HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elf@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: looking for a CFI - info needed
Date: 16 Dec 92 10:31:21 EST
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

I am working on my private pilot rating - finished ground school and passed 
the written exam. 
My question is the following: what should I look for in a CFI?
Any info will be greatly appreciated. 
Please respond by e-mail to 
		elf@ohspty.mps.ohio-state.edu
thanks,
Eric 
Xref: sparky rec.aviation.student:369 rec.aviation.ifr:493 rec.aviation.misc:1058
From: todd@valinor.mythical.com (Todd Lawrence)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: How do I get into the ATC Tower?
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 11:50:36 CST
Distribution: world
Organization: (What? Organized??) - Mythical Computer Systems

ngupta@mtl.mit.edu (Nitin Gupta) writes:

> 
> I go to BOS field every couple weeks with my scanner to listen and learn.  
> It would be a very educational experience to visit the Tower and see how  
> air traffic is managed. The question is, how can I get up there? Are  
> visitors even allowed? Can I just call and ask, provided I had the number.
> 
> Please post or respond directly. All responses are greatly appreciated.
> Thanks.

Nitin,

Firstly you can generally go directly to the base of the tower and ask
for a tour, every tower I've ever visited was equipped with an intercom 
system, that allowed you to speak to them. The second best bet is to call 
your local Flight Service Center, and explain to them that you are 
interested in visiting the tower and they can Direct you to the proper 
person.. if you don't have the number for the local FSS call Universal
at (800) WX-BRIEF and they will get you the information.. Most 
towers/TRACONS will have set visiting hours, as they generally don't want 
to be giving tours during Peak Hours.. But ALL that I have had the 
privilege to visit have been more than happy to show me around during the 
off hours..

Todd LAwrence
CFIAIMEI/AGI ATP BE02, USAir Express
(Opins' Mine Not USAirs..)


 Todd Lawrence   
 LOD! Communications                 internet:  todd@valinor.mythical.com
 IMF Data Acquisition Group          uucp    :  uunet!valinor!todd
 -Maybe he just ran off the cliff, like a lemming... -mar/lod
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell)
Subject: Re: Short landings (was Re: big a/c on carriers)
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:43:19 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <thos.724285544@suite.sw.oz.au> thos@suite.sw.oz.au (Thomas Cohen) writes:
>Speaking of landing C130s in short spaces (which we weren't really),
>the above reminded me of a story I heard once about an airshow down
>in Melbourne. It seems (so the story goes) that a Caribou and a Herc
>were having a short landing contest (I don't know how realistic this
>is, so don't blame me) and the Caribou guy went first, touched down
>and stopped as soon as he could. Fine. Then the C130's turn. Coming
>in at a few feet altitude he shoved it into reverse thrust whilst
>airborne, and from position of first contact to stop was some incredibly
>short distance which beat the Caribou handily. 

Sounds like an assault landing.  You don't see many of these as you get
to rebuild the engines after you're done.

-- Craig
From: wilson@moonshine.llnl.gov (Mike Wilson )
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: The A-10
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:18:32 GMT
Organization: Magnetic Fusion Energy - LLNL

pug@cs.curtin.edu.au (Greg Barron) writes:

>Show me an AH that can take any where near the fire of an A10 and I'll
> show you something you're dreaming about!

>One or two hits to the blades and most of them are history. I doubt even the

I am possibly wrong on this, but I seem to remember that the reason the army
does not use _armed_ fixed wing aircraft is because of a congressional 
mandate that the army would not duplicate air force efforts, unfortunately 
their was no protection for the army in the event the af chooses not to 
fulfill this role...  In any case, It is indeed sad to think that the current
perception in the air force is that the f-16 is anywhere near as mission
capable in a close support role as the a-10.  The attack speed does not
support positive target id...regardless of mission survivability.

