HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stivers@etec.com (Robert Stivers)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: RF-4 Phantom
Date: 20 Nov 1992 08:49:44 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


	I'm building a homebuilt with a partner. My partner flew F-4's in
Nam off an aircraft carrier. He was short on his second tour when they got
the first 2 RF-4's in. They let him do one of the first missions. 
	On takeoff one of the fans failed and he punched out. Knocked him out 
cold. Woke up in sickbay. Anyway, he has the distinction of 'splashing' the 
first RF-4 in combat.
From: rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: RF-4 Phantom
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:22:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.153815.24722@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>  
thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) writes:
:In article <9211191620.AA01617@etec.com> stivers@etec.com (Robert Stivers)  
writes:
:>
:>	I'm building a homebuilt with a partner. My partner flew F-4's in
:>Nam off an aircraft carrier. He was short on his second tour when they got
:>the first 2 RF-4's in. They let him do one of the first missions.
:>	On takeoff one of the fans failed and he punched out. Knocked him out
:>cold. Woke up in sickbay. Anyway, he has the distinction of 'splashing' the
:>first RF-4 in combat.
:
:First let me say that I may be misunderstanding the thread of the  
conversation,
:and if I am, disregard all that follows.
:
:In looking back over all the postings about the RF-4, I sense that some are
:thinking of it as an armed strike aircraft.  The RF-4 is a photo  
reconnaissance
:aircraft and nothing else.  It was flown by crews trained specifically in the
:recce mission, and was not interchangeable with other F-4's in either mission
:or aircrew.  The RF-4 was used extensively in Vietnam, but not as a strike
:aircraft.
:
:Having said that, I now tell you about a strike mission flown by an RF-4.
:A friendly ground unit was under heavy attack, and an airborne FAC was
:looking desperately for available air.  The only thing in the area was an
:RF-4C.  Under direction of the FAC, the photojet made a run over the enemy
:troops and popped out a string of magnesium flash cartridges.  The bad guys
:panicked and ran back into the woods.  Before they could re-group, the FAC
:had a flight of fighters inbound and the fight was over.
:
:TH

I bet just the sound of an F-4 coming in hot and fast was enough to give
Charlie second thoughts.  The flash canisters where, however, a nice touch!

I spent many nights growing up in Idaho watching the distant flashes over  
Sailor Creek from the RF-4s at Mountain Home.  Later, as a Marine Grunt, I'd
get a real warm fuzzy feeling seeing and hearing F-4s coming in.

There is a lot of nostalgia in the F-4 for some of us who never even came
to flying them.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jhan@descartes.uwaterloo.ca (Jerry Han)
Subject: Re: ACM
Keywords: ACM
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:41:01 GMT

In article <ahng.721723039@ee.ualberta.ca>, ahng@ee.ualberta.ca (Allan Hong-Kay Ng) writes:
> Hi,
> 	ACM angles tactics versus energy tactics....discuss.
> 
> 						A. Ng
> 

That's an interesting way to phrase a question.  (;-)

What specifically about ACM angles or energy tactics do you want to talk about?  Considering that there's a very nice textbook that's about 400 pages out there, (Robert Shaw's Fighter Combat), I think a little clarification is in order.
From: d.j.piatak@larc.nasa.gov (David Piatak)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Military Aircraft Parks ...
Date: 17 Nov 1992 15:09:14 GMT
Organization: NASA-Langley Research Center
Distribution: world
Reply-To: d.j.piatak@larc.nasa.gov (David Piatak)
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac153.larc.nasa.gov

>Additionally, the former Soviet Union has recently become a goldmine for
warbird enthusiasts.  Most recently, a Curtiss P-40B (of which most people
beleived was TOTALLY extinct) was recovered from Siberia, and will FLY in 
less than 2 years.  Reportedly, there are many Bell P-39's and early
>

Just wondering if anyone has info on this P-40B.  I have not
heard of this great discovery and would be very interested
in any info. on it and its restoration.  Who found it?
Who owns it?  Where is it now?

