HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: megazone@banzai.WPI.EDU (MegaZone)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: F-22 Question
Date: 12 Jan 1993 20:56:25 GMT
Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: banzai.wpi.edu

In article <yy4r5pr@dixie.com> sents@dixie.com (Jeff Sents) writes:
>contains detailed accounts of th YF-22A crash. The A/C was not flying a
>touch and go, it was flying a planned go-around using afterburner with
[facts deleted]

Yeah... Sorry, I knew all of that, read the articles. But I didn't want to
go into detail. I used touch-n-go since more people seem to understand that
better than 'planned go-around'. (And as a pilot, yes, I know the difference)

>no way anyone would even think of allowing an A/C of the YF-22A's cost
>and importance to 'burn under supervision'.  I really hope you were
>being sarcastic when you wrote that.

Actually, I got that from other sources. I believe it was here or sci.mil that
some posted something from the AF. If I recall correctly it was decided that
since so much damage was already done, and most of the program was completed,
to use the opportunity to examine the burn characteristics... I'd also read
the Av Leak stuff... At the time the other posts were made no one contested it
at all...

>>The other YF-22 was already rendered non-airworthy by use in ground testing.
> Right conclusion, wrong reason.

The other airframe was used in ground testing, at least that's all I've ever
heard of it being used for after the initial flight tests were done. 

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell)
Subject: Re: LANTRIN POD/F-16
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:14:57 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan8.132942@usho72.hou281.chevron.com> hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.160846.19559@cs.cornell.edu>, Taimur Khan writes:
>|> Can any body clearify something for me?  From what I understand an F-16
>|> can be fitted with a LANTRIN navigation and targetting pod for attack on
>|> targets in the dark.  An F-15E I believe also has a LANTRIN pod.
>
> Actually, the F-16 was fitted with LANTRIN before the F-15E was. 

I think you are talking about LANTIRN -- Low Altitude Navigation and 
Targeting Infra-Red for Night.

-- Craig
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: BEST FIGHTERPILOT ?!?
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:29:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 

-> From numerous things I've read, many in the Luftwaffe felt that
-> Marseille was the most gifted natural fighter pilot who ever lived
-> (at that time, of course). Amazing marksmanship, great instincts, and
-> outstanding pilot skills.

I have heard that also from several different sources. I believe he died
in North Africa. In one of my books there are a few photos of him
shortly before his last flight.
                                        Rocky
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Was RADARs' impact on the
Date: 5 Jan 93 22:07:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

J> .Has anyone else heard of this? I always thought that it was the British RAD
 > .network that saved them but it always seemed a little strange that the Germ
 > .were unable to counter this as the British and later the Americans were abl
 > .to do.

I have an excellent book which describes the development of, and the
battles based on, RADAR usage.  I can't dig it out at the moment, but I
believe the title was "Instruments of Darkness."

        D/
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-3345 . Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: F-22 Question
Date: 12 Jan 93 23:33:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Chevron

In article <yy4r5pr@dixie.com>, sents@dixie.com (Jeff Sents) writes:
                       [stuff deleted]
|> There is simply no way anyone would even think of allowing an A/C 
|> of the YF-22A's cost and importance to 'burn under supervision'. 
|> I really hope you were being sarcastic when you wrote that.

 Oh really?  What makes you say think that?

 Remember, they also put these multi-million/billion dollar planes in
 the grips of the "GORILLA" with 2000+ strain gauges and purposely 
 stress them till they break!

 Ever see a million dollar composite spar go EEEEEEKKKKKKPPPOWWWWWW!

 TRAVIS
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette)
Subject: Re: American kill...
Reply-To: nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:00:30 GMT

In article <BOWERS.92Dec29102716@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov>  
bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) writes:

> Hmmmm.  I don't think F-16s are capable of carrying AIM-7s, much less
> AIM-120s.  That was the big disadvantage of using the F-16 as an
> interceptor (and the reason for their no kills in the Gulf War, until
> now).

