HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Name of F-111
Date: 22 Nov 92 18:29:11 GMT
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
NNTP-Posting-Host: obsidian.wpi.edu

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

There is no 'official' name, but it is refered to as the Aardvark...

Officially the EF-111A is the Raven, some call it Spark Vark...

(I emailed it too, ok?)
###############################################################################
# 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
Subject: alt.ROTC
From: cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Date: 23 Nov 92 13:41:56 PST
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Nntp-Posting-User: cvadsadm


     Is anyone out there in a ROTC newsgroup?  I think one for all services to
discuss various ROTC related issues, trade stories, find people met at various
camps and programs, etc. andfor alumni to see what their our unit is up to,
etc.  It should be moderated to prevent certain elements from posting
irrelevent comments about policy that ROTC has no control of, if you know what
I mean.


-- 
---
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: djredick@bluemoon.use.com (Darrin J. Redick)
Subject: Re: WPAFB F117 was SR-71 / MIG-25
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 02:25:07 EST

d.j.piatak@larc.nasa.gov (David Piatak) writes:

> In article <1992Nov16.124812.1829@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil>, 
> dsnyder@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil writes:
> > > (Notice I made no mention of the Desert Storm A-10 sitting in the Annex a

WHAT Desert Storm A-10??  The one WP has now has been there for quite 
awhile.

> > > selfsame Museum ;)
> > > 
> >   The skin is so rippled because it is not the original skin for the 
> aircraft.
> > They took the original skin off due to security reasons.  Wouldn't want 
> every
> > one to just walk up and pull off a piece of history to take home would you?
> 
> > They had to pull quite alot of stuff off this bird before it went on 
> display.
> > Had guards standing by while the restorers did their work.  David-- 
> 
> 
> That's terrible...How can this aircraft be considered a F-117 still.
> What kind of "restoration" was done on the aircraft?  Obviously it
> was not a Smithsonian quality restoration.  I guess it is understand-
> able, because certain aspects of the F-117 are very secret, but I 
> think it is in bad taste.  Besides, when is the last time someone
> ripped a piece of aluminum off of the AF Museum's B-52?
> 
The F-117 at the WP Museum is one of the orginal test birds, or so one
of the volunteers told me.  Looked ok to me last time I was there early
this year.


   ______________________________________________________________________
  |                                                                      |
  | InterNet: djredick@bluemoon.use.com                                  |
  |______________________________________________________________________|
  |                                                                      |
  | FutureNet : #129@#02 #021@#03  #100@#07  #032@#09  #001@#10 #077@#13 |
  |             #041@#14 #067@#15  #131@#16  #043@#19  #113@#21 #126@#22 |
  |             #247@#25 #051@#26  #030@#31  #009@#33  #035@#41          |
  |______________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: Maurice Blok <mgjblok@cs.vu.nl>
Subject: Back to the future? [ILyushin IL-102]
Originator: mgjblok@galjoen.cs.vu.nl
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:44:14 GMT

I just read a piece on CIS' newest tankbuster. Weird looking
thing, it look like a Me-262 with a rear-gunner(!).
And that what's so weird! A 21st century Tankkiller Jet with
a rear-gunner??? Have they developed some kind of 
to-the-rear firing missile?

Any comments?
From: zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Dr. Strangelove)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Exports of F-4's.
Date: 21 Nov 1992 20:34:22 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

The F-4 Phantom was exported to the following countries...

Europe:
________

Germany(West)
Greece
Spain
United Kingdom

Asia:
___________

Israel
Iran
Turkey
Japan
South Korea

Africa:
_______

Egypt

If I remeber right, the IAI was still doing updates to the phantoms.
-- 
 Dr. Strangelove      "You know your having a bad day when the fifth
 U.Wisconsin Milwaukee    inning rolls around and they drag the warning
 Major: Political Science  track." -Mike Flanagan, pitcher Baltimore Orioles
 Why that Alias? From the Movie Dr. Strangelove.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: tcrook@u.cc.utah.edu (Tom Crook)
Subject: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center Student Mail Machine
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 05:09:10 GMT

In article <cpetersn.721712656@vincent2.iastate.edu> 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>

Many high performance aircraft have arresting hooks for emergency
arrests in case of runway overruns.  You can hook an aircraft on land
too, not just at sea.

