HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: geoffm@netcom.com (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: Vulcan (was Re: B-1B)
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 06:17:43 GMT



In article <1993Jan27.171127.29040@den.mmc.com> zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com 
(Michael Corvin) writes:

>At one show, after a 'spirited' flight demonstration by the pilot, I 
>asked one of the other crew  members (who resided within the cramped
>confines of the tiny cabin below and behind the cockpit) how he and
>his fellow systems operators enjoyed these shows.  He just grimaced...


Why would the systems operators be along for an airshow demonstration
of a retired aircraft type, especially when they didn't enjoy it?  For
that matter, why would there even *be* any remaining qualified systems
operators?



Geoff

-- 
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +                Mountain View 
geoffm@netcom.com               + + + + + + + +                 California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: ltwaugh@amy0.stanford.edu (Lawrence Taylor Waugh)
Subject: Re: AIM-9 on A-6's
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 03:01:49 GMT

In article <6064@ceylon.gte.com> chf0@harvey.gte.com (Curtis Fennell)  
writes:
> In article <1993Jan19.102515.22720@syma.sussex.ac.uk>  
mppd5@syma.sussex.ac.uk (John Coley) writes:
> >
> >	I am an air-wargamer, playing Air Power-The Speed of Heat (great
> >game by the way :-) ) and I have a query. In the game (and its
> >predecessors), the A-6 is listed as able to carry AIM-9 sidewinders.
> >None of my sources show Intruders with any form of ATA capability. So
> >can anyone tell me;
> >	1/. Was (is) any mark of A-6 wired for AIM-9
> >	2/. If so, were any ever actually carried operationally
> >	3/. Have they ever been used.
> 
> The A-6 was originally wired to be able to carry the AIM-9.  That is,
> it had the appropriate wiring and hard-points.  However, it had no
> avionics for the missiles, and no AIM-9's (to the best of my
> knowledge) were ever carried operationally.
> 
> As an interesting side note, the A-6 wing actually has 3 hard points
> built into it's structure, 2 between the wing root and the wing fold
> and one outboard of the wing fold.  However, the outboard hard point
> had a pretty severe load limit and so it never had a pylon attached -
> at least not operationally.  However, when I was flying the Intruder,
> a number of pilots suggested that maybe we could hang AIM-9's out
> there, so that at least we could shoot back at enemy fighters instead
> of just being a total grape.
> 
> Curt

Gee, that's funny, I could have SWORN those grayish things on my wings  
were AIM-9s.  Must have been mistaken....

To answer the question, YES, the A-6 can and DOES carry the AIM-9.  It  
SHOOTS them, too.  No great big deal about it either, it mounts to a LAU-7  
launcher like a HARM or any other missile in the inventory.

The reason it's uncommon for it to do so is because, lacking an outboard  
wing station dedicated to missiles, the A-6 must give up one of it's five  
parent racks, the equivalent of 6 Mark-82 500# bombs.  Since the mission  
of the A-6 is attack, and not support (like the F-14), most CAGs don't  
want to pay the price.

Still, it's a comforting feeling.  And for the record, the only weapons in  
the inventory that I know the A-6 can't carry/launch are the Phoenix and  
Sparrow A/A missiles (no A/A radar to aim them with).
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: kaiser@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (Chris Kaiser)
Subject: Re: Trivia
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:52:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.150040.29754@ncsu.edu>, edhresko@hresko.eos.ncsu.edu (ERIC DAVID HRESKO) 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!!!)

I don't think it's the first (though possibly the first jet). I believe
that in WW1 an aircraft (RE8 ?) made a perfect landing at it's home
base with the crew still aboard but dead. Also, I seem to recall at
least one aircraft landing itself during WW2 after the aircrew bailed
out. Can anyone confirm/deny these stories? They're things I've picked
up from somewhere but don't have any references for.


