HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: moritz@cs.swarthmore.edu (Joseph Moritz)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Gifs on the internet...
Keywords: Good places...
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:53:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: cc.80WRB4TT
Organization: Swarthmore College


I don't know if anyone posted this yet but a good place to see some gifs of 
Persian Gulf conflict would be at ftp.brl.mil (128.63.16.158).

--Joe
-- 
JOSEPH E. MORITZ 	 email:	moritz@cs.swarthmore.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: F/A-18E/F bad idea?
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
	<DAVEG.92Oct13152339@nighthawk.clearpoint.com>
	<1992Oct14.32242.18011@ms.uky.edu> <5392@sumax.seattleu.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:58:16 GMT

In article <5392@sumax.seattleu.edu> davidy@sumax.seattleu.edu (Stimpson J. Cat) writes:

>In article <1992Oct14.32242.18011@ms.uky.edu> randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:

>>>As a related aside, how do you justify the F-18E/F vs. a QuickStrike
>>>F-14 Tomcat?  The F-14 mod had a *GUARANTEED* price LESS than the
>>>F-18.  It also has significant payload and range advantages over the
>>>F-18.

>>Really.  Is this in comparason to ungrading the F-14's or is this
>>whole new F-14's.  Do you know any numbers?

>        An F-14 carrying four AIM-54's and 4 AMRAAM's flies faster than
>a F/A 18 clean. The drop tanks for the F-14 are conformal- thus it can
>carry them without manuvering restrictions. 

Other than the stadard 6.3 G F-14 restriction and the 4.3 G
asymmetrical restriction (this would be reduced with higher loads and
these numbers are for the FAD F-14s).

>        Cruise to station at best speed, loiter for 90 minutes. Attack at
>Mach 1.35 and fight for 1 minute, return at best speed,hold for 20 minutes,
>and land with 5% fuel reserves.

Note that the M=1.35 was a design goal for the F-14D model.  If you
change the numbers around for the optimum F/A-18 cruise airspeed, the
F-18 will match or exceed the Super Tomcat's combat radius.  It
depends on who you ask (they will always make their own aircraft look
best by tailoring the reply).

>        These figures and information come from the March 1992 issue
>of Airpower Magazine. This article claims the price differential
>bewtween the two is $1.52 million. Considering the vastly superior
>capability of the F-14, this seems, IMHO, a reasonable price to pay.

The "vastly superior" performance of the F-14 would be potentially
negated by other considerations.  The high alpha capability of the
F-18 is well known, and the F-18 is capable of manuevering at aoas
that would make a Tomcat look silly.  Note that in the Navy inventory,
in close-in ACM, the F-18 is capable of defeating an F-16, the F-14
does relatively poorly against a close-in F-16.  Also, during a
maneuvering fight, nobody flies supersonic.  So the superior high
speed performance of the F-14 in this regime (especially the low
supersonic arena) is relatively moot.  And the G restrictions of the
F-14 are getting prohibitive compared to modern threats (Su-27,
MiG-29).  Even the F-18 is starting to get a bit long in the tooth.

I'm not saying that anyone is wrong or right.  But remember to look at
who is talking, and think about how they are phrasing their replies.

--
"But the fact that a 1938 touring bodied Alfa Romeo I once had is
worth $1 million sometimes bothers the hell out of me.  It's a
personal problem."                                     -Phil Hill
Al Bowers                                 bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov
Iaido   Takamine   Hobie   Rossignol   Alfa Romeo  Ducati (DOD #900)
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: CARGO PLANES AS BOMBE
Date: 16 Oct 92 06:58:00 GMT
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins)
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016

-> This is anecdotal, and not *exactly* the use of a cargo plane as a
-> bomber,but I a Minuteman III ICBM from a C-5A Galaxy.  Basically,
-> they shoved it out the back of the plane over the Vandenburg launch
-> range, and lit it off in

It was done similar to low altitude pallet drops. With a chute to pull
it out and to stabilize it in a tail down attitude until it could
intitate engine start. Comparable to the way the sub launched vertical
launch missiles are poppoed out of the tube then launched. In fact rumor
at the time was that the Air Force had snagged some Navy people who knew
something about free launch procedures.
                                   Rocky
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Cargo planes as Bombers
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:59:41 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1992Oct13.162322.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu>, cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Daemon Hobbs) writes:
|> 
|>      Does anyone know any details about cargo aircraft being used as bombers in
|> the post-WWII era?  I've heard all about the MC-130 and the 15000lb.  Does any
|> one know of any uses of the An-24, 26, 32 's bomb racks?  Also, if you wanted
|> to drop bombs out the ramp of say a C-130 how would you do it?  How would you
|> ensure accucracy?