-mike
From: d.j.piatak@larc.nasa.gov (David J. Piatak)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: "Fake" MiGs (was Re: PEARL HARBOR)
Date: 14 Dec 1992 22:24:40 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 <1992Dec14.191716.6838@olaf.wellesley.edu>, 
lhawkins@annie.wellesley.edu (R. Lee Hawkins) writes:
> In article <RATINOX.92Dec14115306@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> 
> ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu writes:
> >of it's design concepts was similarity to the T-38. The F-5 is used in
> >the US as a MiG simulator and as NASA space shuttle chase planes. It's
> 
> Err... NO.  All the NASA birds are T-38's.


 Not quite.  Here at NASA-Langley we have a Northrop F-5F two seater.  I think 
it was one of only 3 F-5F's supplied to the U.S.AirForce.  In addition to the 
F-5F we have 2 T-38's. One is used as a parts ship though...too bad.


David Piatak                                 "Excuse me, while I 
Penn State Student Co-Op                         kiss the sky...."
Filght Research Branch                          -Jimi Hendrix  
NASA-Langley Research Center
From: zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Dr. Strangelove)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Flames ect...
Date: 17 Dec 1992 18:28:56 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

Stop Please! This is usually(I stress this) good news group.
I love planes, and I'm a novice. I don't care if they are "ugly",
whether they are preformance is poor, or if the pilot sucks(unless I'm on
his plane.) This is to discuss military aircraft, not flaming (of people).

SO BACK TO AIRCRAFT, take the flames to alt.flames

To all those why write articles to this newsgroup, "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.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jac@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (John Clear)
Subject: US Planes as Hollywood Migs (was Re: PEARL HARBOR)
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:33:17 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.143928.11764@walter.bellcore.com> jem3@pyuxf.uucp (25312-mc killop) writes:
>>jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>>O.K. This really makes me angry. If there is one thing I hate it is passing
>>>off second rate 'allied' planes as the enemy! Last night I saw five minutes
>>>of the worst movie I have ever seen in my life - Iron Eagles II.
>
>What you forget is that films are produced for one reason, to make
>a profit.  In order to do that, they must target the film for a
>speicifc audience and the target audience for movies of this type, 
>e.g., Top Gun, Iron Eagle, etc., are teens who don't have the
>slightest idea of which aircraft is which and really don't care.

	I have to differ with you on that one.  I'm still a teen for the next 
month, and when I saw Top Gun, I knew the 'Migs' were either T-38s or F-5s.  
As for Iron Eagle, I only watched the entire thing for the humor of it.  The
audience for these movies is more the general public that 'have to fly on a jet
because those propeller planes are dangerous...'  Most of the general public's
view of aviation is from Hollywood, or worse yet, the news media...

>They are more interested in seeing young people outdo us older
>types or see young studs make out with sexy looking women.

	Personally, ever time I watch Top Gun, I fast forward through the Tom
and Kelly scenes because they add nothign to the film and are a general waste.

John
-- 
John `SpaceCadet` Clear -- jac@mentor.cc.purdue.edu, clearja@sage.cc.purdue.edu
PP-ASEL   C/LTC, CAP-NYW                                 
"When you think how well basic appliances work, it is hard to believe 
anyone ever gets on an airplane" -- Calvin and Hobbes
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: "Fake" MiGs (was Re: PEARL HARBOR)
Date: 14 Dec 1992 20:41:23 GMT
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
NNTP-Posting-Host: obsidian.wpi.edu

In article <RATINOX.92Dec14115306@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu writes:
>Zoner> they've used? The F-5 doesn't have the same public recognition
>Zoner> as the F-4 since the US only uses it for training, well, for
>Zoner> the most part. I know people who thought they were T-38s...
>BTW, Zoner, the F-5 does look a lot like a T-38. It's supposed to--one
>of it's design concepts was similarity to the T-38. The F-5 is used in

I'm aware of that... They have the same family tree, Which lead to the F-20 and
F/A-18 - via the Cobra. 

>the US as a MiG simulator and as NASA space shuttle chase planes. It's

MiG-20 simulator I believe... But the NASA birds are T-38s....

