HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Advanced Tactical Fighter
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 04:32:34 GMT

On 20 Nov 1992 22:48:07 GMT, geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) said:

GM> Dean Hall writes:

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


GM> 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.


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

Some of us don't take well to insults to the F-4 Phantom II, the best
damned airplane ever built.  Only a barbarian would call it ugly.
Powerful, imposing, threatening, menacing, but not ugly.

You probably think that frou-frou little planes like the F-16 are
better aircraft because they're cute.  The next thing you'll say is
that the F-16 must be better than the A-10 in the CAS role because
it's better looking.

I don't care what you say about the YF-22, but I do care about what
you say about the Phantom.  Besides, I don't think the YF-22 is _that_
ugly.  After all, I worked on the AFTI/F-111.

--
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
                           Phantoms Phorever

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: HELP! U2 pilot looking for employment
Organization: NASA/JSC
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:31:06 GMT

Sorry if this isn't appropriate for this newsgroup, but I have a cousins
husband who recently left the Navy (is it the Navy who flies U2s?) and is
looking for employment preferably as a pilot. He is a former U2 pilot and also
has an engineering degree. He currently is living in Houston, Tx. 

If anyone has a lead, idea, etc, I would appreciate it. I can pass on his
resume via EMail if needed. Thanks!

*****************************************************************
John R. Cobarruvias, Texas A&M Class of '78, 
NASA Johnson Space Center Houston Tx.
(713)483-9357

"And to think..................I hesitated" (Hellraiser II)
*****************************************************************
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: 18 Nov 92 21:07:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov's message of 17 Nov 92 23:47:13 -0400

In article <SHAFER.92Nov17194718@ra.dfrf.nasa.gov>
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer), quoting Randy Haskin, writes:
>>> The Streak Eagle was 1 of many pre-production Eagles built
>>> for testing and training. The same goes for the A-10
>>> at the Air Force Museum. Its also true for the Navy's
>>> Blue Angels, they fly pre-production F/A-18s.
>
>> Actually, I believe that the Angels fly aircraft that are normal
>> production run, but merely high in their life cycle.  
>
>The only people flying pre-production F/A-18s are NASA Dryden.  We got
>them from the Navy at Patuxent River NAS.  (I think that they might
>have been at the Navy Test Pilot School, but am not certain.  I am
>certain that they came from PAX.)

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!
--
 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: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Re: Name of F-111
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 05:13:47 GMT

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
>Joe


Although given more than one unofficial name by aircrews and detractors,
e.g. 'Edsel', 'Switchblade', and the universally accepted 'Aardvaark,' the
111 never had an official nickname.
From: danmcd@cs.arizona.edu (Daniel L. McDonald)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: New CIS plane data
Summary: MiG-29's SU-27's
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:32:50 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson


Over the course of the past few months, the Sukhoi and Mikoyan-Gurevich
design bureas (are they companies now?) have still been updating Su-27 and
MiG-29 designs.  Does anyone out there have hard facts on some of these
new designs?  I think there's a MiG-29M, and a 2-seater version of the Su-27
which is close to the US F-15E Strike Eagle.  I'm asking on behalf of Charlie
Moylan, who's working on a new version of his game Strike Jets for the
Macintosh.  I'm looking for numbers, and other data on any new CIS planes.

Also, any data on the NATO designations for new CIS missiles (i.e. AMRAAMSKI)
will be most appreciated.

Post it, mail it, regardless, I'll see it.

Thanks!
--
Dan McDonald    |Internet: danmcd@cs.arizona.edu, UUCP: ..!uunet!arizona!danmcd
U. of Arizona   |BITNET: danmcd%cs.arizona.edu@arizona.BITNET
Computer Science| "We will pay the price,
Graduate Student|  but we will not count the cost." - Rush (N. Peart)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: smith@ur-guh.com (Russ Smith)
Subject: Re: ACM
Reply-To: smith@ur-guh.com
Organization: Ur-Guh Complex Inc.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:46:06 GMT

In some random article, thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes), says:
>Energy....better have some.
>
>Anything else?

Energy. Quantity. Discuss.

Egg shaped volume/surface. Elaborate.

More as see fit.



Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: kaiser@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (Chris Kaiser)
Subject: Re: Mystery B-58
Keywords: Mystery B-58
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:55:42 GMT

In article <lg86ioINN1d3@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes:
> In article <1992Nov13.172527.1940@news2.cis.umn.edu> rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu 
> (Robert J. Granvin) writes:
> 
> >In 1976, the aircraft was re-registered as an "RB-25".  Apparently the FAA
> >didn't see much difference between a J and K model, except the radome, but
> >since it was clearly a "radar bomber", it got the RB designation.  There's
> >some vagueness in the history of the aircraft that makes it appear that it
> >held an "RB" designation before.  The "RB" moniker was military in origin,
> >at least.  I don't know of the FAA randomly creating new military aircraft
> >designation types.  :-)
> 
> 
> I thought the "R" in "RB" was a modified mission symbol for"reconnaissance,"
> as in "RB-36."  

For those who missed it, the following excerpt from Joe Baugher's posting to
sci.military on the P-38 is relevant here...
(see his original post for references)


> Neither the P-38 nor the P-38D were considered combat-ready.  In 1942, 
> the P-38 was redesignated RP-38 and the P-38D was redesignated RP-38D, 
> the 'R' prefix meaning 'restricted to non-combat roles'.  They were 
> used strictly as combat trainers.  
>
> 
> Joe Baugher       AT&T Bell Laboratories    2000 North Naperville Road 
> 		  Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033.   (708) 713-4548



Chris Kaiser

Postgrad, Elec. Eng. Dept.
University of Canterbury
Christchurch, NEW ZEALAND
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Advanced Tactical Fighter
Keywords: ATF advanced YF-22 YF-23 grey ghost lightning fighter
Date: 22 Nov 92 18:27:59 GMT
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
NNTP-Posting-Host: obsidian.wpi.edu

In article <1ek0uaINN2us@sal-sun81.usc.edu> schaefer@sal-sun81.usc.edu (Peter Schaefer) writes:
>By the way, a while back, NASA made a deal to do some ACM tests (high-alpha st
>I believe) with the F-22.  Now that the existing aircraft are toast, the test
>are to be done using  a YF-23 (still working fine). Could this be an omen?

I doubt it. The AF said the F-22 was the better aircraft, and they are sticking
by it. A crash in testing is not uncommon... Most modern aircraft crashed 
during tests... The F-14 is probably the most famous example, suffering a 
complete hydraulic failure. (Actually I don't recall if any YF-16s,17s, or 
early F-18s crashed... Of course the F-16A suffered several after problems 
with sharp corners in electronics bays cutting cables over time, the YFs didn't
have the flight time)

The press made a big deal out of the Osprey crash, and unfortunately the XV-15
crashed shortly thereafter. But according to the tests the V-22 is doing fairly
well. (The first Osprey crash was due to the incorrect installation of an
automatic stability system. The craft rolled left and instead of correcting to
the right the system (installed backwards) rolled left, the pilot then had to
chase the controls to try and stabilize, hopeless really with FBW...) The 
V-22 uses the same basic design as the 2 XV-15s which logged many hours without
event. Murphy's law just caught up at a bad time...

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#
###############################################################################
From: jfb200@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (joseph.f.baugher)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Mystery B-58
Summary: R prefix
Keywords: Mystery B-58
Date: 19 Nov 92 03:25:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsd.1992Nov19.032515.14398
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois

In article <Bxvx4u.MwM@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz>, kaiser@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (Chris Kaiser) writes:
> In article <lg86ioINN1d3@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes:
> > In article <1992Nov13.172527.1940@news2.cis.umn.edu> rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu 
> > (Robert J. Granvin) writes:
> > 
> > >In 1976, the aircraft was re-registered as an "RB-25".  Apparently the FAA
> > >didn't see much difference between a J and K model, except the radome, but
> > >since it was clearly a "radar bomber", it got the RB designation.  There's
> > >some vagueness in the history of the aircraft that makes it appear that it
> > >held an "RB" designation before.  The "RB" moniker was military in origin,
> > >at least.  I don't know of the FAA randomly creating new military aircraft
> > >designation types.  :-)
> > 
> > 
> > I thought the "R" in "RB" was a modified mission symbol for"reconnaissance,"
> > as in "RB-36."  
> 
> For those who missed it, the following excerpt from Joe Baugher's posting to
> sci.military on the P-38 is relevant here...
> (see his original post for references)
> 
> 
> > Neither the P-38 nor the P-38D were considered combat-ready.  In 1942, 
> > the P-38 was redesignated RP-38 and the P-38D was redesignated RP-38D, 
> > the 'R' prefix meaning 'restricted to non-combat roles'.  They were 
> > used strictly as combat trainers.  
> >
> > 
> > Joe Baugher       AT&T Bell Laboratories    2000 North Naperville Road 
> > 		  Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033.   (708) 713-4548
> 
> 
> 
You are both right.  The R-prefix meant different things at different
times.  In the years 1943 to 1947, the R prefix meant "Restricted".  In 1948,
the meaning of the prefix was changed to "Reconaissance", which remains
its meaning to this day.