Chris Kaiser

Postgrad, Elec. Eng. Dept.
University of Canterbury
Christchurch, NEW ZEALAND
From: gt8303a@prism.gatech.EDU (The Great and Mighty Confused)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Date: 21 Jan 93 15:43:16 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

Just to add my say in this discussion...I have a book here...'Modern Air Combat'
by Bill Gunston and Mike Spick.  There is a section on weapons, and in it,
the following is said:

     "But in fact the ... GAU-8/A Avenger ... is the most powerful
      gun, in terms of muzzle horsepower, ever flown. ... a muzzle
      velocity of 3500 ft/s ... takes 77 hp just to drive the gun ...
      the gun is installed 2 degrees nose-down to eliminate pitching
      movements when firing.  A similar gun is fitted to the Soviet
      Frogfoot (Su-25?)"

And a caption for a picture of the beastly cannon says,

     "The GAU-8/A is by far the most powerful gun ever flown (outside
      the Soviet Union, at least).  Without the magazine drum at the rear
      this gun is 21 ft (6.4 m) long, half as long again as European
      family cars."

This book is copyrighted 1983 by Salamander Books Ltd, and published by
Crescent Books.

I know nothing of a more powerful gun ever being flown, but there may have
been...I'm just an enthusiast.  I think it is true that there is no gun
as devastating as the Avenger.

Andy Entrekin
gt8303a@prism.gatech.edu

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: ltwaugh@amy0.stanford.edu (Lawrence Taylor Waugh)
Subject: Re: F/A-18 - afterburner in take off?
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 02:51:02 GMT

In article <1jbumqINN7ca@cc.tut.fi> l137939@lehtori.cc.tut.fi (Lahti Jani)  
writes:
> After the latest air strike against Iraq if saw a short news flash  
showing
> an F/A-18 taking off on USS Kitty Hawk. Up to then I'd always seen  
aircraft
> use afterburner when launched from aircraft carrier, but this Hornet  
seemed
> to use only normal (full) throttle when launced from catapult.
> 
> Is it really possible or was this only my false observation? Are there  
any 
> other aircraft capable doing so?

Actually, most aircraft DON'T.  Off the top of my head, the only  
carrier-based aircraft that HAVE A/B are the F-14 and the F-18.  The F-18  
usually taps burner on the way down the cat, but they don't usually have  
to.  The F-14A needs it for a cat shot, but the A+ (and D) versions with  
the new engines don't, and in fact (I understand) run the risk of  
overheating the Jet Blast Deflectors if they do.
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Date: 22 Jan 93 16:49:34 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1jmuvsINNn66@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, megazone@yoyodyne.WPI.EDU (MegaZone) writes:
|>
|> WHAT?!?! When did the B-52H Stratofortress EVER carry any gun other 
|> than the M61A1 in the tail?

 FYI....

 The B-52s first carried quad .50 cal, the last of which was replaced by
 the 20mm M61A1 as little as 6-7 years ago.

 But lately, I've seen B-52's flying around Carswell AFB, Fort Worth, TX
 that don't seem to have any rear gun - are they being removed?

 TRAVIS
 hhtra@chevron.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: zell@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Joseph Zell)
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:21:29 GMT

gt8303a@prism.gatech.EDU (The Great and Mighty Confused) writes:

>In article <1993Jan21.132623@usho72.hou281.chevron.com> hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
>> Huh, really?  It generates enough recoil to negate the thrust of
>> two turbo-fan jet engines?  Can someone else confirm this?

>Yes, it does.  Per "Modern Air Combat" by Bill Gunston and Mike Spick, pages
>36-37...I quote, with deference to the authors (this is from a caption):

>     "A firing run by a Fairchild A-10A can be devastating, though the
>      gun's recoil is enormous and quickly slows the aircraft."

Well, when I was at Myrtle Beach AFB last year as part of an AFROTC base visit,
one of the pilots told us that the engines generate 18000 pounds of thrust and
firing the gun generates 10000 pounds of reverse thrust. That help at all? :)
Joe

>Is that authoritative enough?