The original models didn't have the proper radar necessary for those
missiles, but later upgrades made it possible to use AIM-7s and AIM-120s. I
believe the upgrades were ordered when some ANG interceptor units were due to
receive F-16s. 

--
Nathan Janette	# "As I walk I hear my longing thoughts subsiding.
Dept MB&B	# Upon your cross I bleed the thoughts that I've been hiding.
Yale Univ/HHMI	# I'm all used up; there's not much more for me to give.
New Haven, CT	# Echoes of the life that we all want to live."

nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu
From: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SR-71 engines 
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 04:03:50 GMT
Organization: Me? Organized?


In article <greg.726685427@saltydog> greg@saltydog.dpsi.com writes:

  > I hope someone provides a really good explanation of how this works.  No
  > engine, regardless of its inlet efficiency, is going to be able to produce
  > much more than a 14 psi pressure differential across its inlet and this
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Pretty unlikely to get that much, however the only engine I've worked 
with which I know figures for is the JT8D series, which produces 10- 
15,000 lb/thrust, and has an "Engine Pressure Ratio" of up to 2.15 (I 
think, we got rid of them a few years ago) - basically the static 
pressure at the back of the engine could be up to 2.15 times that at 
the front.  This pressure differential was the thrust.

If an engine could get a decent pressure diff across the inlet, then 
multiplied by the surface area of that inlet you might find the result 
is a power of power (so to speak :-)).  I guess shockwaves and 
deceleration are doing strange things also.

Like you, I'd be interested in the details.




Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis)
Subject: Re: SR-71 engines
Organization: Data Parallel Systems, Inc
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:33:00 GMT

In <C0KsFL.K87@acsu.buffalo.edu> v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes:

>Well yes and no. Once the SR-71 is positioned downwind and her pilot lights
>the burners, they never are shut down. As the aircraft accelerates through
>Mach 2.5 or so, the engine bypass louvers open up and duct air directly from
>the inlet to the afterburner.
>	The turbine is NEVER shut down, or idled. If It was idled, it would
>actually drag on its mounts, and if it were shut down, it would tear off
>its mounting lugs. 

Does this mean a flameout (caused by fuel exhaustion, turbulence, a failure
in the rudder, etc.) implies that the engines will depart the
airframe?

>	While the turbine is for the most part bypassed, the engine is still
>not a true ramjet. The turbine provides some 17 percent of total engine
>thurst while the afterburner provides about 26 percent. It is the INLET 
>which provides ABOUT 63 PERCENT of the total thrust! A ramjet, by 
>definition derives its thrust from the combustion of fuel, whereas the SR-71
>get her thrust from her air intakes.

I don't follow you here.  By "inlet" do you mean the ramjet?  I have always
imagined a single SR-71 engine as a "conventional" turbojet buried inside
a "conventional" ramjet.  The inlet spike varies the mass flow between the
two - at low speed the air supply to the jacketing ramjet is cut off and
provided instead to the turbojet.  At high speed the spike moves so that
most of the mass flow flows around the turbojet and to the ramjet:

         Fuel in 
    -----|---------------\       Fuel in
             RAMJET       \ /====|==
    /   ============      ---       \
  <=     |TURBOJET|         AFTERBURNER
    \   ============      ---       /
             RAMJET       / \====|==
    -----|---------------/       Fuel in
         Fuel in

(Classified ASCII Graphic.  For your eyes only)

Can you explain how the "inlet" provides thrust?

greg
--
Gregory Reed Travis				D  P  S  I
Data Parallel Systems Incorporated   greg@dpsi.com (For MX mailers only!)
Bloomington, IN			     greg@indiana.edu (For the others)
From: scott@fraud.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: energy and tactics (was: Finnish Defense)
Date: 6 Jan 93 09:54:40
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF)
NNTP-Posting-Host: xcf-gw.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil's message of 6 Jan 1993 10:23:32 -0600


% Not useless at all, but probably not THE deciding factor.  The more excess
% power you have, the harder you can turn without losing energy (meaning the
% less energy you lose at max inst. turn rate.  It's more useful in a
% defensive situation prior to launch.  Still, to turn hard into the missle
% and not bleed too much, more power is better.  Remember, if the first
% missle misses but you're now at 120 knots with no turn rate available,
% chances are the second one won't.