 
Joe Baugher			**************************************
AT&T Bell Laboratories		*  "I'm shocked!  Shocked to find    *
2000 North Naperville Road	*  that gambling is going on here!"  *
P. O. Box 3033			**************************************
Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033		
(708) 713 4548				
ihlpl!jfb                  Who, me?  Speak for AT&T?  Surely you jest!	
jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:39:41 GMT

In article <pug.721566660@marsh> pug@cs.curtin.edu.au (Greg Barron) writes:

>shtono34@wharton.upenn.edu writes:

>>Following the intense discussion on SR-71 I thought it would
>>be a good idea to include the (no less marvellous) MIG-25 in
>>our discussion. These two planes were made for similar
>>purposes, though I believe the Russian plane was more versatile.

>Similar purposes??

>I always thought the 25 was designed to shoot down the B-70
>Valkyrie {sp}. It was supposed to be an intercpetor. I see your
>point now, The SR was also designed to be an interceptor. 

>The 25 is no match for the SR in speed though -- it can reach 3.2 or 
>whatever, but cannot stay there very long, unlike the SR.

When Viktor Belenko turned over the MiG-25 to the Japanese in 1976, it
was found that the MiG was no competitor to the SR.  The redline on
the MiG with _NO_ stores (no missles, so it can't even shoot!) is Mach
2.8, with stores the redline is 2.35 Mach.

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 MiG is made in a very crude fashion (apparently they still are,
looking at the MiG-29 photos), no fairings, exposed hinges, spot
welded...  Nothing compared to the way an SR or an F-15 is made.

--
"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
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 15:32:14 GMT

In article <1ehjb8INNhd6@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> dwhall@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Dean W Hall) writes:
>  As the story goes, there were to contenders: The YF-22 and the YF-23.  Each
>were made by a conglomeration of aviation companies and were built to be the
>absolute best fighters ever flown.  Having stealth characteristics, vectored 
>thrust, super-cruising, and the best computer systems around.
>  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?
>-Dean Hall
>__________________________________________________________________
>|*			       					*|
>|			Admiral Dean Hall	 		 |
>|						        	 |
>|	Creator of an entirely different way of sneezing	 |
>|*								*|
>==================================================================
>

The YF-22 is scheduled to enter service in 1996.  They didn't replace the
prototype that crashed because the flight testing was 95% complete.  All
that remains is to wait until production.

- 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. --------------
From: gunter@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Edwards AFB
Date: 24 Nov 1992 04:59:23 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: tartarus.uwa.edu.au

This is a question for the Edwards AFB experts (Hiya Mary! :)

I have a photo that puzzles me, on it is a RB-45C taking off with RATO from
Edwards, in the background you can see the two big hangars, but parked right
outside of them apart from a DC-3 is a Lancaster bomber!
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?
From: rh@craycos.com (Robert Herndon)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25
Date: 18 Nov 92 19:48:27 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

Sounds like someone here is confusing the B-58's weapons pod
with some of the ideas floating around for the A-11/12/SR-71.

Yes, this is busting netiquette, since I don't have my refs
about, but the weapons systems I recall for the A-11/12/SR-71
planes were:

1) a large air-to-air missile system.  I believe this was
   actually tested once, successfully, but the program was
   cancelled anyway.

2) a KE air-to-ground kill system.  Basically a large iron rod
   with some guidance.  Mach 3 launch + 80,000'+ fall of 1000+#
   of iron carries a lot of punch.  Never carried as far as
   development or testing.