###############################################################################
# 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: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Bf 109 questions
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:43:55 GMT
 <724571214snx@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <724571214snx@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell) writes:

> The definitive Ta-152H certainly had no problems outrunning any allied 
> fighters at virtually any altitude - it was equipped with Water- 
> Methanol as well as GM-1 injection for power boost, giving max speeds 
> of 465mph @ 30,000 ft, & 472 mph at altitudes in excess of 41,000 
> ft!!!.  In fact the FW-190D, which was redesignated the Ta-152 had a 
> maximum speed, with water-meth injection, of 440 mph @ 37,000 ft (D-9, 
> the first operational version).

Sorry, I should have been more specific.  What I was talking about was
a version of the 190 that came out with an inline engine before the
advent of the definitive Ta 152.  Joe Baugher can likely list the
specifics.  No question it was faster than the radial engined 190's,
but in it's initial version, it wasn't faster than the Mustangs and
Thunderbolts.  The allies called it the "long nose" Focke Wulf.  As I
mentioned, the comments of the German pilots from the book JG 26
indicate that while they appreciated the added speed, they didn't like
the reduction in the roll rate.  Many prefered to fly the old radial
engined 190 for it's neck snappingly quick roll rate.  It was this roll
quickness, by the way, that characterised the aspect of maneuverability
for which it initially was so feared.  Highly trained pilots understood
how to use this advantage to great effect.

Corky Scott
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: Aviation in the Movies (was Re: PEARL HARBOR)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:48:19 GMT

In article <viking.724409883@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>	The movie title is "The Final Countdown" for those who wish to
>spend a buck and rent it.  The scene with the F14's dogfighting Zero's
>is certainly worth the dollar it cost you.

   Ah yes, the most anti-climactic movie ever made.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Info on NAVY jet called "Cutlass"
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Date: 16 Dec 1992 01:54:13 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com



davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil () writes:

>True, the Cutlass was underpowered, but this was not really why the nose strut
>was extended.  Most delta wing or tailless airplanes need (and can get to) a
>higher AOA to generate a given amount of lift. 

I know that's true of delta-winged airplanes, but why would it be true of a
talless airplane with conventional wings, like the Cutlass?  Why would the
absence of a horizontal stabilizer have an effect on the angle of attack 
needed for the wing to generate a given amount of lift?


>With low control power due to low airspeed, the way to get this on a catapult 
>stroke is to extend the nose strut.  Look at F-4's on the cat.  Look at 
>Entendards.

I wasn't aware that non- Royal Navy F-4s had an extendable nose strut.  One
fighter with an interesting approach to this problem was the Vought F-8, with 
its variable-incidence wing that was raised prior to takeoff.


>In the event of a mishap if the canopy were closed and the frame bent, it 
>might not be possible to open the canopy to get out.  Hence, land with the 
>canopy open.  Other (possible more reliable) airplanes did it as well.  
>Up until they retired a year or two ago, A-3's still did it for every 
>takeoff and landing.


What?  I thought the A-3 had a sealed cockpit -- not really a conventional
canopy, more of a glazed roof --  with a crew entrance hatch/escape slide on
the bottom of the fuselage.  I've seen a lot of photographs of Whales, but 
never one of an A-3 with an open canopy.


Geoff


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

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Subject: Re: Soviet/Russian designations (Was: Re: NATO Code Names for Soviet Aircraft)
Summary: US/Soviet equivalences listed for START-regulated weapons
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:54:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.061358.13326@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>Which is the correct designation for Soviet ICBM'S?  I've seen both
>'SS' and 'RS' used, and 'SS' seems to make sense (SS=surface to surface).

It's a matter of NATO/US versus Soviet (presumably still Russian) designations.
*All* Soviet ICBMs have SS identifiers in the NATO system and RS in the Soviet;
similarly, submarine-launched ballistic missiles are SS-N and RSM.  If you want
to get down to specifics, the START treaty (any guesses what I do for a 
living? :-) ) spells out the following equivalences, which BTW I extend to
cover the other items regulated by START:
	US/NATO		Soviet/Russian		What is it?
	SS-11		RS-10			Silo-based ICBM
	SS-13		RS-12			Silo-based ICBM
	SS-17		RS-16			Silo-based ICBM
	SS-18		RS-20			*Humongous* silo-based ICBM :-)
	SS-19		RS-18			Silo-based ICBM
	SS-24		RS-22			Rail-mobile or silo-based ICBM
	SS-25		RS-12M			Road-mobile ICBM