But then, it's generally not wise to engage after-burners when you've got
heaters on your tail... this is a case where it might be wiser to exchange
altitude to maintain your energy.

Scott
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: Maurice Blok
Subject: Re: Does South-Africa operate Mirage Fighters?
Originator: mgjblok@jol01.cs.vu.nl
Organization: Fac. Wiskunde & Informatica, VU, Amsterdam
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:19:19 GMT

skronkvi@aton.abo.fi (Stefan Kronkvist INF) writes:
>Hi!

>Question: Does South-Africa operate Mirage fighters?

Yes they do, although they modified them quite a bit
to keep them up to date and standard.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: DC1/3 
From: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 21:24:23 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Me? Organized?


In article <1712@tdat.teradata.COM> wbj@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com writes:

  > 
  > What relationship (if any) is there between the DC1 & DC3 aircraft? I  >  read/heard
  > at one time that the DC1 was the prototype to the DC3, and that few were built  >  and
  > NONE are still flying. Is this true?

The DC-1 was essentially the "prototype" DC-2 (I think).  The DC-2 was 
built in reasonable numbers for the time (60-ish), but had a few 
problems.  These were ironed out and became the DC-3.  The DC-2 and 3 
were very similar, to the extent that a DC-3 in the Phillipines was 
able to be fitted with a DC-2 wing in order to fly out and escape the 
aps in 1941/2.

I read in a FLIGHT airliner census last year that there are still a 
few DC-2's flying,


  > 
  > Also, I've seen photos of WWII era Dakota aircraft being used to spread  >  chemical
  > dispersants over the Shetland Island oilspill, and the planes look (to me) to  >  be
  > identical to a DC3. Are the DC3 & Dakota "related"?

Dakota is the name the British gave to the DC-3/C-47 etc in WWII.  
Over here the two terms are synonymous.


Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: American kill...
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:27:21 GMT

In article <C007ru.48n@acsu.buffalo.edu> v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes:

>In article <1ho06rINNlmq@uwm.edu>, zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Dr. Strangelove) writes...
>>Does anybody know what type of aircraft the US shot down over Iraq today?
>>The paper didn't say... All it said was an Iraqi MIG was shot down 
>>by an F-16, after two other aircraft were escorted out by F-15's minutes
>>before hand.

>        Well, dont exactly know what type of MiG was killed, but I though I
>heard that it was MiG 27 or MiG 23 variant. Oh, BTW, it was killed with an
>AIM-120 AMRAAM at abt 20+ miles. Good shot, boys! Dont forget to paint a
>star on the rail.

Hmmmm.  I don't think F-16s are capable of carrying AIM-7s, much less
AIM-120s.  That was the big disadvantage of using the F-16 as an
interceptor (and the reason for their no kills in the Gulf War, until
now).

This is, at least, the third Iraqi aircraft shot down since the
ceasefire.

--
Al Bowers                       bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle, Lead Aero
NASA, Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, California
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney)
Subject: Re: change the subject line! (was: RE: FINNISH DEFENSE)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 12:39:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.082041.1@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi>, hakoskinen@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi (Harri Koskinen) writes:
|> In article <1483.417.uupcb@the-matrix.com>, rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins)  writes:
|> > -> As Yeager pointed out in his autobigraphy: the top speed of a fighter
|> > -> (as long as it is in the Mach 2 range) is largely irrelevant. If you
|> > -> turn tail to flee you present a nice IR flare and will have a
|> > -> Sidewinder (or equivalent) up your ass before you can say "mommy!".
|> > 
|> > Afterburner and high energy acceleration is also an excellant way to
|> > restore energy lost in high G maneuvers at subsonic speeds. Energy
|> > bleeds off pretty fast in a turning fight and if you can't restore
|> > energy fast you're nothing more than a faded memory. In WW II the only
|> > way to restore energy was to trade altitude, thus many fights started
|> > at 15,000-20,000 feet and ended just a few thousand feet above sea
|> > level.
|> >                                         Rocky
|> >                       
|> How is this posting (and also many others in this newsgroup) related
|> with Finnish defense??? Can't you just change the subject line when
|> you change the subject from the original?
|> 
|> -----
|> Harri Koskinen
|> freelance aviation writer
|> Siivet magazine
|> Finland