-- 
 /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/
 | Thomas Crook                  He that hath no beard is less than a man   |
 | tcrook@u.cc.utah.edu                            --William Shakespeare    |
/__________________________________________________________________________/
From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Blue Angels aircraft (Was: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25)
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:55:23 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil's message of 19 Nov 92 10:02:51 -0400

> = davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil 
>> = me
>>> = Mary Shafer

>>I knew a guy who flew them then, and I am fairly sure that they would
>>have come from OPTEVFOR (OPerational Training and EValuation FORce).
>>Test Pilot School is just what it sounds like:  a school.  Not much
>>actual "testing" is done there.
>
>>>The Blue Angels certainly do fly production aircraft.  No one in the
>>>Navy ever flew pre-production F/A-18s except PAX.
>
>>Nor would they ever.  That's what it's there for!
>
>And OPTEV (VX-4,5 for the Hornet) pilots _DO_ fly
>pre-production A/C for preliminary evaluations.  Pax
>is not the only place that does.

This doesn't contradict me or Mary, really.  The confusion here stems
from the fact that Mary and I were both being loose about the
distinction between "Pax" and "OPTEVFOR".  The distinction, as I
understand it, is as follows:

Pax = Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Patuxent, Maryland.
    Just a base, a physical location at which other commands reside.

OPTEVFOR = OPerational Test and EValuation FORce.  A collective 
    designation (sort of the "type commander") for all VX squadrons,
    most (but not all) of which are at Pax.  OPTEVFOR also includes
    testing directorates for other platforms, like surface ships
    and equipment, submarines, etc., etc.  The commander of OPTEVFOR
    is a two-star admiral based in Norfolk, VA (currently it is Rear
    Admiral Virgil Hill, USN).

VX-n = The "airplane part" of OPTEVFOR.  Various aircraft types and
    their associated equipment are in individual squadrons within
    OPTEVFOR.  For example, the mighty S-3 Viking was/is flown by
    VX-1.  I believe the F-18 [I will die horribly before adding a
    "/A" to that designation] squadrons are out West, at China Lake
    or something.  So it wasn't really right to call it "Pax" when
    we meant "VX-4" or "VX-5" but for some reason everybody says
    this.
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: gunter@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Name of F-111
Date: 22 Nov 1992 02:50:17 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: tartarus.uwa.edu.au

zell@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Joseph Zell) writes:

>Could someone tell me the name of the F-111. It's driving me nuts, and I
>can't think of it. E-mail would be appreciated. Thanks
>Joe

F-111's are Aardvark's
RF-111's are Raven's
From: chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Exports of F-4's.
Date: 22 Nov 1992 22:25:27 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu

In article <1em6geINNp5i@uwm.edu> zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Dr. Strangelove) writes:
>
>If I remeber right, the IAI was still doing updates to the phantoms.
>-- 

The IAI has come out with an updated version of the Phantom, called the Phantom
2000 which all Israeli aircraft will be upgraded to, and which I assume will be
for sale to other Phantom users.

It involves improved avionics, a solid-state multi-mode radar allowing precise 
attacks on point targets at night, HOTAS and CRT cockpit improvements, and 
a new Fly-By-Wire (FBW) control system.  The upgrade makes this a much more 
capable aircraft, well able to compete wit nearly any aircraft in the world 
until the turn of the century.  

Chad Wemyss
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: m05751@foxtrot.data.st.statoil.no (Bjorn Hell Larsen)
Subject: Re: Subject: SR-71 / MIG-25
Reply-To: bjla@statoil.no
Organization: Statoil, Norway
	<1992Nov16.151224.3870@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 08:32:57 GMT


In article <1992Nov16.151224.3870@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) writes:
>
>The T-38 is NOT compatible with the BAK-9 or the BAK-12.  The nosewheel will
>not 'kick up' the cable.  The best current barrier for the 38 is the 61QS-II,
>the 'rabbit catcher."  This thing is deployed in the 'down' position until
>needed. On a call from the aircrew, or anyone else for that matter, tower
>personnel, by pushing a button, can raise the barrier to full up.  In the
>'up' configuration, it stands just over 10 feet high at the runway centerline,
>up to 17 feet at the stanchions.  It's a huge net, similar to the 'fouled
>deck' rigging on a carrier.  On engagement, the aircraft drags the net,
>which plays out an inertia reel, stopping the aircraft.  The 61QS-II has
>successfully stopped aircraft at engagement speeds up to 200 knots.  Aircrews
>who have used it comment jokingly that the thing would probably stop the
>Space Shuttle.
>

I one watched a largish aircraft beeing stopped by one of these
things.  It was in the late sixties/very early seventies at Bodo Air
Station in northern Norway, and I believe that the plane in question
was an RAF Canberra. The amazing thing to see was how the rear end of
the plane was raised 10-15 feet off the ground, and slammed down
again; fortunately (I guess) it happened on soft, marshy ground off
the end of the tarmac.

