HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Re: Advanced Tactical Fighter
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:30:35 GMT

In article <SHAFER.92Nov22203229@ra.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>
>GM> Dean Hall writes:
>
>>>The AirForce chose the YF-22 (a much uglier plane) and then. . .
>
>
>GM> Toby Hughes responds:
>
>>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.

>
>Some of us don't take well to insults to the F-4 Phantom II, the best
>damned airplane ever built.  Only a barbarian would call it ugly.
>Powerful, imposing, threatening, menacing, but not ugly.
>
>You probably think that frou-frou little planes like the F-16 are
>better aircraft because they're cute.  The next thing you'll say is
>that the F-16 must be better than the A-10 in the CAS role because
>it's better looking.
>
>I don't care what you say about the YF-22, but I do care about what
>you say about the Phantom.  Besides, I don't think the YF-22 is _that_
>ugly.  After all, I worked on the AFTI/F-111.

Err-ah, Mary.....

The airplane one flies is like one's sister or hometown.  It's OK if YOU
insult it, but nobody else had better do it!  Most of my fellow Rhino
Drivers agree that the airplane is ugly, but we still love it.  Call off
the dogs.

TH
From: scottwee@caravan.ksu.ksu.edu (Chuan Chun Wee)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: to A.Ng @ ualberta.edmonton.ca
Date: 15 Nov 1992 21:40:41 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: caravan.ksu.ksu.edu


	Hey man!!! Thanks for the info about the FSA application on the 

OV10D Bronco! Incidentally, i was doing it for a friend of mine.... :) 

Say, how do u know so much about these things??? i merely ask because	

i am a curious person! :) As again, reply to the net. Know anything 

about Flight Surveillance Avionics by any chance?? Or any info on 

a particular company named Pathcor, Ariz?? I know they (Pathcor) manufacture

highly specialized surveillance equipment for aircraft and are currently 		

under a contract with the DEA. Any further information regarding this topic 

will be highly appreciated! :) Thanks!!! :) 

scottwee@ksuvm.ksu.edu
scottwee@matt.ksu.edu
Kansas State University
Dept of Chemical Engineering, KSU
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Subject: Re: Aircraft in Museums (was: SR-71 / MIG-25)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:51:41 GMT

john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes:

[Phil had sigged.....]
>> Phil (who spends entirely too much time at the AF Museum :-)

>I didn't think it was possible to spend too much time there!

	Well, I'll go along with that - but if you go into the bookstore
you sure as hell can rack up a heck of a bill!  :-)  :-)

Duane (aviation-book poor)
From: gunter@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Speed Record
Date: 24 Nov 1992 04:07:41 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: tartarus.uwa.edu.au

bm511@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronald G. Martin) writes:


>What a/c holds the record for a prop-driven plane? I need to settle a bet!
>	Thanks,
>	  Ron
>P.S. I say the record is held by the P3 Orion.

Republic XF-84H 670mph Design Speed
Tupelov 114 545mph Actual
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: 57 Chevy vs. Acura NSX (was Re: Advanced Tactical Fighter)
Keywords: ATF advanced YF-22 YF-23 grey ghost lightning fighter
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 03:10:52 GMT

craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell) writes:

>Radios that look like automatic transmissions inside, transistor flip-flops,
>IFF encoded with hundreds of little pins.  Yeah, a manly machine for manly
>drivers.  Kind of like a 57 Chevy.

	This reminds me of a Gates Learjet I saw land at Eppley Airport in
Omaha, Nebraska a few years ago.  The wing tanks had been painted to look
like Sidewinder missiles, and there were bird silhouettes painted under the
cockpit window.

	A manly plane?  Has to be the Vought F4U Corsair.  Those gull
wings and that *HUGE* prop just said, "I'm big, bad, and mean."

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Name of F-111
Date: 22 Nov 92 18:08:01 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Nov22.060316.2390@julian.uwo.ca> pettypi@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Carl Pettypiece) writes:
>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)


Never heard the name Condor used for the F-16, but it's possible that was one
of the names being considered in the development stage.  The F-16's two most
popular nicknames are "Viper", used generally by those who fly it, and "Lawn
Dart", used by those who don't.  The OFFICIAL  General Dynamics/USAF name for
the airplane is "Fighting Falcon."

TH
From: pdills@staff.tc.umn.edu (Peter in Amiland)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Mystery B-58
Keywords: Mystery B-58
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:36:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: news2.1992Nov16.173610.932
Organization: University of Minnesota

In article <1drv7uINNd4h@aludra.usc.edu> augustho@aludra.usc.edu (August Horvath) writes:
>
>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 ...

Talking about the 'limitations' under the experimental catagory, does anyone
know wether or not special permits can be granted for test-flights or other
such flights; other than just the "air show" flights, etc.