Thanx in advance....
Dave Piatak



"Yes, I to, wish   \              David Piatak  
I owned a P-51    /              Penn State Co-Op
Mustang"             \              Flight Research Branch
                           \              NASA-Langley Research Center
   

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney)
Subject: Re: U.S. aircrews executed by Stalin
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:44:22 GMT

I'm not clear, given the news reports, exactly how the US personnel died in
Soviet captivity, how many, etc.  However, latest NY Times article I saw
indicated total # of captives held after the war was less than 20, all had
Russian, Ukrainian, or Jewish last names.  Only a fraction died in USSR -- some
released, some forced to renounce US citizenship, sentenced to prison as traitors
(after all, they'd been capitalist running dogs, right?) and then stayed in USSR
after release, apparently voluntarily.  Why did Stalin do this?  He was
incredibly paranoid!  As far as I know, though, all the B-29 flight crews were
returned unharmed.  Those who were killed/imprisoned were POWs captured from the
Germans.  By the way, Stalin treated Soviet POWs liberated from the Germans much,
much worse -- many were killed immediately, many went to Siberia, etc.
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: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 03:58:09 GMT

In article <1emsh9INNlm5@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> gunter@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt) writes:
>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

These are popular nicknames, bestowed by aircrews.  To call a 111 an Aardvark
is like calling an F-105 a Thud, an A-10 a Warthog, or a T-37 a Tweet.  The
111 was never given an officially sanctioned nickname, ala "Phantom", "Eagle",
or "Fighting Falcon (gag!)"

TH

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: cmclark@dri.com (Chip Clark)
Subject: GIF's and FTP sites? 	
Reply-To: cmclark@drivax.mry.novell.com
Organization: Desktop Systems Group/Novell, Monterey CA/USA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 19:30:11 GMT

I am looking for GIF's of aircraft, particularly military craft.

Any ideas?
FTP sites?


_____________________________________________________________________
                   |                                                |
Chip		   |	"I can not tell what you or other men	    |
cmclark@novell.com |	think of this life; but for my single self, | 
		   |	I had as leif not be as live to be          |
Technical Support  |	in awe of such a thing as I myself."        |
Desktop Systems    |		- Cassius  Julius Caesar  I ii      |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For More DR DOS support contact drdos@novell.com - 
   Please include your serial number

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: morse@quark.mpr.ca (Daryl Morse)
Subject: Re: Toasty Radar (was Re: SR-71 / MIG-25)
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby, BC, Canada.
	<1992Nov16.091837.11808@foretune.co.jp>
	<Bxu99w.4KK@plato.ds.boeing.com> <1ec1jsINNlp9@cat.cis.Brown.EDU>
Date: 18 Nov 92 08:38:17


In article <1ec1jsINNlp9@cat.cis.Brown.EDU> GRANTH@brownvm.brown.edu (Grant Hogarth) writes:

> In article <Bxu99w.4KK@plato.ds.boeing.com>, prang@ssc-bee (Ron Wanttaja) said:
> >Toasty Radar (was Re: SR-71 / MIG-25)
> >
> >Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
> >
> >At school, they told them of a case where a man was killed by walking into
> >an active beam.  Not a fast nor a painless way to go....

> I seem to recall seeing some "anti-radiation" coveralls in a military-surplus
> shop some years ago.  They were some sort of open-weave fabric designed to
> be worn over regular clothes (or not, if you are Madonna, I suppose :-) when
> servicing large-dish radars.

Unless such a suit covered the entire body, face included, by today's
standards, it would be ineffective for such tasks, particularly large
radars such as ship- or earth-based. High intensity EM fields are very
dangerous. This is born out by the highly visible warnings on Navy
ships in the vicinity of radar dishes. Does anyone know if radar units
are serviced while they are emitting? I suppose that in wartime this
might be necessary, but I would pitty the poor grunt that gets stuck
with the job.
  Coveralls such as those described above are being used today by
power utilities to enable technicians to get close (i.e., touching) to
500+ kilovolt power lines to maintain them without affecting service.
In this case, the suit is a tightly woven wire mesh and covers the
entire body.  A loosely woven mesh, not unlike the masks worn by
fencers (the ones with the swords), is worn over the face.  Workers
are typically suspended on a platform by a helicopter so there is no
possibility of shunting current from the power line to ground and
thereby being toasted.
  BTW, for those without a first year university level course in
electromagnetism, the theory behind such suits is that the electic
field strength inside a (perfect) conductor is zero. Since the 60 Hz
cannot penetrate the mesh, the suit provides the person wearing it an
EM free environment.