Come now, and go to all that trouble?  Not to mention the poor people using
subject next who would lose the thread of the conversation...

					E
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: yukyuk@beta.lanl.gov (Craig B. Huffnagle)
Subject: Land-based Navy Air (was Re: A FEW GOOD MEN AND F14'S)
Keywords: F14 CUBA US NAVY
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:58:26 GMT

>Also, there are training squadrons for every aircraft, including F-14's, that
>are land-based.  You gotta learn how to land on the ground before you can try
>to land on an aircraft carrier.  Miramar (Top Gun) NAS is the west coast base
>for F-14 training.

When reading my own post, I also recalled that all Navy squadrons are land-based
they just deploy on ships for specific missions.  When not assigned to an 
aircraft carrier, the squadrons go home.

- Craig

-- 
Craig Huffnagle				      	      yukyuk@yuck.lanl.gov
"My mom always said that rain was God crying,
	She also said it was because of something I did."      Jack Handey
------------------- Think of a disclaimer, it applies. -------------------
From: rrg@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU (Rafael Rodriguez)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Why didn't Luftwaffe paint propeller tips?
Date: 11 Jan 1993 09:17:57 +1100
Organization: University of Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au

From article <gunnar.726605609@beppe>, by gunnar@beppe.ericsson.se (Gunnar Forsgren):
> 
> A German propeller had the functionality of acting as a propeller,
> nothing else. Who saw shark jaws,lightly dressed women or girlfriend's names
> painted on the Luftwaffe avional equipment ?
> 
Gherard Barkhorn had the name of his wife (Christl) painted on the side 
of his Fw-109D-9. Also, I have seen photographs and illustrations of
German nose art. It was rare, but it did exist. 

I have also seen photographs of German Tanks with girlfriend names
painted on the crew stations, and the famous panzer with the
inscription "Wir bringen den Tod nach Polen" (We bring death
to Poland). But this is an aircraft group, not an armour group.

Regards, 
Rafael Rodriguez.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: carlos@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Miguel Borges)
Subject: Re: Best fighterpilot ?!?!
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:44:02 GMT

Does anybody have the TOTAL air losses for the various nations in WWII,
for example?  If you count the victories of the >100 kill-aces of the
Luftwaffe in a previous post, you get more than 7800 kills.

7800 Kills?  Wow.  This wouldn't even include kills by pilots with
less than 100 kills.

Is this accurate?
-- 
\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\_/\
C. Miguel Borges        and his EVIL TWIN BROTHER (tm)        Carlos M. Borges
carlos@morgan.ucs.mun.ca <-------------------------> carlos@garfield.cs.mun.ca
Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NF. Canada []*[] <- flag
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Finnish Defense
Date: 4 Jan 1993 08:18:15 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


At last, something else to respond to :).

In <STEINARB.93Jan3140710@tindved.idt.unit.no>
Steinar Bang <steinarb@idt.unit.no> wrote


>...the top speed of a fighter
>(as long as it is in the Mach 2 range) is largely irrelevant. If you
>turn tail to flee you present a nice IR flare and will have a
>Sidewinder (or equivalent) up your ass before you can say "mommy!".

Good that you pointed this out.

>...while multirole planes
>that also are good dogifighters like the F-16 or the F-18 have a top
>speed of around Mach 2.0 at sea level. This is more than enough for
>dogfight purposes where you have engaged an enemy and where your enemy
>will engage you rather than attempt evasion.