	SS-N-6		RSM-25			SLBM
	SS-N-8		RSM-40			SLBM
	SS-N-18		RSM-50			SLBM
	SS-N-20		RSM-52			SLBM
	SS-N-23		RSM-54			SLBM

	Bear		Tu-95			Heavy bomber
	Blackjack	Tu-160			Heavy bomber
	Bison		3M			Former heavy bomber
	Backfire	Tu-22M			Medium bomber (not regulated
						under START but described)

	AS-15A,B	RKV-500A,B		Nuclear-armed cruise missiles

All of the missiles also have NATO code names _a la_ Bear, etc., but I don't
have a complete list of those available.  Two additions to the list that
somebody posted a few days ago: the AS-15 types have the code name "Kent,"
and the SS-18 has the thoroughly appropriate name "Satan."

-- 
Bill Johnson				| My suggestion for an Official
Los Alamos National Laboratory		| Usenet Motto: "If you have nothing
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA		| to say, then come on in, this is the
!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (mwj@lanl.gov)		| place for you, tell us all about it!"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: gillum@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Tim Gillum)
Subject: Re: Short/Assult landings (was Re: big a/c on carriers)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 03:49:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.184319.14394@microsoft.com> craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell) writes:
>In article <thos.724285544@suite.sw.oz.au> thos@suite.sw.oz.au (Thomas Cohen) writes:
>>Speaking of landing C130s in short spaces (which we weren't really),
>>the above reminded me of a story I heard once about an airshow down
>>in Melbourne. It seems (so the story goes) that a Caribou and a Herc
>>were having a short landing contest (I don't know how realistic this
>>is, so don't blame me) and the Caribou guy went first, touched down
>>and stopped as soon as he could. Fine. Then the C130's turn. Coming
>>in at a few feet altitude he shoved it into reverse thrust whilst
>>airborne, and from position of first contact to stop was some incredibly
>>short distance which beat the Caribou handily. 
>
>Sounds like an assault landing.  You don't see many of these as you get
>to rebuild the engines after you're done.

Huh?  From what I understood, it was a fairly common procedure with our
unit.  And I know that the jets guys and crewchiefs weren't changing engines
_that_ often.  In fact that's one of the things that gives 130s such a
short landing, the ability to reverse thrust so easily by pitching the blades
back.  As long as the engines aren't over-torqued, then the only problem is
how hard you hit the ground.  No, assult landings, per se, are done a lot,
just not hard enough to do damage.

-Tim

-- 
      ____         Tim Gillum  (gillum@en.ecn.purdue.edu)         ____ 
    /___ /|======================================================|\ ___\
   |    | |        the poet's pen...gives to airy nothing        | |    |
   |____|/===== a local habitation and a name. - Shakespeare =====\|____|
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: ahng@ee.ualberta.ca (Allan Hong-Kay Ng)
Subject: Helo kills of Fixed wing
Keywords: helo kill fixed wing
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:24:19 GMT

Hi
 
  I saw this in another group, but I wonder if anyone can shed some light
  on reports of a UH-1 helo getting a couple of An-2 kills.

  PS that was in Vietnam or Cambodia or Laos.

  PSS who cares where if you've heard of helo kills on fixed wing say so.


						Thanks 
						A. Ng

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Re: Air Force Career Types
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:29:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.172835.7953@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> conan@northeastern.edu writes:
>After reading a lot of flames; No I am not in the services, but
>have family that is; AF(major), Navy (Adm lower half), and was.
>Granted the promotions are not 100% fair, but it not crazy out there.
>In AF good tactician, but poor manager will not get a position
>of responsibility of others (and rightly so), but they do like
>to keep good tactician on as instructors. Most people in such
>situation leave for better money to airlines etc. I will get flamed
>for this, but pukes are dime a dozen (sorry but this is the
>official position). Nothing is 100% fair in life
>and there are a lot of losers with sob stories, blaming others
>left and right.
>I flamed Toby H. cause arrogant SOBs bring a bad name to service
>and to good people who are professionals. I have yet to meet a good
>professional that was as arrogant and loved to put people down.
>Never saw a good man who had to prove himself by hurting others.
>Lot of jerks around that feel secure by putting others down.
>I dont think we need any John Waynes in the services cause they are
>the ones who get friendlies killed, mess up things for the good guys,
>and live to brag.
>
>-c
>

Well, I was going to let this die a natural death, but now that he's brought
my Mother into the discussion, what's a John Wayne to do?