-r
-- 
Robert Herndon		    --	not speaking officially for Cray Computer.
rh@craycos.com			   --|--		719/540-4240
AOPA, EAA, & SSA member		-----o-----		C-172A N7511T
PP-ASEL,I 			    " "			Glider student
From: rbs@sawtooth.idaho.amdahl.com (Bob Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Speed Record
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:42:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corp., Rexburg, ID

In article <1er64uINN2ki@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, d.j.piatak@larc.nasa.gov (David J. Piatak) 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.
> 
> I think the record is held by 'Rare Bear' which is a highly modified
> Grumman F8F Bearcat.  It's about 500mph.  I could be wrong though....
> 
> P3 Orion????
> 

The original poster is probably remembering the fact that Rare Bear has 
the propeller and spinner from a P3 Orion.  Saw this in an issue last year
of AOPA Pilot.

Bob

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Bob Smith       Amdahl Corporation    143 N. 2 E., Rexburg, Idaho 83440
 UUCP:{ames,decwrl,sun,uunet}!amdahl!tetons!rbs           (208) 356-8915
 INTERNET: rbs@idaho.amdahl.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert)
Subject: Re: Speed Record
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:18:08 GMT

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!
>         Thanks,
>           Ron
> P.S. I say the record is held by the P3 Orion.

I seriously doubt it is the Orion which is really designed to fly slowly 
and efficiently.  Probably a Grumman Bearcat as far as stock production 
planes go.  There may be some beefed up variants of WWII fighters that are 
faster.

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are strictly my own.
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: SR-71 / MIG-25
Date: 17 Nov 92 06:34:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 

-> The MiG is made in a very crude fashion (apparently they still are,
-> looking at the MiG-29 photos), no fairings, exposed hinges, spot
-> welded...  Nothing compared to the way an SR or an F-15 is made.

But then that was always part of the Soviet philosophy. A LOT of
relatively cheap but adequate aircraft rather than a FEW high
performance, high quality models. While the Gulf war showed that one on
one or even a couple on one they were inferior to Western aircraft,
we've never encountered a 10-1 all out head to head match where it's
possible that theory could have been proved to be viable.
                                                Rocky
From: pdills@staff.tc.umn.edu (Peter in Amiland)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Mystery B-58
Keywords: Mystery B-58
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:00:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: news2.1992Nov16.200021.3093
Organization: University of Minnesota

In article <1992Nov12.181400.15710@news2.cis.umn.edu> rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin) writes:

--above deleted for brevity--

>I'm working COMPLETELY from faulty memory, but the answer is going to be
>"no."
>
>When we rebuilt our B-25, we had to initially put it into Experimental
>category for FAA required flight tests.  Following successful completion
>of those tests, we applied for, and received, a Limited certificate. 
>
>Before we could even get the Experimental category, we had to "restore"
>the designation of the aircraft to it's original.  However, I believe that
>was not for the Experimental needs, but rather the Limited.  While I'm
>not sure about Experimental, I'm quite sure on all others.
>
>By the way, there are practically no warbirds flying with anything better
>than a Limited certificate.

Any idea what exactly the 'limited' certification lets you do? Wonder where 
it is in the FARs.

Anyone know?

>
>-- 
>Robert J. Granvin                                       School of Statistics
>rjg@stat.umn.edu                                     University of Minnesota
From: augustho@aludra.usc.edu (August Horvath)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: FAST Bearcat (was:Re: Speed Record)
Date: 23 Nov 1992 17:58:05 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

A number of posters have put forward Lyle Shelton's "Rare Bear" F8F as the
world prop-driven speed record holder.  This may not actually be the case.
The record held by the Bear is for PISTON-ENGINED prop-driven planes.  The
original poster clearly indicated s/he meant ALL prop-driven planes by
suggesting the P-3.  Turboprops are not allowed to compete for the record
held by the Bear, nor are they allowed in so-called "Unlimited" races.

The current likely challenger to the Bear's record is the Pond Racer, an
all-composite machine created by Burt Rutan with two automotive racing
engines (ethanol fueled).  This has been having the bugs worked out of it
at Reno for the past 2 or 3 years.

August Horvath <augustho@aludra.usc.edu>



Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military