Right reasoning, but 2.0 at _sea_level_?  Try a little slower, a little
(10-15K ft) higher!

>Top speed for a fighter is actually a high speed dash capability. You
>don't get many minutes of flight time on full afterburner for most
>modern fighters (the ATF has the capability of Supercruise, ie.
>supersonic flight without burner.  This give a much longer operating
>time in the Mach 1.5-1.6 range. Top speed of the ATF is Mach 2+...? I
>dunno, actually...)

It's interesting that such a big deal is made out of ATF supercruise.
The ATF was _not_ the first airplane to do this, by far!  I'd also be
willing to bet that during supersonic flight without burners the fuel
flows are still pretty high.

Then Ethan L Mckinney <mckinney@athena.mit.edu> wrote

>An Iraqi MiG-25 outran a Sidewinder that was fired from astern.

I'd like to hear more about this!  I'd guess it was more a factor
of the range than the speed of the target, and that the 'winder
ran out of fuel rather than just got outrun.
If you're engaged and somebody shoots, don't forget that top speed isn't that
important, 'cause you aren't there.  Excess power is what will/might save you,
because you've got to accelerate.

Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions,
go and get your own."

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.owning
From: joe@oilean.islandsw.com (Joe McGuckin)
Subject: Re: In search of information about MiG ownership
Organization: Island Software
	<janm.726579682@Aten>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:27:41 GMT

the Delfin L-29? uses a clone of a Rolls-Royce engine...  Mid 60's vintage trainer.

-- 

Joe McGuckin             joe@islandsw.com
Island Software    	 oilean!joe@sgi.com
(415) 969-5453
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: dave@admiral.uucp (Dave Litchman)
Subject: Re: F-15E Performance
Organization: The Admiral's Unix System & The Grid BBS
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1993 01:26:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.184456.15862@infonode.ingr.com> bishopjl@infonode.ingr.com (John L Bishop) writes:
>Hi,
>
>Due to a "discussion" in another newsgroup, I became curious as to the high
>altitude performance of the F-15E.  The poster complained that in the new
>simulation "F-15 Strike Eagle III" from Microprose, he could only get the
>aircraft up to 400 Kts. at 30,000 Ft. (Aircraft was clean with full 
>afterburners).  I did some calculations, and this comes out to just over 
>Mach 1.0.  Is this realistic?  I know the standard Eagle can go to Mach 2.5 - 
>but at what altitude? 

Right around 36,000 feet. 30,000 is probably close enough.


-- 
"Dammit Jim, I'm a free man, not a number!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ray, when somebody asks you if you're a god, you say YES!" -- Winston Zeddmore
From: tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:17:05 GMT
Subject: Re: P51s are Shiny Metal
Organization: the HP Mtn.View Resp. Cntr.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military


You will recall also that only during the last part of the war, B29
bombers leaving to bomb what was left of Japan from Pacific islands
(hard fought for islands, no?) were also configured without paint.

But camo is not usually meant for deterring threats from below..if
paint was used, it was light (light blue, white etc)...instead, 
parked planes needed to blend into the ground.  

There was not much of a threat left to aircraft parked on the tarmac
towards the end of the war.                    

The decimated Imperial Navy and Army had not enough left to 
raid airbases with great frequency.  

This in addition to the other many posts re: weight.... 

cool subject....
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: F-22 Question
Date: 12 Jan 1993 06:40:00 GMT
Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal
NNTP-Posting-Host: obsidian.wpi.edu

In article <1993Jan11.190614.4666@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mtissand@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael D Tissandier) writes:
>vertical.  It was also missing the canopy, but other than that, it looks
>like it could be flyable, does anyone have any info on possible resumption
>of the test program prior to the FSD aircraft being completed??

The official word from the AF is that extensive internal damage was done by
the fire, rendering the aircrafts structure unflightworthy...

IE, the heat probably melted and/or warped the main framwork of the body. Plus
the damage done by the impact.

It won't fly again.

###############################################################################
# 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