HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pdills@staff.tc.umn.edu (Peter in Amiland)
Subject: WWII Warbirds ...
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:15:21 GMT


Hello..

I was wondering if anyone in this group might know of any Newsgroup dedicated
to discussions on or concerning WWII Warbirds, exclusivly. While I do enjoy
reading about all the topics concerning todays advanced Jet-Fighters and
other aircraft, my heart and Pronounced-Interest belong to the military 
aircraft of WWII.

If no one knows of such a group, is there anyone interested enough to
vote/start a subgroup on WWII Military Aircraft?

I know this may sound rather specific, so please NO flames. I'm just tweaking
the public for possible interest. I can't be the 'only' WWII Warbird fanatic
out here,... Or am I?

All responses/insight welcome! :-)

Peter

*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*  pdills@epx.cis.umn.edu (Internet, immer/always) Walter Computer Lab Mngr *
*  pdills@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Internet, immer/always) Consultant EE/CSCI *
*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: acura@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (james.r.feeney)
Subject: U.S. aircrews executed by Stalin
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:16:52 GMT

Last week there was a report from Russia that said some U.S. aircrews held in
the Soviet Union during WWII were executed by Stalin's order either at the end
or just after the end of WWII. Some friends and I were wondering why good 'ol
Joe would do something that provocative unless he had a damn good reason. I
seem to remember reading that the Soviets first long range bomber was a
rivet-by-rivet copy of B-29s that made emergency landings in Soviet territory.
Could it be that Stalin was trying to make these B-29s (and their crews) 
dissappear? Does anyone have any info on the B-29ski? I think it was given a
Tupolev designation.

Jim Feeney
 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Name of F-111
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 04:37:39 GMT

On Sat, 21 Nov 1992 05:13:47 GMT, thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) said:

Toby> In article <By1Mnn.Fxt@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> 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

Toby> Although given more than one unofficial name by aircrews and detractors,
Toby> e.g. 'Edsel', 'Switchblade', and the universally accepted 'Aardvaark,'
Toby> the 111 never had an official nickname.

Not quite true.  The EF-111B is the Raven.  

I think it's a shame that they used such a spiffy name for such a
obscure airplane--I'd be up for calling the B-2 the Raven, myself.  It
fits the look and ravens _own_ the Antelope Valley, home of the B-2
and many other flying wings.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo)
Subject: Re: GIF's and FTP sites? 	
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:24:33 GMT


Here are two that I like,

wuarchive.wustl.edu
and 
ftp.brl.mil


brl has some desert storm shots.

For wuarchive you have to get the index, because this
is ONE HUGE SITE.  They have some pretty good pictures
of an A-7E in there a real good one of A-6 and F/A-18
they also have a shot of the Fb111, and a few shots
of the multinational built Tornado's
a few F15's SR-71, a couple of carrier shots as well as 
destroyers, and some F-4E's as well as about 1 million
varred shots of Vietnam, both aircraft wise
and not.

(they also have mushroom clouds, tomahawks, and the like)

Hope this helps.


Derek 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There Are Two Great Tragedies In Life,
	One Is Not To Get Your Heart's Desire.
		The Other Is To Get It.
				-Bernard Shaw
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: SR-71 / MIG-25
Date: 19 Nov 92 12:33:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 

-> If you're talking about 10 on 1 odds, isn't it true that at the
-> various air combat training schools for the Air Force and Navy, that
-> when the odds reach 3-to-1 and higher, no aircraft stands a chance?

Yes and I think that was the thinking behind many if not most Soviet
designs. If I had a manufacturing base like that and the technology lag
in areas like electronics, then my best strategic option would be to
produce massive numbers of less effective aircraft and then just
overwhelm you with such quantity that your quality was irrelevent. So
you put up[ a plane that can handle 5 to 1 odds. Fine I'll just build 6
to your one. If you improve it with highly expensive technology so it
can handle 7 to one, fine. I'll build two more of my cheap planes so I
can create an 8 to 1 situation. And in that scenario, the quality of my
pilots is not as much an issue either since with that many planes in the
air I would have to control them from the ground anyway.

Anyway, for years I have read the many "put downs" of Soviet aircraft
and their pilots and I have always wondered if the people doing it
really understood the philosophy behind those planes. If you measure a
plane simply by it's objective performance rate of climb, etc, then yes
Soviet aircraft were "inferior". But if you measure them by their
suitability for their intended role or how well they met their original
specs and design targets, then Soviet aircraft were Much more succesful
and cost effective than their American counterparts. It's sort of like
criticizing a jeep because it isn't a Jaguar.
                                                Rocky
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RF-4 PHANTOM
Date: 17 Nov 92 06:24:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 

-> Does somebody know for which missions is the RF-4 Phantom thought?