 Air Force Magazine always has such stories of valor and humor every
 year or so.  I'll dig through the back issues and look.  I think the 
 current issue has something about C-117's taking over the "Puff the
 Magic Dragon" (?) role from the C-47's.

 I remember one about C-117's being used with all sorts of bombs from
 50 - 2000 lbs and simply rolling them off the ramp.  I think they 
 were used mostly for harassment, mostly at night.  CEP was something
 like 1 mile! 

|> Also, does anyone know anything about mortar shells being used as
|> bombs from Hueys or other aircraft? 

 I'm sure everything in the US arsenal has been "dropped out the 
 window" of just about every aircraft available.  Someone is always
 trying something different, especially during war.

 TRAVIS
 hhtra@hou281.chevron.com
From: rfauteux@orion.oac.uci.edu (Robert Fauteux)
Subject: Re: AFROTC or USAF ?
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Distribution: usa
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:32:12 GMT

cvalj000@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Mike Cancellier) writes:

>the job.  Anyway, I am a missileer waiting to head off for training.  I leave
>on Chrsitmas.  My wait is going to be 6 months.  Half of my class will beat me
>to active duty (most are leaving in October).  I think only 2 will be coming on
>in '93.  One of those is the only pilot in our graduating class.  If anybody
>out there has a misssile slot or is worried they may be given one, dop me a
>line.

6 months, huh?  Not too bad (but I know how you feel -- any "months"
are too long).  Are you heading off to Vandenberg for UMT in December,
or are they sending you to your permanent base first, then sending
you?  You would have thought they could have picked a better time than
Christmas, though!


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     /    /    ____/ __  __/  | Robert A. Fauteux <rfauteux@rtfm.acs.uci.edu>
    /    /    /         /     | Office of Academic Computing, UC Irvine
   /    /    /         /      |-----------------------------------------------
  /    /    /         /       | "An anteater??!!
______/  ______/  ______/     |  ...now what the hell kind of mascot is that?"
From: friday@netcom.com (Carol Anne Ogdin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Moffett Airshow
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:59:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

There was a red-painted Mig at the end of the runway all day
today; might be part of the static display over the weekend.
-- 
--Friday                               "You have three option in this life:
   Carol Anne Ogdin, Principal Designer            Get sick,
   Deep Woods Technology                           Go crazy, or
     friday@netcom.com                             Ask for what you want!"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Cargo planes as Bombers
From: cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Daemon Hobbs)
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:23:22 PST
Organization: Cal Poly Geography
Nntp-Posting-User: cvalj001


     Does anyone know any details about cargo aircraft being used as bombers in
the post-WWII era?  I've heard all about the MC-130 and the 15000lb.  Does any
one know of any uses of the An-24, 26, 32 's bomb racks?  Also, if you wanted
to drop bombs out the ramp of say a C-130 how would you do it?  How would you
ensure accucracy?  Also, does anyone know anything about mortar shells being
used as bombs from Hueys or other aircraft?  Yet one more thing, does any know
any detailed text of the use of Indian cargo planes as bombers during the 1970
Indo-Pakistani War?

-- 
---
Daemon E. Hobbs, Cadet, AFROTC
Senior, (Carto/RS/GIS) 
Cal Poly Pomona Geography Dept.
Email: cvalj001@csupomona.edu
Phone: 714-869-3590
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: Re: Airshows At Edwards And Moffett
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 22:47:04 GMT

In article <BvrFtp.JIw@scd.hp.com> albert@sc.hp.com (Albert Alcorn) writes:
>When is the airshow at Moffett?  I heard it was next week, Oct 20(ish),
>then I heard it was this weekend, Oct 10.

Hi Al!  You move from Apple?  [I'm skipping Hackers this year.]
Oct. 17 and 18 (the weekend after Livermore Computation Day 16th for the VIPs
visiting there).
What no one phone over to Moffett?  Amazing.

>Also, any idea who will be there, and when they will be flying in?

