artillery
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:06:25 GMT
Organization: HP Sonoma County (SRSD/MWTD/MID)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

T.M.Haddock (hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com) wrote:
: 
:  Someone posted awhile back about Close In Weapon Systems being 
:  incapable to hit incoming shells.
: 
:  TRAVIS


I remember watching a training flick about Phalanx CIWS
(which actually stands for 'Christ! It Won't Shoot'  8-)  )
which included test footage of a Phalanx tracking 5"/54
shells near Catalina Island.  The weapon wasn't loaded, and so
wasn't shooting, but it sure as heck was tracking (the shells
were passing over the CIWS mount)  With the Phalanx's closed-
loop spotting, I'd give it a fair chance of hitting (at least,
until it ran outta ammo).

Comment for the poster who was talking about the economics of swatting
shells: hey, if it keeps the bad guy from doing unto me while I do
unto him, I call that a fair tradeoff, and worth every penny!




Later,
Jeff
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: steven@unipalm.co.uk (Steven Vincent)
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Organization: Unipalm Ltd., 216 Cambridge Science Park, Cambridge CB4 4WA, UK
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:48:04 GMT

megazone@yoyodyne.WPI.EDU (MegaZone) writes:


>>would stall the Aircraft on the second  or third shot! I know that the B-25H a
>>mounted a 75mm Howitzer (converted but basically low pressure) in the nose wit

>WHAT?!?! When did the B-52H Stratofortress EVER carry any gun other than the
>M61A1 in the tail? The B-52 is a bomber, not an attack aircraft. BTW, so the

I said B25 as in North American Mitchell. I was not talking about current
aircraft. The B-25 like the B-26 was rated as a bomber but often used
in a strike or attack role.


>###############################################################################
># 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#
>###############################################################################

======================================================================









Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: A-10 replacement
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:06:47 GMT

In article <1jpkq3INN3o5@uwm.edu> zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Dr. Strangelove) writes:
>In article <m0nFLBX-000R0DC@aton.abo.fi> skronkvi@aton.abo.fi (Stefan Kronkvist INF) writes:
>>
>>Hello
>>
>>-Is the A-10 operated by any other country than the USA.
>
>Yes, South Korea has some. I don't know how many. I'll look it up.

	I think you are mistaken.  They certainly didn't have when the
	IISS compiled the 1991-92 Military Balance.

	Alec Chambers.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: baltes@cpsc.UCalgary.ca (Hansjorg Baltes)
Subject: Re: Shooting at bailed-out pilots.
Organization: The University of Calgary
	<1j47iuINNg61@cc.tut.fi>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 19:21:12 GMT

Hi,
during my time in the german air force, we got a lot of instructions on the
geneva convention. What we were taught was that:
	a.) You can shoot at paratroopers
	b.) You cannot shoot at bailed out pilots.
Don't know of course how well this is/was followed.
CU,
	Jacky
From: barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - Technical Consultant - Latin America)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Does South-Africa operate Mirage Fighte
Date: 21 Jan 1993 07:01:03 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: licancabur.corp.sun.com

Hugh>The first version of the Kfir had the old nose, but the Kfir C2 has a
Hugh>different longer nose (looks awful :-).

  Same longer nose that the Pantera, a Chilean Mirage-50C modification,
has. That modification was done by IAI/ENAER and includes canard, new
electronics and longer nose.

  Anybody who knows what is inside that longer nose?

  Speaking for himself,

  Juan Carlos
From: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun) 
Distribution: world
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 21:41:12 GMT
Organization: Me? Organized?


In article <1993Jan21.132512.22588@mlb.semi.harris.com> smccoy@dw3g.ess.harris.com writes:

  > 
  > [..stuff about 75mm aircraft weapons deleted...]
  > 
  > The British also mounted a large (75mm?) cannon on Hurricanes
  > during WWII for desert operations against Rommel's tanks in
  > North Africa.