The airfield was soon filled with fire fighting equipment and
ambulances, but as far as I can remember, the pilot walked away from
the incident unharmed.  The plane, however, didn't leave town under
its own power.

I used to live 4-500 feet away from the end of the airstrip, and saw
all kinds of military aircraft come and go.

Unfortunately, I never go to see the U-2; I was too young at the time.


Bjorn
From: dauer@lfpd1.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (David Auer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: F-117 QUESTION
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:38:42 GMT
Reply-To: dauer@lfpd1.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (David Auer)
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Corporate Logistics Division, Dayton Ohio

I recently purchased a model of the F-117 (Testors in 1/32 scale).  The
research for this kit was done prior to public demonstrations and mass
photo releases of the aircraft.

The model depicts the weapons bay doors as hinged on the right and left
edges of the weapons bay.  However, photos clearly depict the doors as
being hinged in the center, thus dividing the bay into two separate
chambers (as well as the retracting weapon pylons, etc.)

I have examined the underside of the F-117 on display at the WPAFB Museum.
The doors appear to be bolted on the right/left edges of the bay and 
appear to overlap along the center joint.  This leads me to believe that
this aircraft is indeed configured as the model depicts.

Are my observations correct?  Were the original aircraft configured in the
right/left arrangement then later models switched to the center hinge?

Inquiring minds want to know...
--
From: mcneal@boulder.Central.Sun.COM (Rick McNeal)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Name of B-52
Date: 23 Nov 1992 16:15:12 GMT
Organization: SunSoft
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: boulder.central.sun.com

In article <1992Nov23.151326.29402@athena.mit.edu>, brndlfly@athena.mit.edu (Matthew T Velazquez) writes:
|> 
|> From: chena@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Cheng)
|> 
|> >Can anyone name any famous B-52 bomber?
|> >
|> >Thanks.
|> >

The air crews called it BUFF. Big Ugly Fat F.cker

Rick McNeal
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: frank@rover.uchicago.edu (Frank - Hardware Hacker - Borger)
Subject: RE: SR-71 / MIG-25
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: frank@rover.uchicago.edu
Organization: Joint Center for Radiation Therapy
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:59:00 GMT

In article <466.417.uupcb@the-matrix.com>, rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) writes...
>-> 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. ...

	Should have learned from the Germans in WWII. 

	The German generals figured a Tiger could take on any 3 American
	tanks. If you asked an American commander, he' probably want 4 or 5
	to one odds. But we converted our car assembly lines and made so
	many tanks that that Tiger was probably outnumbered 10 to 1, (and
	stationary to boot, because it was out of gas.)

	I think that we went to high-tech planes mainly because due to
	our all volunteer fighting forces, although we could still crank
	out cheap planes by the carload (ooo what a mixed metaphor,) we
	are in short supply of qualified pilots.

   Frank R. Borger - Physicist    __       Internet:  Frank@rover.uchicago.edu
Michael Reese - Univ. of Chicago |___      Phone : 312-791-8075 fax : 567-7455
  Center for Radiation Therapy   | |_) _   If you can see the light at the end
                                   | \|_)  of the tunnel, you are looking the
    "Birthplace of Softball"          |_)  wrong way. - Barry Commoner

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: ldoering@engin.umich.edu (Laurence Doering)
Subject: Re: Museums
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 21:33:54 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

If you happen to be in the Detroit area, stop by the Yankee Air Museum
at Willow Run Airport in Ypsilanti.  The museum is in and around an old
hangar on the east side of the airport.  It's run by a group called the
Yankee Air Force.  They have a B-25 and a couple of T-6/SNJs in flying
condition, and are currently restoring a B-17 (G, I think.)
From memory, their non-flying aircraft include:
a B-52D (in Vietnam-era camouflage)
two F-84 Thunderstreaks (one is an RF-84)
a F-86 Sabre
a F9F Panther (I think) in Blue Angels colors
a DC-4
a Privateer (designation?  developed from the B-24, single rudder)
a PT-19
and, weirdest of all, a Hawker-Siddeley Argosy (4 engine, twin boom air freighter).

Willow Run itself is interesting - it's the home of a bunch of freight lines
that carry parts for the car companies.  There's a DC-8 boneyard on the west
side, and the freight lines still fly DC-6s and -7s, Convair 440s, and even
a few DC-3s.  Last time I was there, the A&P school at the airport had 
an OV-10 Bronco sitting out back (painted blue and white, with a civil
registration #).  