Phoning the PIO office for D. Long.
No cost, free.
The gates open for on base parking at 9 while it lasts.  Get there early.
The B Angels will be there 3 PM. both days.  Binocs useful.
They said an F-117 Stealth fighter flyby maybe.  You can never tell about
these things, very stealthy.

I think I'll go climbing on Saturday and swing by and do some work Sunday
before heading over to avoid the rush.  This is their last show.

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
  Associate Editor, Software and Publication Reviews
  Scientific Programming
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Seeking Books to buy:	Bongard, Pattern Recognition
			Imhof, Cartographic Relief Presentation
			Books on or by Benjamin Whorf
Xref: sparky rec.aviation.military:133 ba.general:4485
From: eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military,ba.general
Subject: Re: Moffett Airshow
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:26:11 GMT
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Distribution: usa
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA

>Does anyones else have information on what other flying and static
>displays will be available?

Posting additional info.  Last chance.  I'm at LLNL tomorrow, so I can't
add anything:
	A B-52 is on the runway.
	Several smaller planes.
	I will swing by on the way home and add any planes of note to
	one more post this evening
	Bradley IFVs have appeared in the past next to the field.
	A few NASA planes and helicopters are out and about.
The day to day Moffett air operations are inappropriate here.  You should
inquire directly with the US Navy.  Not our bailey-wick.

Have fun.  Note followups.

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
  Associate Editor, Software and Publication Reviews
  Scientific Programming
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Seeking Books to buy:	Bongard, Pattern Recognition
			Imhof, Cartographic Relief Presentation
			Books on or by Benjamin Whorf
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: billp@Syntex.COM (Bill Putney)
Subject: Re: Airshows At Edwards And Moffett
Reply-To: billp@Syntex.COM
Organization: Syntex U.S.A. - Palo Alto, CA
Distribution: ca
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:19:19 GMT

In article 92Oct5175952@ra.dfrf.nasa.gov, shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>On Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:17:26 GMT, rob@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov (Rob Fatland) said:
>
>Rob> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>
>>I'd expect to see the B-2 and the F-117, with the latter possibly
>>flying in like last year.  C-17, MC-130, Sherpa, A-7, F-16, F-15,
>>A-37, B-52, KC-135, Hueys, and a few other planes from the Air
>>Force on static display.  F-15,F-16, A-7 aerial routines.  X-31,
>>X-29, NB-52B, F-18, SR-71 from Dryden.  Last year they had an
>>F-14 aerial routine, too.
>
>Rob> Also an Aurora low pass, low speed fly by.
>
>Yeah, right.  They're going to let me ride in it, too.
>
>Uh-huh.
>
>--
>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
> "There's no kill like a guns kill." LCDR "Hoser" Satrapa, gunnery instructor
>                       "A kill is a kill."  Anonymous


I didn't know the Aurora could make a low speed fly by...   Is that like
only Mach 4?

---
=====================================================================
#  Bill Putney                     |  billp@Syntex.COM              #
#  Syntex U.S.A.                   |  {oliveb|decwrk}!synseer!billp #
#  M.S. A5-6                       |--------------------------------#
#  3401 Hillview Ave.              |  P.O.T.S.  (415) 855-1259      #
#  Palo Alto, CA  94303            |  FAX       (415) 855-5301      #
=====================================================================

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: aes@wildcat.smd.tandem.com (Andrew Samuels)
Subject: Re: AFROTC or USAF ?
Keywords: Who's out there?
Reply-To: aes@wildcat.smd.tandem.com
Organization: Tandem Computers
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:15:41 GMT

I've been in the Air Force.  I've been through FSP at Hondo.  I went through UPT at Laughlin AFB, Del Rio, TX.

Having said that, let me give my view on this subject.
I have a lot of friends that are still in the AF and some of them are IPs(instructor pilots) at UPT bases.
As has been said previously, UPT is not as fun a place to be anymore.  Slots to UPT are few and far
between.  Even if you get to UPT and make it through, there is no guarantee that you will get a flying
slot when you get out.  The odds are that you will get a desk job.  Even if you do get lucky and get a flying
position, the plane selection has become less than favorable,  mostly tankers and transports in the last few
drops. No matter what, you still owe the AF 8 years upon compeltion of UPT(maybe more now).  Although,
I don't know how they are going to make this work with all the planned cuts.  I know that one of the
current UPT bases is in the process of closing(Williams in AZ).  I'm not sure how many other cuts are
planned, but I know that UPT class sizes have dropped down to almost non existance.  Most IPs are
sitting on their hands and begging for flight time.