>Andy Entrekin
>gt8303a@prism.gatech.edu
>     

-- 
Joe Zell               * "What if they went nowhere?"
zell@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu  * "Then this is your big chance to get away from it all."
                       *   -Admiral Kirk and Dr. McCoy, STII:TWOK
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Subject: last fighter kill by a bomber?
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:10:05 GMT

When was the last date that a bomber shot down a fighter?  I'm assuming
that it was probably after the end of WW2, but don't really know. 
References would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Larry J
-- 
#L.W. Jewell Moderator at the Veterans Information Site (veteran@cc.purdue.edu)#
#& WWII-L Listowner: "Sunday's horoscope is note worthy because of its strange,#
#sudden and wholly unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all   #
#phases of life." "Your Horoscope" L.A. Evening Herald Express, Sat, 12/06/41  #
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: leem@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Lee Mellinger)
Subject: Re: B-25s and B-52s
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:14:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.172449.23919@walter.bellcore.com> jem3@pyuxf.uucp (25312-mc killop) writes:
:In article <1993Jan22.152626.9302@nwnexus.WA.COM> pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe) writes:
:>megazone@yoyodyne.WPI.EDU (MegaZone) writes:
:>
:
:
:As far as the B-52 is concerned, I believe some models had four
:20mm cannons in the tail.

The B-52 A thru E models had 4 .50 cal. machine guns in quad
configuration in the tail.  The later models F,G,H have a single 20mm
Galing gun in the turret.

The AC-130U has a 105mm field artillery piece mounted in the side port
just aft of the wing.  It is not a 105mm recoiless, that would fry the
interior of the aircraft.

A former B-52 Bomb/Nav weenie.


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
From: gt8303a@prism.gatech.EDU (The Great and Mighty Confused)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Date: 22 Jan 93 05:14:18 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1993Jan21.132623@usho72.hou281.chevron.com> hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
> Huh, really?  It generates enough recoil to negate the thrust of
> two turbo-fan jet engines?  Can someone else confirm this?

Yes, it does.  Per "Modern Air Combat" by Bill Gunston and Mike Spick, pages
36-37...I quote, with deference to the authors (this is from a caption):

     "A firing run by a Fairchild A-10A can be devastating, though the
      gun's recoil is enormous and quickly slows the aircraft."

Is that authoritative enough?

Andy Entrekin
gt8303a@prism.gatech.edu
From: dsnyder@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: USE OF B-52 TAIL GUNS
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:13:08 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: USAF AL/CFH, WPAFB, Dayton, OH

In article <1993Jan25.170559.18840@cbnews.cb.att.com>, watk@cbnews.cb.att.com (e.l.watkins) writes:
> In article <C1F3vy.Ez@ra.nrl.navy.mil> mcdermot@itd.nrl.navy.mil (John McDermott) writes:
>>Does anyone know of incidents of B-52's using tail guns during
>>the Vietnam war?  I seem to recall reading of one such action,
>>with the added interest that the tail gun functioned automatically
>>without the crew seeing the attacking fighter. Is this true?
>>
  The later model B-52's have the tail gunner sitting next to the EWO
(Electronics Warfare Officer) in the upper half of the crew comparment
just behind the commander and pilot.  The gunner has a tail warning receiver
and radar scope to view.  The guns are controled by a sliding dual handle 
control used to tilt the guns up and down and slew the guns right and left.  
The whole control and scope slides up to the ejection seat and reminds me of 
the gunner position on the Milinium Falcon of star wars fame.  The scope is in 
the middle of the gunners controls and the fire button is on the handles.  The
radar is used for not only "seeing" targets but for helping to look for the
refueling aircraft.  The fire control radar has controls for range and azimuth
and is approximately a 6 inch display. I spent 3 years modifying the defensive 
station simulator for the B-52.  The gunners suite is a rather cramped space
when you think about spending 20+ hour flights there.  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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gavin.Dodds@newcastle.ac.uk (Gavin Dodds)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Gatling/Vulcan/Chain Guns
Date: 26 Jan 93 13:21:03 GMT
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU.