--
Daryl Morse                     | Voice  : (604) 293-5476
MPR Teltech Ltd. 		| Fax    : (604) 293-5787
8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby, BC    | E-Mail : morse@mpr.ca
Canada, V5A 4B5                 |        : mprgate.mpr.ca!morse@uunet.uu.net
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Subject: SR-71 / MIG-25
Date: 16 Nov 1992 08:39:26 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


In article <1992Nov14.043322.20437@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> "Toby . Hughes"
<thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu> writes:

>The primary arresting gear on most USAF installations, even 10 years ago,
were the
>BAK-9 and BAK-12, which were (and are) arresting cables. Kinda hard to engage
>one without a hook!

You've probably flown a T-38, then.  See a hook?  There are tabs on the main
gear doors that are
supposed to catch the cable after the nosewhhel kicks it up.  Sounds like one
of those "trust me"
things.

>BTW, I may hold the USAF record for the slowest arresting gear engagement,
>having snagged the mid-field MOREST at Cam Ranh Bay in an F-4 at a speed less
>than 10 knots.

Navy humor (very little):   LIG LOAW  _EGTL_ OK-1

Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions, go and get your own."
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:30:16 EST
From: <DHE2@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Air Force Tailhooks (was Re: SR-71 / MIG-25)
Distribution: usa
 <cpetersn.721712656@vincent2.iastate.edu> <Bxpsw1.LEJ@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
 <1992Nov16.061043.3591@julian.uwo.ca>

Carl, the arresting gear you saw is standard, and I would expect the USAF to re
quire it's installation on any field the F-117 (a misnomer for a bomber, but th
en Congress would never have funded a B-117) operated from.  Since the one you
saw only stopped by for a day, it makes sense to break out the porta-stopper an
d rig it.

Dan
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: brndlfly@athena.mit.edu (Matthew T Velazquez)
Subject: Re: Name of B-52
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:13:26 GMT


From: chena@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Cheng)

>Can anyone name any famous B-52 bomber?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Anthony

The Old Dog.


:o)#

			-T
				T Velazquez
				MIT Aero/Astro
				brndlfly@athena.mit.edu
"Crayolas are one of the few things the human race has in common."
				-Robert Fulghum
From: strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (Randy Haskin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: P-40B found in former USSR
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:23:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov17.162343.12748
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

> >Additionally, the former Soviet Union has recently become
> a goldmine for warbird enthusiasts.  Most recently, a
> Curtiss P-40B (of which most people beleived was TOTALLY
> extinct) was recovered from Siberia, and will FLY in
>  less than 2 years.  Reportedly, there are many Bell
> P-39's and early
> >
> 
> Just wondering if anyone has info on this P-40B.  I have
> not heard of this great discovery and would be very interested
> in any info. on it and its restoration.  Who found it?
> Who owns it?  Where is it now? 

I heard of this in a British aero enthusiast mag in September or so.  I'm
not sure which magazine it was (Perhaps Fly Past, but I'm not sure), but 
anyhow, it was recovered by one of the major warbird restoration groups
there.  If you are really interested, I'll go look that article up and
perhaps post it.

Randall Haskin
L-17 N77BH
strega@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (Randy Haskin)
Subject: Pond Racer (was:Re: FAST Bearcat)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 04:27:09 GMT


> 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. 

The Rare Bear IS the fastest prop-driven aircraft, piston OR turboprop powered.
And about the Pond Racer?  Oh, please.  In the 15 or so years I've been an air
race nut, I've seen all sorts of ideas come and go.  The Pond Racer is what I'd
call a "good idea", but that thing will not beat the Bear.  I'm sorry, but 
there is just no substitute for raw cubic inches.  Two Nissan V-6's won't cut
it.