On the positive side.  UPT is a great experience.  It is one that I would not trade for anything.  It is 
challenging, exciting, and exhausting.  I think any individual that has this opportunity is very fortunate.
Even if you never fly again, the time spent at UPT will be some of your most valued memories.

I will address questions concerning UPT/USAF if you send me email.

Good Luck

Andrew Samuels 
aes@wildcat.smd.tandem.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: ummorea0@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Gene Moreau)
Subject: Re: Aurora?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 05:15:24 GMT

In <mcewin.718504374@neptune> mcewin@convex.com (Bill McEwin) writes:

>easmith@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Eric A Smith) writes:

>>Can someone give me a little bit of information on the Aurora?  I've never
>>heard of it.  Reply via e-mail please...save network bandwidth. Thanks in
>>advance!

>Just for interest, everyone seems to forget that the Canadians have an
>Aurora also.  That is the name of their ASW aircraft also called the
>CP-140.  It uses basically the same Lockheed airframe as the US P-3C, but
>has completely different and, in many cases, more advanced avionics and
>crew compartment layout.  The original order of 20 or so were built in
>Burbank in the late 70's.

Here, I might as well let every one know now.  I got this info from Larry
Bond's Harpoon Data Annex 1990-91 page 75.

CP-140 Aurora					ASW
---------------------------------------------------------
Sensors:
	APS-116 SS radar, FLIR, MAD, ESM, 156 sonobouys, basic bombsight

Performance:
			Speed in Knots
	Altitude	Cruise		Full Mil.
	--------------------------------------------
	VLow		328		366
	Med		328		385
	High		375		403
	Ceiling:  8600 m

Endurance:
	Inflight Refuel:  No		Cruise Range:  4405nm
	Internal Fuel:  28404 kg	Payload:  9070 kg

Ornance Loadouts:
	- 8 Mk46 torp (4405 nm)
	- 2 B57 nuclear DB and 4 Mk46 torp (4405 nm)

Remarks:
	USA P-3C aircraft with sensor suite of USA S-3 Viking(2x I thought)


Hope that this of use to some one.



-- 
Gene Moreau                 | "Morning comes far to early when it's cold
University of Mantitoba     |  outside and there is a maniac on the loose"
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada  |    - unknown
ummorea0@cuu.umanitoba.ca
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: nolan@twg.com (Nolan Hinshaw)
Subject: Re: Cargo planes as Bombers
Reply-To: nolan@twg.com
Organization: Planes-R-Us
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:52:40 GMT


In article <1992Oct14.210108.15076@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, 
 thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) writes:
[cargo plane talk deleted]

        Could you possibly mean C-119?  The C-117 was basically a
        souped-up C-47, while the 119 (Flying Boxcar) DID have a
        ramp between the booms for rearward loading, unloading,
        and conceivably, bombing.

My sister flew one when she was a wing scout. The father of one of the
troopmembers was a boxcar pilot at Mc Clellan AFB in Sacramento and one fine
day took the troop for a ride. Every scout got 10 to 15 minutes at the yoke.
The proverbial fine time was had by all, except for those of us who didn't get
to go along {:^(}

--
Nolan Hinshaw
Internet: nolan@twg.com			Dingalingnet: (415)962-7197	
"Grab Dick and come on down"  Don Pette
"You can't combat illiteracy with soap" Jenny Gutbezahl, alt.peeves
"Boy, was I in for a dose of reality." Randall K. Abler
"... necrophilia doesn't really hurt anybody."  Rick Gordon
"Well, first of all, your stance is too wide"

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: Re: this ought to get me looked at...
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 20:53:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.204518.18639@nmsu.edu> jgoodric@dante.nmsu.edu
(GOODRICH) writes: # student
>	By the FBI.  Aurora officially doesn't exist.

Ah? The last time I inquired, the FBI was trying to figure out
how to get their first Unix system up and running.
But if there is a message you would like forwarded, I am certain we can
accomodate you.  (They prefer problems of national security or involving
over $1M. ;^)  Now other information gathering Agencies (not exclusive of
the US) are probably also reading.  Just keep typing.