In article <RATINOX.93Jan23150847@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>, ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu (Gone with the Lemming) writes:
>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:07:43 GMT, cjd8@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
>>>>>> (Christopher J de Zorzi) said:
>
>
>Christopher> Also, a definition of a chain gun would be most appreciated.
>Christopher> (Isn't it much the same as a gat, but with only one barrel
>Christopher> (chain feed allows the gun to keep firing without jaf a dud
>Christopher> round is encountered)?)
>
>Exactly. The term "chain gun" comes from the chain linked ammo belt.
>
>

  Sorry to correct you but the term "chain gun" comes from the fact that the bolt mechanism is powered by a loop of industrial chain.  The chain is held in a rectangular shape by four cogs, onw of which is powered.  The bolt is connected to a link in the chain and is worked when this link traverses the long side of the rectangle.  The short sides allow the chamber to cool off and all waste gasses to vent from the muzzle before the breech is opened for extraction.  The chain gun was first used on the 
 Apache (Y= pre production prototype) and was developed by Hughes in parallel with the helecopter it's self (I think the model number for this type was mas the M230.)  Since then it has been re-calibred and mounted on ground vehicles.

  I hope this clears up any confusion.

  Oh and by the way the Apache uses un-linked ammo in it's chain gun, the feed is by a conveyor belt from the magazine.



[]  []  []                                       []  []  []
[]  []  []                                       []  []  []
[]  []  []  GAVIN (Gavin.Dodds@newcastle.ac.uk)  []  []  []
[][][][][]                                       [][][][][]
    []                  Black Devils                 []
    []                                               []
    []         Fortune favours the reckless!         []
    []                                               []
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: acura@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (james.r.feeney)
Subject: Re: WAS GLIDE BOMBING
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:09:48 GMT

In article <C15nA7.7py@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.174339.10389@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
>mikeh@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (michael p.herlihy) writes:
>
>> To totally change the subject.  I read an account of Battle of Midway 
>> where this technique was used to NO effect.  The squadron attacking the
>> Japanese Fleet was almost completely wiped out...
>

>This was a flight of Vindicators from Midway Island. Often called "Wind

*****stuff deleted

>could handle a true dive bombing attack. I'm not completely sure, but I
>don't think these pilots had even had the opportunity to drop a bomb in
>practice.  So they glided in as a group hoping against hope to hit
>something.  They didn't.  This group of attacking American aircraft
>actually faired better against the Zero's than, for instance, the
>torpedo planes but only because the Zero pilots had been up all morning
>and were worn out and perhaps low on ammo.  A number of Vindicators
>still got shot down.
>anything.

******more stuff deleted

>
>Corky Scott

If I remember correctly, in the book "Incredible Victory" about the battle
of Midway, the Vindictors of Torpedo Squadron 8 (from the carrier Hornet I
think) were all shot down in their attack on the Japanese carriers. None of
the planes got close enough to release their torpedoes. I believe that they
were all shot down by Zeroes. The only survivor was one pilot, Ensign George
Gay, who spent the entire battle floating in the water in the middle of the
Japanese ships. He had to pretend he was dead because he was real sure he
didn't want to be a prisoner. I think he was finally picked up by an American
submarine. The book also said that the Vindicators were suppose to attack
simultaneously with Dauntless dive bombers from the Enterprise. Apparently
the Dauntlesses took too long grouping up after launch and were late on target.
Torpedo 8 went in on their own and were crushed. However, the Japanese
mistakenly thought they had destoyed the entire American attack force so
the Zeroes were called back to refuel and the Japanese Bombers/Torpedo planes
were loaded with ordinance. That's when the Dauntlesses arrived and attacked.
Completely by accident they had caught the Japanese with loaded planes on deck
and I guess most importantly, their fighter cover being refueled. Another
interesting note was one reason the Japanese didn't know the exact location 
of the American force was that the Japanese float plane assigned to scout
the area where the American fleet passed was delayed several hours because
the submarine that was to refuel it was late. By the time it got to station
the American fleet had passed. I highly recommend this book.