Not quite - 40mm (Vickers I think), one under each wing.  Comparable 
guns were used by many nations for tank busting - 37mm under Stuka 
wings, 30mm, 50mm (and of course 75mm) in Hs 129's, 37mm in IL-2M 
Sturmoviks, 37mm & 45mm in Yak-9's, 37mm in P-39 and P-63's.

Larger guns were usually mounted for anti-shipping purposes, although 
usable to shoot at anything you wanted to of course - 57mm (6 pdr) in 
mosquito's, 75mm in B-25.  The Italians mounted a 102mm conventional 
weapon in a 4-engined bomber, don't remember the designation.

Someone mentioned a very large recoilless weapon mounted in a Do-215, 
which I remember seeing a picture of - the thing looked like a chimney 
pipe, was mounted underneath the fuselage, and was as long as the 
whole plane!!


Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz
From: megazone@realsoon.WPI.EDU (MegaZone)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 22:38:06 GMT
Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal
NNTP-Posting-Host: realsoon.wpi.edu

In article <30751@castle.ed.ac.uk> ajpotts@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Potts) writes:
>PS Sometimes when I post to this group I get my mail rejected on the
>grounds that 'text greater than new text' or something. So if I want to
>reply to a long question with just a line or two, I can't! Is this a
>feature of this particular newsgroup... or is their a censor in my

That's a feature of most newsreaders/posters I've seen. It is designed to
limit the ammount of text you include. Usually you can cut it down to just
a few lines. It is a waste of bandwith to include more than absolutely
necessary. Sometimes this feature isn't installed or it is disabled, so you
may see posts with 400 lines of included text and 2 lines of comment... That's
really annoying.

###############################################################################
# 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: gt8303a@prism.gatech.EDU (The Great and Mighty Confused)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Date: 23 Jan 93 23:28:53 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

Okay, lets use some math and a little bit of airfoil knowledge here...
18000 lbs thrust from the engines - 10000 lbs thrust from gun = 8000 lbs net

Weight of the A-10, from my book is 21519 lbs empty.  I have not gotten 
into the specifics of how much lift an airfoil can produce at a given
velocity, but I doubt that the aircraft can remain airborne for long with
8000 lbs thrust, net.  I could easily be wrong, and welcome any authoritative
rebuttal.

Andy Entrekin
gt8303a@prism.gatech.edu
From: exudnw@exu.ericsson.se (Dave Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:04:13 GMT
Reply-To: exudnw@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article 29908@unipalm.co.uk, steven@unipalm.co.uk (Steven Vincent) writes:
>deleted...  I know of rumorse that the AC-130s mount
>a 105mm weapon but this is side firing. 
>

Not simply a rumor. All AC-130's models "H" and later carry a side-firing
105mm recoiless (well sort-of, you don't want to stand behind it when it 
fires) gun. This gun was hand-loaded, single shot.

The AC-130 "A" models had a Bofors (sp?) 40mm "pom-pom" gun (also present 
on "H" and later models. These were also hand loaded with multiple round 
"clips".

How many other current aircraft use in-flight hand-loaded guns? None?

---
= exudnw@exu.ericsson.se                                                =
= David Williams              "You can't win, you can't break even,     =
= Ericsson Network Systems     and you can't quit"                      =
= Richardson, TX 75081                                  my opinions...  =
From: gps19@herald.usask.ca (Gregory P. Siemens)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: NACA airfoil data request
Date: 25 Jan 93 15:31:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: access.1k113mINN8pt
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
NNTP-Posting-Host: herald.usask.ca
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]

[ Article crossposted from sci.aeronautics ]
[ Author was Gregory P. Siemens ]
[ Posted on 15 Jan 1993 17:21:28 GMT ]



C
Does anyone out there have the raw data for NACA airfoils
(or any others).  Data I need is Lift and Drag co-efficients for any
angle of attack.  I have a book with several NACA airfoils in it
(Abbott) but it contains only the graphs of this data and not the data
itself.  I need the data in a form that could be typed into a data file
or read into a program as a data file.  I would very much appreciate
this data as we are trying to compile a database of Cd/Cl vs. Angle of
attack for a large number of airfoils(not just NACA).  If you know of
someone who has this data or a way of getting it please mail me with the
info.