Not to worry, folks.  How can I take seriously any dink who profoundly states
that "pukes are a dime a dozen" is the official position.  How can I do
anything but snicker at someone who apparently has to prove himself by
posting third-grade rhetoric and calling himself "Conan?"

Knock it off! (Geoff, what that means is I'm stopping the fight.  No more
responses from here on this subject. Pee on the fire and call in the dogs;
this one is over.)

TH (who never got a friendly killed, but did prevent a few from being so.
    Dammit!  There I go bragging again! :(  )


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jbutt@odie.cs.mun.ca (Jonathan Butt)
Subject: Re: The A-10
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:50:09 GMT

cjd8@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher J de Zorzi) writes:


>Ok, short and sweet:  Air Force is phasing out (maybe it's already gout) the 
>A-10.  According to them, the airframe is old, there is no longer a need for
>its mission capability, etc etc.  Before I go balistic, I'd like to hear some
>of your inputs, observations.

>(By the way, the AF says that the same job (close in air support) can be done
>equally as well by other aircraft such as the F-16.  Comments?)

Here's something that didn't make your list of replies, but look at it like this. The A10 is flown by the AF to SUPPORT the army. Ever sine its inception the air force has been fighting the idea that its only job is to offer ground support to the army.  

AF's all over all through history have been against this type of thing. Why do you think that there is an Air Force, and no longer a USAAF. To break the ties with their land locked cousins.

In this era of budget cuts, no AF general is going to allocate funds to something which does not fit in with his Misson statem,ent. The primary function of the USAF is air superiority and strategic bombing (of all kinds icbms and all) the A10 is not really a superiority fighter, neither is it capable of delivering a decent bombload.

Don't get me wrong I think it is probably the best rig for the job. The only advantage of a helicopter is that it can sit in one spot behind something for a while, before it "pops-up" and attacks.

You can be pretty well sure that the reason that the A10 is going the way of the dodo is because the AF brass don't feel it fits in with their plans. If the USArmy is smart, they will pick it up, but there may be some regulations concerning who is permitted to operate fixed wing and rotary wing AC in the US military.(which isn't really fair because the AF has HUMMERS :-))

-- 
Jonathan D. Butt (aka. Slammer)
jbutt@garfield.cs.mun.ca
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: maierj@edmund.cs.andrews.edu (Joey Maier)
Subject: Re: "Fake" MiGs (was Re: PEARL HARBOR)
Organization: Andrews University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:43:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.233315.14629@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) writes:
>In article <Bz9s2v.L4u@news.cs.andrews.edu> maierj@edmund.cs.andrews.edu (Joey Maier) writes:
>  I admit that I'm not a military type and that I
>>don't have any 'inside information'  but I am a well read aviation buff.
>>I could be wrong, but I think that the T-38 is an F-5 DERIVITIVE(sp?),
>>which would mean that we are picking semantics here.
>>
>>Joey
>>
>
>Other way around, Joey.  The F-5 sprung from the loins of the T-38, which
>entered operational service in the Air Training Command in 1961.
>
>*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
>              |               | "The problem with the modified trainer aircraft
>             /O\              |  in the fighter role is that it has neither the
>   \_______[|(.)|]_______/    |  reputation to discourage a conflict nor the
>     o   ++   O   ++   o      |  capability to win one."
>  thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu         - Anonymous, USAF Fighter Weapons Center


Cool.  Like I said, I may not have all the details right.  Thanks for
clearing it up for me.

BTW, that is an excellent .sig

joey

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military