Jim Feeney
From: scott@fraud.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: F-16 Detail Documentation
Date: 28 Jan 93 09:57:42
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF)
NNTP-Posting-Host: xcf-gw.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: D2KAK@VM1.CC.UAKRON.EDU's message of Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:12:55 GMT


% Hi,
% Hope this isn't out of line on this net, but I need close-up photos
% of an F-16C Block 40. I am currently building a Radio Controlled model
% of this aircraft for scale competion. In particular I am modelling the
% jet in the Thunderbird paint scheme so photos of the birds in their new
% F-16C's wouldbe great. Details of antennas, landing gear, static wicks,
% and lights would be nice also. If you can supply the above I would be
% willing to reimburse for copying, mailing, time etc.Please E-mail at
% above address.
%  
% Thanx,
% Kraig Krumm


An excellent source of detail photos for modellers is the "Lock On" series
of booklets published by Verlinden Publications.  You want "Lock On #2" for
the F-16.  If you can't find them at a local hobby store, you can order 
from the following address:

VLS Corporation
West Port Industrial Park
804 Fee Fee Road
Maryland Heights, Mo 63043

They cost about $15 each.  The series covers most common allied aircraft
and choppers.


Scott
From: bocmunro@bnr.co.uk (Bruce Munro)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Aircraft beauty: B-17
Date: 20 Jan 1993 15:13:05 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe, New Southgate, London.
NNTP-Posting-Host: bnsgs179.bnr.co.uk

In article <1993Jan18.181633.29046@pixel.kodak.com> gordonb@liebnitz.ssd.kodak.com (Gordon J. Bennett) writes:
>At the 1990 Wings of Eagles Airshow at Geneseo, we had six 17's show up.
>Their fly-by was (of course) the climax of the show, along with Canadian
>Warplane Heritage's Lancaster and a B-24.  They did one pass with all of
>the heavies flying in formation, with a P-40 and several P-51s flying
>high cover, while the loudspeaker system played "Amazing Grace" mixed in
>with some of the combat soundtrack from _Memphis Belle_.  It doesn't get
>any better than that.

Mentioning _Memphis Belle_; it was shown on UK television over the
Christmas break, the first time I've seen it since I was a teenager, and
I was amazed at what a superb piece of film it was, the combat footage
especially.

Anyway, what amazed me about the film was the condition of some of the
B-17's that had successfully returned home after the raid. One with the
entire nose shot off, and another with virtually no tailplane, let alone
rudder left. A real testament to the strength of these planes, as well
as to the skill and determination of the men that got them home.

-- 
Bruce Munro.  <B.O.C.Munro@tcom.stc.co.uk> (Note new address)
BNR Europe Ltd, Oakleigh Rd South, London N11 1HB. 
Phone : +44 81 945 2174 or +44 81 945 4000 x2174
"There are no strangers, only friends we don't recognise" - Hank Wangford
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: cjd8@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher J de Zorzi)
Subject: Gatling/Vulcan/Chain Guns
Reply-To: cjd8@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher J de Zorzi)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 19:07:43 GMT

Question (gawd, I used to know this...getting rusty):  What exactly are the 
differences between Gatling/Vulcan guns?  Also, a definition of a chain gun
would be most appreciated.  (Isn't it much the same as a gat, but with only 
one barrel (chain feed allows the gun to keep firing without jaf a 
dud round is encountered)?)

	Also, I'm just about positive that the minigun used in T2 was the 
7.62mm version, not the 5.56 Six Pack.  (Given that the depicted firing rate
was slowed WAY down.)  Any comments?
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Trivia
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:24:38 GMT
 <iRsHXB1w164w@n5abi.hou.tx.us> <1993Jan21.150040.29754@ncsu.edu>  
 <C184rK.G8z@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <C184rK.G8z@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz>
kaiser@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (Chris Kaiser) writes:

> I seem to recall at
> least one aircraft landing itself during WW2 after the aircrew bailed
> out.

I think I recall an instance when a fully abandoned B-17 landed in
England but the book was by Martin Caiden and others have questioned
his veracity saying that he wasn't one to let facts get in the way of a
good story.

I do recall a Piper Cub that took off without it's pilot and landed 3
hours later unscathed.  The guy had propped it and was attempting to
climb into the cockpit and accidentally hit the throttle.  The prop
blast caused him to loose his footing and fall down and the plane
merrily rolled along and took off without him.  I can't confirm this
story, I read it many years ago.

Corky Scott
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military