Larry Doering
ldoering@engin.umich.edu
Xref: sparky rec.aviation.military:585 alt.config:7241
From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military,alt.config
Subject: Re: alt.ROTC
Date: 24 Nov 92 00:32:48 GMT
Followup-To: alt.config
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu's message of 23 Nov 92 17:41:56 -0400

In article <1992Nov23.134156.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu>
cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu writes:
>Is anyone out there in a ROTC newsgroup?  I think one for all services
>to discuss various ROTC related issues, trade stories, find people met
>at various camps and programs, etc. andfor alumni to see what their
>our unit is up to, etc.  It should be moderated to prevent certain
>elements from posting irrelevent comments about policy that ROTC has
>no control of, if you know what I mean.

This is actually a pretty good idea.  (I even agree about the
moderated aspect.  This is why sci.military has to be moderated.)  I
have redirected your idea to alt.config, where it needs a little more
fleshing out and a few more shows of support.  You might also want to
post in sci.military (one time only!) to alert readers there that this
is being considered.  Good luck.
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb)
Subject: Re: U-2R E-8 J-STARS, TR-3A, Aurora question.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 02:10:10 GMT

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

>The official word is that recon satellites can do the same job cheaper...

>My opinion is that the AF has the U-2R (exTR-1A), E-8 J-STARS, TR-3A (U-3A?), 
>and one or more Aurora aircraft PLUS the satelites...

Could you give me some details on these aircraft. I know it all rumor,
but what are they supposed to do. How are these goals accomplished? Any
comments, knowledge, rumors etc would be great.

Thanks in advance. . . .
-- 
H. Ross Perot | "How do you always manage to    | Jeff R. Lamb
for President | decide?" 			| Midnight Arrow
of the United | "How do you let others decide   | Champion of Reality
States in '96 | for you?"	   -Ayn Rand 	| (jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
	<BOWERS.92Nov16123936@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov>
	<lgg4tbINN6de@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 20:45:10 GMT

In article <lgg4tbINN6de@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes:

>In article <BOWERS.92Nov16123936@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov> bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) writes:

>>The stories of the Six Day War was that the MiGs _did_ cross Israel at
>                    ^^^ ^^^ ^^^
>>Mach 3 and 80,000 feet, but none of those aircraft ever flew again.
>>They were junk after that mission.

>The Six Day War was in 1967; there were no MiG-25s around back then, and
>there was no earlier (i.e., pre -25) MiG that was capable of Mach 3 flight. 
>Might you be thinking of the Yom Kippur War of 1973?

Got me.  :-) Yes, the Yom Kippur War is what I was thinking, but I
typed `Six Day'.  But the first reports of the MiG-25 were from 1967.

Engage brain before putting fingers in gear...

--
"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)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Speed Record
From: kaiser@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (Chris Kaiser)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 03:08:17 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

In article <1era64INN7l8@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, megazone@coal.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23) writes:
> In article <1eqtfcINNda6@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bm511@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronald G. Martin) writes:
> >What a/c holds the record for a prop-driven plane? I need to settle a bet!
> >P.S. I say the record is held by the P3 Orion.
> 
> That's pretty broad. But THE speed record by a prop-driven aircraft is held by
> an unlimited racer, the Rare Bear. A highly modified Bearcat....

Are you sure that's for a prop-driven aircraft, not a piston-engined aircraft?
I think the original poster's question was aimed at catching out people on just
this point - turboprop's can provide much more power than piston-engines, and
it's quite possible that some turboprop aircraft (eg the P3 Orion) may well be
faster than even the modified piston-engined fighers.

(Doesn't Rare Bear use a cut down Orion prop?)

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

Possible candidates would be the Hawker Tempest & Fury, Supermarine Spiteful,
Grumman Bearcat & Tigercat. All these aircraft have probably been called the
fastest piston-engined aircraft by their prospective proponents.

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

The Grumman Tigercat is a twin, another contender is the DH (Sea) Hornet which
was a development of the Mossie. I used to have an observer's book of aircraft
that stated that the Hornet was the fastest production piston-engined aircraft.

Chris Kaiser

Postgrad, Elec. Eng. Dept.
University of Canterbury
Christchurch, NEW ZEALAND

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: steinarb@idt.unit.no (Steinar Bang)
Subject: "Right Stuff" boxed set?
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Distribution: rec
Date: 16 Nov 92 10:02:46

Has anyone ever heard of a "Right Stuff" boxed set? I mean like a nice
boxed set with the film on (preferably PAL) VHS and the book in a
nicely bound edition.

I guess not,... ;-)

The reason I am asking is that a friend is leaving for UK for one year
of test pilot school, and something like this would have seemed like
the ideal going away present... :-) :-)

Oh well!

- Steinar
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military