Low altitude Tactical Recon. We have a squadron on them here in
Birmingham, Alabama, based at the B'ham Airport with a National Guard
Squadron. They were one of the first units deployed to the Gulf. (They
volunteered.) We lost one of the planes and crews during missions there.
I was out at the airport yesterday watching flight ops. They routinely
do training runs over the Alabama boonies. Nice noisy low level stuff.

                                        Rocky
                                                                                                      
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Edwards AFB
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 06:02:14 GMT

gunter@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt) writes:

>No i remember the Lancaster was coproposed as an Atomic Bomb carrier along
>with the B-29 but lost out, but was it actually evaluated at Edwards? What was
>this one doing there 6 years later?

	The first person who says, "Slumming" gets uuencoded GIFs of a
B-52 mailed to them until a public apology is forthcoming!

< 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.  >
From: schaefer@koh-sun1.usc.edu (Peter Schaefer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Advanced Tactical Fighter
Date: 22 Nov 1992 20:07:53 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: koh-sun1.usc.edu
Keywords: ATF advanced YF-22 YF-23 grey ghost lightning fighter


In article <1eojffINN36c@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23) writes:
|> There have been proposals for a Naval ATF based on the F-23, but that was 
|> really just trying to give Northrop/McDD a consolation prize. Lockheed is also
|> supposedly working on a NATF based on the F-22... The F-14 is longer in the
|> tooth than the F-15. It really needs to be replaced and the F/A-18E/F isn't
|> the plane to do it...
|> 
|> At this point I don't see the AF buying the F-23, not in any real numbers...
|> People have mumbled about a recee bird since it was a bit more stealthy, but
|> that was just speculation. And if the TR-3A or Aurora are real, it would be 
|> redundant.
|> 
|> ###############################################################################
|> # 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#
|> ###############################################################################
What of the NATF?  As I recall, the showdown was scheduled for sometime in 1994,
but that the ATF contract requires that the winner (F-22) be used in the NATF
role also.  There was a big stink about this requirement and that Northrop was
pursuing having this changed.  What ever came of this.  Will the F-23 be 
resurected?
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Advanced Tactical Fighter
Date: 22 Nov 1992 18:03:36 GMT
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
NNTP-Posting-Host: obsidian.wpi.edu
Keywords: ATF advanced YF-22 YF-23 grey ghost lightning fighter

In article <1992Nov20.181024.1341@williams.edu> 92bbb@williams.edu (Bradford Behr) writes:
>In article <1ehjb8INNhd6@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> dwhall@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
>>  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?  Also, any GIF files?
>the YF-22 aircraft and the ground. Pilot-induced-oscillations are
>currently blamed. Don't know much more than that, but I would guess
>that this might be holding up the production process.

The AF and Lockheed are proceeding on schedule with F-22 development. Most of
the testing was done, and all of the vital tests, at the time of the crash. It
was decided to continue as planned and pick up testing with the first 
preproduction F-22s in 1995, the original IOC date. As long as the congress
critters don't muck it up the F-22 should enter service on time...
It would be silly to kill it now with all the tooling costs and testing all
but payed for. Killing a program at this late a date would not only cost almost
as much as buying the planes (R&D is the expensive part) but the F-15s can't
fly forever. Plus it would seriously slam the aerospace industry as Lockheed,
General Dynamics, and Boeing are partners and the F119 is Pratt and Whitney's
major contract for the time being. At least as new engines go, the P&W4000 is
the other big one... (My roomie works for Pratt...)
Not to mention the radar, computers, etc, etc, which so many subcontractors
are depending on...

I agree that we need to begin rolling back expenditures, as much as I like the
concept the B-2 isn't really needed, but cutting everything at once is suicide.
It needs to be phased to reduce the impact...

And the navy STILL needs both an ATF and an ATA....

###############################################################################
# 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: pettypi@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Carl Pettypiece)
Subject: Re: Air Force Tailhooks (was Re: SR-71 / MIG-25)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 06:10:43 GMT

In article <Bxpsw1.LEJ@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> steve@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges) writes:
>cpetersn@iastate.edu (Clifton R Peterson) writes:
>
>>In <1e1bbmINN6q9@bigboote.WPI.EDU> megazone@hikita.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23) 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>
>
>Most Air Force tactical aircraft (except the AC-130 and maybe the F-117 and
>A-10) have a tailhook for emergency use.  I've seen 2 types of arrestment
>systems -- an approach end arrestment system and a departure end arrestment
>system.