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
  Associate Editor, Software and Publication Reviews
  Scientific Programming
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Seeking Books to buy:	Bongard, Pattern Recognition
			Imhof, Cartographic Relief Presentation
			Books on or by Benjamin Whorf
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: AOP
Date: 13 Oct 92 08:01:00 GMT
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins)
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016

An update to Aces of the Pacific was just released and it has corrected
a number of problems with the original release. In the initial release
it was quite easy to roll into a flight of 6 Zeros with a late model
Wildcat and simply clean house without working very hard. The update
provides a more intelligent combat algorithm and more realistic
performance characteristics. When a Wildcat can outturm, outclimb and
outdive a Zero, there is a problem. I got in the habit of just turning
inside of them and zap! Imagine my surprise the first time I tried it
with the update and found a pair of enemy on my six blowing me away.

My first mission with the new version dropped me and 3 others in the
flight on a bomber intercept mission and being used to the normal "clean
up the six fighters then flame the bombers" I was a bnit chagrined to
find a swarm of 9 fighters with the bonbers. Needless to say, they
toasted our cookies in about ten seconds and went on about their
business.

I have lost a LOT of planes recently. Highly recommended for those with
an interest in vintage warbirds.
From: mconrad@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (|<azie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: AFROTC or USAF ?
Date: 9 Oct 92 05:18:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: miavx1.1992Oct9.101806.13438
Distribution: usa
Organization: One Particular Harbour

In article <23581@optima.cs.arizona.edu>, trujillo@optima.UUCP (Clorinda Trujillo) writes:
> From article <rfauteux.718566983@orion.oac.uci.edu>, by rfauteux@orion.oac.uci.edu (Robert Fauteux):
>> 
>> Now, I know things have changed since I went through this whole
>> process (I picked up my preliminary pilot slot as a GMC, went to camp
>> and got the "permanent" [yeah-right!] slot, and got commissioned and
>> am waiting till April '93.) I heard something about now they don't
>> give out allocations until the Senior year?  What *is* the current
>> process if you want to fly? 
>> 
>> Rob
>> 
> I am a senior in AFROTC, Det 020.  I am not trying to get a pilot slot.
> However, I do know that AS 200s get camp assignments without getting
> categorized.  They compete for pilot slots, etc. during their junior
> year.  I believe application starts in the spring so detachments can see
> what their qualities are for the commander rating.  The logic behind
> this is that cadets will want to be officers first.  However, only
> about half the people are happy with this.  Those that are going
> for tech or non-tech slots are kind of indifferent.  Everyone else
> is usually stressing out about whether or not they will do their job
> well and 'visibly' enough to rank high enough to be considered for
> a pilot slot.
> 
> Clo
> 

Well I thought I would put my two cents in on the subject of Pilot slots...

   GIVE IT UP!  In the last four years none of our "future pilots" haven't 
gotten to go to UPT, they have had to take other jobs and defer traingin for x 
number of years.  In talking with some current AF officers (not the cadre!), 
they say you have a better chance to fly if you get out of ROTC and join a 
guard unit that is being moved because of base closure, budget cuts etc. etc.  
I just got my new AF mag & it said that now even academy cadet pilot slots are 
being slashed.  Now if this is any sign of the future, we have no hope.  [well 
feamales may have a slight hope :) ]  As it is even for reg. AF jobs there is a 
LONG wait.  Long enough for some of my pals who graduated in May to get a 
masters!!   

Michele

  

  MCONRAD@MIAVX1.acs.muohio.edu            Michele "|<azie" Conrad
--------------------------------------------------------------------
  Life is so stressful, anxiety-ridden and just plain difficult!!
            Sometimes you just have to ask yourself 
              what make it worth all the effort??


                     S H O P P I N G ! ! !
From: moritz@cs.swarthmore.edu (Joseph Moritz)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: ROTC or USAF reply...
Keywords: Need info...
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:58:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: cc.GFTRBSWM
Organization: Swarthmore College

I am a senior AFROTC at Det 750 (St Joseph's Univ) in Philadelphia.  I am 
a computer science major on scholarship and I was wondering if I could get 
some info. from someone in my position.  I am still in the process of filling 
out my form 53 (Dream sheet) and am not quite sure what I want to go into.
I want to do computers but I am also interested in becoming an AWC (Air 
Weapons Controller).  What I would like to know is some first hand info.
(if possible) about best bases for the specialty code '49' field as well as 
any information about AWC.

E-mail me at moritz@cs.swarthmore.edu

Thanks.

Joe Moritz

-- 
JOSEPH E. MORITZ 	 email:	moritz@cs.swarthmore.edu