Peter

*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*  pdills@epx.cis.umn.edu (Internet, immer/always) Walter Computer Lab Mngr *
*  pdills@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Internet, immer/always) Consultant EE/CSCI *
*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*
From: megazone@coal.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Speed Record
Date: 23 Nov 1992 19:07:48 GMT
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
NNTP-Posting-Host: coal.wpi.edu

In article <1eqtfcINNda6@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bm511@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronald G. Martin) writes:
>What a/c holds the record for a prop-driven plane? I need to settle a bet!
>P.S. I say the record is held by the P3 Orion.

That's pretty broad. But THE speed record by a prop-driven aircraft is held by
an unlimited racer, the Rare Bear. A highly modified Bearcat....

No, do you mean unmodified production types? I'd have to give it to a fighter?
Probably a Mustang of Spitfire, etc...

Multi-engine? I don't know, but there are probably some multi engine bombers
that are pretty fast....

###############################################################################
# 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: megazone@coal.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Name of B-52
Date: 23 Nov 1992 19:03:44 GMT
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: coal.wpi.edu

In article <By5F9y.IBu@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> steve@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges) writes:
>Sure -- Stratofortress

I think he meant individual planes....

But while we're at it...

>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
Flying Fortress

>	B-29
Super Fortress

>	B-47
Stratojet

>	KC-135
Stratotanker

>	E-3A
Sentry

###############################################################################
# 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: wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Subject: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:42:03 GMT

greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis) writes:


>Note that raw power output is more an indication of crudeness of
>antenna/receiver design than anything else.  Modern weather radars of ~8kW or
>so have a "danger" area of only about 4ft in front of the radome and do as good
>a job, or better, as their 1960s brothers.

	However, it has also been said that that amount of power could
effectively "burn through" many ECM schemes just by the sheer overkill
of wattage.

Duane

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Re: speed record
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:55:53 GMT

In article <By6rCv.6Ay@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hunter3@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Macs suck.) writes:
> HA,  who ever posted that the F-4 was ugly should think twice about that
>   statement. The F-4 may be old, not as manuverable as the toy planes of
>   today but it can survive just about anything and it's dam fast.
>

Dammit!  Knock it off!  I have been above Mach 2 in a clean F-4D.  I have
survived hits from a ZPU, a ZSU-23, and a Claymore in a C model.  The airplane
was the best in the world when I was flying it, it got my butt home in one
piece, I LOVE IT!!  But it's still ugly, and I don't need any further flak
about MY opinion of MY airplane.  If it's pretty to you, fine;  I've earned
the right to call it ugly, a sentiment rather wide-spread among Phantom
Phylers.

End of Story.

TH
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Reason for Retirement
Date: 14 Nov 92 23:04:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

SP> .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?)

The SR-71 uses JP-7, which is hellish stuff.  You'd have trouble
igniting it with a match, or even a blowtorch!  It takes a boron
chemical igniter to light it off, and the plane only carries enough for
about a dozen relights.  Because of the temperature range involved, the
tanks leak when on the ground and cool.  And keep leaking until they
come up to "operating temperature" where expansion tightens the seams.

All in all, not your typical 100-LL kind of stuff...

        D/

 * OLX 2.2 * Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
From: d.j.piatak@larc.nasa.gov (David J. Piatak)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Name of B-52
Date: 23 Nov 1992 17:48:18 GMT
Organization: NASA-Langley Research Center
Distribution: world
Reply-To: d.j.piatak@larc.nasa.gov (David J. Piatak)
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac153.larc.nasa.gov

In article <By5F9y.IBu@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, steve@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM 
(Steve Bridges) 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 Stratojet
KC-135 StratoTanker
E-3A Sentry

That was easy!!.....

"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: 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 21:44:51 GMT

hagood@sabre.den.mmc.com (Dave Hagood) writes:


>	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.

	The GTD21.  Would have been very LITTLE armament, as what little
internal space there was that was NOT dedicated to fuel tended to be
a long tube consisting of inlet - ramjet - exhaust.  :-)

	(and I doubt seriously that performance was likely to be upheld
by hanging anything externally off the GTD21's airframe....)

	That little booger was a bloody flying blowtorch......

Duane

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (Randy Haskin)
Subject: Re: Advanced Tactical Fighter
Keywords: ATF advanced YF-22 YF-23 grey ghost lightning fighter
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:57:45 GMT


>  As the story goes, there were to contenders: The YF-22
> and the YF-23.  Each were made by a conglomeration of
> aviation companies and were built to be the absolute
> best fighters ever flown.  Having stealth characteristics,
> vectored  thrust, super-cruising, and the best computer
> systems around.
>   The AirForce chose the YF-22 (a much uglier plane)
> and then. . . I haven't heard much lately, just budget
> problems.  Does anyone know if the f-22 is scheduled
> for production yet?