			Thanks in advance. 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: lawrence@xenon.stanford.edu (Lawrence Taylor Waugh)
Subject: Re: Trivia
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 02:18:09 GMT

In article <FPFyXB1w164w@n5abi.hou.tx.us> gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A.  
Kennedy) writes:
> chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss) writes:
> 
> > In article <1993Jan21.150040.29754@ncsu.edu> edhresko@eos.ncsu.edu  
writes:
> > >
> > >	I should comment that the Crusader has the honor of being the  
first
> > >aircraft to land by itself (that is, made a perfect landing AFTER the  
pilot 
> > >punched out!!!)
> > >
> > Years ago, I took a tour of Griffis Air Force Base.  They were still  
flying 
> > the F-106 in an active duty SAC wing there, I think it was 1983 or so  
(Hey, 
> > when you're only twenty, 1983 is years ago).  Anyway, one of the  
-106's was o
> > static display, but it didn't have a canopy.  The story, as I remember  
it, wa
> > that the pilot punched out in a nasty spin/stall, and the force of the  
seat 
> > leaving the aircraft was just right to kick the plane into level  
flight.  It 
> > flew around for a while before settling in for a wheels-up landing in  
a field
> > 
> > That would be the ultimate embarrassment, to eject, and then have your  
airpla
> > recover and land itself.
> > 
>  I find these stories interesting, but one thing bothers me about 
> them; in all of the aircraft mentioned, once the pilot has 
> "punched out", the loss of the weight of the pilot and the 
> ejection seat would shift the CG (center of gravity) so far aft 
> that there is no way the aircraft could maintain level flight. I 
> have seen film of aircraft after the pilot ejected nosing up into 
> a tail stand and then doing a tail slide into the ground. What I 
> can't figure out is how any of these aircraft could have managed 
> to land with the CG that far aft. Any ideas??


I'm not sure how intolerant these aircraft are to minor CG shifts.  A  
friend of mine (a personal friend, whom I could name, not a friend of a  
friend of someone who heard of someone) punched out after a hook-point  
failure during a carrier landing (aircraft grabs wire, slows down,  
hook-point departs aircraft, aircraft doesn't stop and dribbles off deck)  
when it became apparent to him (and his B/N) that it wouldn't fly.  Or so  
they thought.  After they both ejected, the plane flew in ground  
(water...) effect for awhile, climbed out slowly, then gradually rolled  
off on one wing and fell into the water.  No tail slide, just a little  
roll from too much flaperon trim, despite being about 1000 pounds (2  
aircrew, 2 seats) lighter in the nose.

Surprising, I admit, but true.
From: janm@Kiev.docs.uu.se (Jan Mattsson)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Date: 21 Jan 93 20:26:29 GMT
Organization: Uppsala University
Reply-To: janm@bern.docs.uu.se
NNTP-Posting-Host: kiev.docs.uu.se
Organisation: Dept. of Comp. Syst., Uppsala University, Sweden

exudnw@exu.ericsson.se (Dave Williams) writes:

>Not simply a rumor. All AC-130's models "H" and later carry a side-firing
>105mm recoiless (well sort-of, you don't want to stand behind it when it 
>fires) gun.


Are you sure about that? I thought it was a normal howitzer.
--
Jan Mattsson, CS student, Uppsala University, Sweden
janm@minsk.docs.uu.se
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Subject: Re: The Gattling Gun
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 21 JAN 93 19:10:13    

	Some small additions (Line lengths were a little long...)
	Dr (Richard Jordan?) Gatling (correct spelling) a dentist(?) or doctor
	during the US Civil War originated the design.  Early units used black
	powder in recyclable steel shells, primed with a common percussion cap.