The F-117 definitely has one.  On the day before this year's
airshow here in London, they were expecting an F-117 so they
spent quite some time setting up a portable arrestor system for
it at the end of the runway (couldn't figure out what they were
doing :-).  I guess they're pretty sensitive about damaging these
babies.  Anyway, to test it, they got one of our own CF-188s
(F-18 to all you non-Canadians :-) to power up to full reheat and
was quickly halted by the gear.  Fortunately, they didn't need
it, since the F-117 landed without incident.  As soon as it had
taxied off the runway, they dismantled the arrestor gear.

They also set it up for it's departure the following Monday
(didn't test it though).

So tell me, is this common procedure?  They've never set up this
stuff before here, and in all the airshows I've been to here and
in Europe, this was the first time I saw this.  Needless to say,
I feel fortunate to see this stuff in action (albeit only a
ground test).
 
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Pettypiece (pettypi@gaul.csd.uwo.ca)        Disclaimer:  Hell, I don't
Department of Computer Science                   even know if these are MY
University of Western Ontario                    opinions!
From: chena@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Cheng)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Name of B-52
Date: 22 Nov 92 23:46:25 GMT
Reply-To: chena@cs.uq.oz.au

Can anyone name any famous B-52 bomber?

Thanks.

Anthony
--
  _-_|\	       Anthony S.K. Cheng					      0
 /     *  <--  Department of Computer Science 	Tel:   +61 7 365 2429	     <
 \_.-._/       The University of Queensland 	Fax:   +61 7 365 1999	    /\
      v	       Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia 	Email: chena@cs.uq.oz.au   8 oo
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: thos@suite.sw.oz.au (Thomas Cohen)
Subject: Re: TR-3a
Organization: Softway Pty Ltd
Date: 15 Nov 92 22:03:14 GMT

In <1992Nov9.164506.436@math.ufl.edu> diskwiz@maple.circa.ufl.edu writes:

>I was wondering If anyone had gathered any new info on the TR-3a. I haven't

Shouldn't this be in alt.autos.antique? ;^) (oh, _that_ TR3a)

regards
-- 
thos cohen                  ,not a typo        |Softway Pty Ltd
"It's not so bad to be a lair but a conniving  |ACSnet:         thos@softway.oz
 egomaniac is not really that socially accept- |UUCP: ...!uunet!softway.oz!thos
 able."  SMH, 2 Nov 92, P. Keating vs J. Hewson|Internet:    thos@softway.oz.au
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Re: Name of B-52
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:33:32 GMT

In article <9211240110.AA08358@cs.utexas.edu> 379LSSCC@strathost.stratcom.af.mil (379LSSCC) writes:
>The first B-52H, 60-001, was delivered to Wurtsmith AFB, MI and was named
>"The State of Michigan."  And the aircrew members still call the best
>strategic bomber in the world the "BUFF!"
>
>Bill Gillespie (former BUFF pilot)
>379lsscc@strathost.stratcom.af.mil
>

Careful, Bill.  We know what B.U.F.F. means, and as I have found out about
a half dozen times in the past 3 days, we are not allowed to say that our
airplanes were ugly. Afterall, what do we know?

TH (former Double-Ugly Pilot)
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Advanced Tactical Fighter
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:48:07 GMT
Reply-To: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com




Dean Hall writes:

>>The AirForce chose the YF-22 (a much uglier plane) and then. . .


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.


C'mon, Toby, lighten up.  While your point is well taken, I'm sure you'd agree 
that part of being an airplane enthusiast is having a certain keen appreciation 
of the aesthetic aspects of airborne hardware.   

Dean's comment about the YF-22 was parenthetical, after all; it obviously wasn't intended as a denigration of the airplane's potential effectiveness as a weapon 
system.


Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM  + + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
From: phalcon@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Phantom Update
Date: 20 Nov 1992 18:26:16 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

Just wanted to correct Hornet, Lincoln is where the Nebraska Phantoms are from
Not Omaha, Nevada is going to C-130s although they did have one F-4G for a 
while, but had to give it up yo Idaho when it was decided to have Idaho the 
sole F-4G unit.  Nebraska is supposedly getting KC-135s in the near future
Birmingham....? who knows what they are going to, although it's a good bet
that it will be a KC-135.  As for the Germans and and the Japanese, and 
I shouldn't forget the Koreans, the Iraneans, the Isrealies, and the Spanish
to name but a few, that operate the RF-4E.  The U.S.A.F. being the only user
of the RF-4C model.  Well, thats what i know about that, the Brits are phas-
ing out the FGR.2s having already withdrawn the FG.1s and the F-J(UK)s.