	Have you been living in a cave for the last year?  The F-22 was 
selected in April of 91!  

Randall Haskin
strega@u.washington.edu
From: bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Streak Eagle tailhook (was:Re: SR-71 / MIG-25)
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:32:21 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

In article <1992Nov14.062257.6824@u.washington.edu>, strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (Randy Haskin) 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>

        They didn't (that I know of). Some runways are fitted with
arrestor wires, just like carriers are. The wires are for things
like an emergency landing and the aircraft may not be able to stop
before going off the end of the runway, (for one reason or another).
I can't think of any other small, non-navy, jet with a tailhook
though (F-16?, F-117?, don't bother to mention the F/A-18 or F-4
folks).

> I sincerely hope that "<g>" means that this statement was intended as a joke...

  Ditto, but I though that tailhooks on non-carrier planes might be a
suprise for some readers.

           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.
From: gunter@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Name of B-52
Date: 23 Nov 1992 04:37:43 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: tartarus.uwa.edu.au

chena@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Cheng) writes:

>Can anyone name any famous B-52 bomber?

THE HIGH & MIGHTY ONE!

X Series Motherplane
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb)
Subject: SR-71 question
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:13:23 GMT

 know this has probably been gone over several times, but has there
 been any OFFICIAL release from the US government as to why the SR-71
 is no longer needed (or wanted). I'd also love to hear your personal
 reasons. Thanks in advance.

 E-mail jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu


-- 
H. Ross Perot | "How do you always manage to    | Jeff R. Lamb
for President | decide?" 			| Midnight Arrow
of the United | "How do you let others decide   | Champion of Reality
States in '96 | for you?"	   -Ayn Rand 	| (jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: gsurbeck@eng.umd.edu (Gregory D. Surbeck)
Subject: the missing century planes
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 15:57:06 GMT
Organization: Project GLUE, University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: rec.aviation.military

A friend once hypothesized that the missing century planes were
numbers given to Soviet aircraft retrieved for testing by the USAF.
Does anyone know about the numbering scheme?  Is it something this
conspiratorial or is it something more mundane?

Thanx in advance
From: flloyd@l1-a.West.Sun.COM (Fred Lloyd [Phoenix SE])
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Mystery B-58
Date: 18 Nov 1992 17:41:53 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Phoenix, AZ
NNTP-Posting-Host: l1-a.west.sun.com
Keywords: Mystery B-58


I came in late on this thread.  Was there actually any talk about 
the B-58 or was it just a teaser?

I'm facinated about the B-58's and would appreciate any summaries
of the recent posts concerning the craft.

Thanks,

-fred

-- 
[ Fred Lloyd, AA7BQ                             Fred.Lloyd@West.Sun.COM ]
[ Sun Microsystems,           Southwest Area Solaris Transition Manager ]
[ Phoenix, AZ         - The future starts today! -       (602) 275-4242 ]
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Air Force Tailhooks (was Re: SR-71 / MIG-25)
Date: 22 Nov 92 18:33:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
NNTP-Posting-Host: obsidian.wpi.edu

In article <92325.213017DHE2@psuvm.psu.edu> <DHE2@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>quire it's installation on any field the F-117 (a misnomer for a bomber, but t
>en Congress would never have funded a B-117) operated from.  Since the one you

Actually, the F-117 should have been A-12 (predating the aborted Avenger) and
bumping the Avenger to A-14. (Seeing as A-13 is a no-go...)

But the AF is allergic to the 'A' designator...

For that matter the F-105 and F-111 should have been A-somethings...

###############################################################################
# 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: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Re: RF-4 Phantom
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:39:21 GMT

In article <93716@rphroy.ph.gmr.com> rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer) writes:
>
>There is a lot of nostalgia in the F-4 for some of us who never even came
>to flying them.
>

There's a lot of nostalgia for those of us who did, too.  :)

T.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: zell@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Joseph Zell)
Subject: Name of F-111
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:54:44 GMT

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

-- 
Joe Zell               * "Someone Kohl from Germany is on"
zell@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu  *  -A Clinton Aide, when German Chancellor Kohl 
                       *   called to congratulate Clinton on winning the 
                       *   election
From: dsnyder@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: WPAFB F117 was SR-71 / MIG-25
Date: 16 Nov 92 12:48:12 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: USAF AL/CFH, WPAFB, Dayton, OH

In article <1992Nov13.193752.11491@athena.mit.edu>, brndlfly@athena.mit.edu (Matthew T Velazquez) writes:
> 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 ;)
> 
  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-- 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
David B. Snyder                     Logicon Technical Services Inc.
dsnyder@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil   Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
513-255-7557                        Dayton, Ohio USA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It is said that GOD doesn't subtract from ones' time on earth, those
hours spent flying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1946 Cessna 140 N76234 "The lady in waiting" Owner/Operator
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are my own and not those of Logicon or the USAF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------