	The design rapidly evolved to the more characteristic drum (Accles?)
	feed and vertical clips.  Used in a varierty of mountings over the
	years on land, and sea.  (and camel back, reportedly) and in a variety
	of calibers at least up to one inch.  Colts (who did the manufacturing)
	experimented with a motor drive in the late 1800's.

	Try for a copy of:

		The Gatling Gun
		Wahl & Toepple(sp?)

	(mine is not here, and predates ISBN anyway...  8)>>)

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
40 Old Bolton Rd		|I am the NRA.
Stow, Mass, USA	
01775				pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: dwt8413@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (DANA)
Subject: FAQ Files
Reply-To: dwt8413@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:38:02 GMT

Does anyone have or know of any ftp sites where I can get ahold of FAQ files on
military aircraft such as the F-15, F-14, F16, C-5, or F-111?

Thanks

Dana.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: lengyel@puppis.cxn.dec.com (Gary Lengyel)
Subject: Re: USE OF B-52 TAIL GUNS
Reply-To: lengyel@puppis.cxn.dec.com (Gary Lengyel)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:51:34 GMT


There is a B52 at the North Gate entrance of the Air Force Academy that has been
accredited
with one of the MIG kills. I believe it was accomplished with the tail gun.
From: su0bufs@sunlab1.bath.ac.uk (Bath University Film Society)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Lost prototypes (Was: Re: F-22 Question)
Date: 22 Jan 93 20:03:02 GMT
Organization: Students' Union, University of Bath, UK

In the referenced article, urf@icl.se (Urban F) writes:
>Viggen (assymetrical thrust reverser after landing)
>Gripen (hard landing due to control system)
>Yak-141
>Taiwan's own lightweight fighter (Ching Kuo?)
>--
> Urban Fredriksson  urf@icl.se  


	I recall, a long time ago, reading a book on aviation
	prototypes, and it included several interesting
	projects from the 50's and 60's (American, that is)
	Including a odd desgin of a vertical takeoff aircraft
	with a cylindrical wing.

	Can anyone give anymore info on this aircraft?

	Dave Ford.


-- 
  |          ___   _ _  ___  __  <      			     |
  |  ()()    I__}  I I  |_  (_    >     su0bufs@sunlab1.bath.uk.ac    |
  |  [  ]=   I__}  \_/  |   __)  <     Bath University Film Society  |
  |  ~~~~		       	  >			             |
From: hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Tomahawk on A-6
Date: 24 Jan 93 00:36:59 GMT
Organization: Chevron


 Someone had inquired whether the A-6 had the capability to carry Tomahawks. 

 In the 1991 edition of HIGH-TECH WARFARE by Richardson, Gunston, and Hogg
 on page 38 is a picture of an A-6 in flight with a AGM-109 under its wing.

 The AGM-109 is essentially the air-launched version of the BGM-109 Tomahawk.

 Since the missile is painted red with black panels on the nose and tail,
 I would guess this is some kind of test flight with a protype or such.

 Curiously, NO air-to-air weapons such as the AIM-9 appear, even though some
 ex-A6 jocks on the net have said that they have had Sidewinders mounted on
 their aircraft.

 TRAVIS
From: nsyoungm@cen.ex.ac.uk (N.S.Youngman)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Vulcan (was Re: B-1B)
Date: 27 Jan 93 13:38:09 GMT
Organization: Computer Unit. - University of Exeter. UK

In article <252@newave.newave.mn.org> john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes:


   With airshow season starting in a few weeks, I should also mention that
   the B-1B is an excellent airshow performer.  It is hard to believe that
   a plane as large as the B-1 can be so agile.  If you hear of a B-1 putting
   on a demonstration at an airshow, make sure that you don't miss it.

   -john-

If you get the chance to see a Vulcan display don't miss that either.
Sadly unless something changes unexpectedly you will only be able to
see it on video in the 1993 season, so Rest In Peace XH557.

Neil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military