						John
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo)
Subject: Re: WPAFB F117 was SR-71 / MIG-25
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:11:13 GMT

[Talk about the F-117 in display having skin removed and replaced]
[Talk about how this is a bad method restoration, or somehow]


Maybe I missed something somewhere, but it seems obvious to me
why you would take off the skin among other things.
Sure, You dont care about getting a piece of the skin,
for historical purposes, and most people dont.
But dont you think that a lot of people might be interested
in it for actual real time current reasons?

Sure no one wants any of the bombers skin because they
know what it is made of.  But what about stealth skin?
You cant go around displaying top secret technology
24 hours a day in all its glory unless you want to 
lose its top secrecy.  But like I said, maybe I am missing
something, correct me if I am.



thanks,


Derek




-------------------------------------------------------------------
"He lived a life of going-to-do, 
   and died with nothing done"	       
		-J. Albery	     

In other words---JUST DO IT!
From: exudnw@exu.ericsson.se (Dave Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Two Tidbits
Date: 23 Nov 92 23:23:45 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 1e6lmqINNp6@bigboote.WPI.EDU, chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.013326.14626@athena.mit.edu> mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney) writes:
>>Gee, presurrization (sp?) of a gunship sounds like a really bad idea.  You have to
>>expect them to get shot up -- what happens then?
>>			(Hideous sucking sound)
>
>Besides, what is a gunship doing way the hell up where pressurization is 
>neccessary?   
>
>Chad Wemyss
>Worcester Polytechnic Institute

AC-130 "A" models were the last of the low-flying open cabin gunships (around
5,000 ft). The newer "H" models flew at 10,000 ft (I think they first came into 
service in 1970 but I'm not sure) with an open cabin (do this a few times and 
you won't have to ask why they pressurized the cabins). The newer "U" models 
may fly higher.

As to what a gunship is doing "way the hell up there", it's avoiding small
arms fire.

"When you need a gunship, nothing else will do...
 When you don't, almost anything else will do"

---
= 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...  =
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: yukyuk@beta.lanl.gov (Craig B. Huffnagle)
Subject: Re: Advanced Tactical Fighter
Keywords: ATF advanced YF-22 YF-23 grey ghost lightning fighter
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:34:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.033044.13481@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) writes:
>In article <1ehjb8INNhd6@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> dwhall@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Dean W Hall) writes:
>>  The AirForce chose the YF-22 (a much uglier plane) and then. . .
>>-Dean Hall
>
>
>Dean,
>
>As a career fighter jock, with a combat tour in the F-4, the ugliest airplane
>built until the F-117, I'm wondering if you'd explain to me what ugly has to do
>with capability. And why it's even worth mentioning.
>
>TH

You forget the ugly (and extremely capable) A-10!

- Craig

-- 
Craig Huffnagle       			yukyuk@yuck.lanl.gov
"It takes a big man to cry,
	And a bigger man to laugh at him."	Jack Handey
------------- Think of a disclaimer, it applies. --------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: hunter3@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Macs suck.)
Subject: speed record (pond racer)
Organization: Purdue University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 05:43:21 GMT

 Well the pond racer was a good idea but it won't beat the BEAR. The BEAR
 has the advantge of cubic inch. The Two V-6 Methanol burning engines just 
 won't work. They don't last long enough. Last year at Reno the Pond Racer
 only achieved 401.9 mph before blowing a rod. If I remember correctly 
 they blow to engines during that week.
     I the future you will see more people making planes like this but to
  beat the BEAR they will have to out horsepower the old bird and its not
  going to be done with whimpy auto engines.
    
                                                     Aaron Alexander
                                            Purdue Aviation Technology.

 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (Randy Haskin)
Subject: Re: Aircraft in Museums (was: SR-71 / MIG-25)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:53:12 GMT

> > The Air Force Museum's 117 is not an F model, but a YF.
> 
> While the Stealth at the USAF Museum is clearly marked
> YF-117A, I have read in several places that there were
> no prototypes for the F-117, other then the "Have Blue"
> project demonstrator.  I am curious why this plane was
> not rebuilt into an F-117A if there are supposedly so
> few differences between the YF-117A and the F-117A. 
> Ditto for the F-117 on a stick at Nellis AFB.


I believe that, though there was never a true "YF" prototype series built, according to Jay Miller's Aerofax Extra on it, there were a limited run of F-117 
"FSD" aircraft, the appendage meaning, of course, Full Scale Development.  
These FSD aircraft were originally adorned in experimental gray RAM paint,
and this was their only distinguishing feature (aside from their ID plates). 
There were apparently 5 of these aircraft (Squadron/Signal, 1991)

Randall Haskin
L-17 N77BH
strega@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military