Randall Haskin
strega@u.washington.edu
^^^^^^
Notice the air-racing login name?!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: tblackma@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Marauder)
Subject: Re: Name of F-111
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 15:30:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.060316.2390@julian.uwo.ca> pettypi@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Carl Pettypiece) writes:
>In article <1992Nov22.035809.8246@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) writes:
>>In article <1emsh9INNlm5@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> gunter@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt) writes:
>>>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
>>
>>These are popular nicknames, bestowed by aircrews.  To call a 111 an Aardvark
>>is like calling an F-105 a Thud, an A-10 a Warthog, or a T-37 a Tweet.  The
>>111 was never given an officially sanctioned nickname, ala "Phantom", "Eagle",
>>or "Fighting Falcon (gag!)"
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Wasn't the F-16 called the Condor at one time?  What's the story here?
>(I do have references to this)
>

I heard that it was originally going to be called the Viper, but the
naming got in trouble with the TV show Battlestar Galacitca, with
its ships being called vipers.

>
>
>
>Carl Pettypiece (pettypi@gaul.csd.uwo.ca)        Disclaimer:  Hell, I don't


Tom
-- 
tblackma@gn.ecn.purdue.edu--------------------------Thomas Blackman
Paint em all, let the judges sort em out.          Go team Tippmann
From: d.j.piatak@larc.nasa.gov (David Piatak)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Museums
Date: 17 Nov 1992 13:28:24 GMT
Organization: NASA-Langley Research Center
Distribution: world
Reply-To: d.j.piatak@larc.nasa.gov (David Piatak)
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac153.larc.nasa.gov

A great place to visit if you are ever in the area is the
National Warplane Museum in Gennesseo, New York.  They have 
(among other types) a B-17G 'Fuddy Duddy', a P-40(E?) Warhawk,
PB4Y Catalina, P-51D Mustang, Stearman PT-17.....

Last time I was there they were also in the process of restoring
a Spanish built bf-109 (Hispano Buchon?) Merlin powered fighter and
also a Supermarine Spitfire (not sure as to which model).

NWM puts on a great Warbird airshow every August.  This is an incredible
show.  Last time I was there were 5 or 6 Mustangs, six B-17's including a 
rare 'F' model, B-24J Liberator 'All American', Avro Lancaster, FG-1D Corsair,
Hurricane, three or four B-25's, A-26 Invader, and many more.  There 
was supposed to be a P-38 there (who's and from where I don't know) but
it didn't show.
 
Dave

"Yes, I to, wish I owned a P-51 Mustang"

And of course these thoughts are all mine and not my employer's....
From: zell@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Joseph Zell)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Name of F-111
Date: 22 Nov 92 18:31:26 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

gunter@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt) writes:

>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
 To everyone that's posted or mailed, thanks. I have seen the answer, so no
more mail needs be sent, unless you really want to. :)
Joe

-- 
Joe Zell               * "Someone Kohl from Germany is on"
zell@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu  *  -A Clinton Aide, when German Chancellor Kohl 
                       *   called to congratulate Clinton on winning the 
                       *   election
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 18:14:18 GMT
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
NNTP-Posting-Host: obsidian.wpi.edu

In article <1992Nov20.235745.11616@u.washington.edu> strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (Randy Haskin) writes:
           vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
>>   >>>>>>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?
>	Have you been living in a cave for the last year?  The F-22 was 
>selected in April of 91!  

Ahem... If you notice the part of the origial that I included, especially the
highlighted section, you'll notice that the poster knows that it was selected,
he was asking for more information. He is correct that F-22 news has been rare
of late and questioned production schedules in light of recent budget problems.

###############################################################################
# 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: Re: Aurora (again)
From: cvalj000@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Mike Cancellier)
Date: 20 Nov 92 09:59:14 PST
Organization: Cal Poly Pomona Geography
Nntp-Posting-User: cvalj000

In article <n9ocsox@Unify.Com>, raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling) writes:
> 	This would be an intriguing event.  Unless they've lengthened
> 	a runway at Helendale since I left southern Califoria, this
> 	is one of several standard-design WW-II training fields
> 	in the Mojave desert.  They boasted a maximum runway length
> 	of 3,000 feet and paving thick enough to handle AT-6's.
> ------------------
> Paul Raveling
> Raveling@Unify.com

Actually, Helendale airport isn't what it used to be.  I took a trip out there
about a month ago.  Lockheed was taken over the place and extended all the
runways, and added quite a few antennas to support RCS testing.  My father, who
flys over the place regularly say that the runway is around 10,000 ft now. 
That is moderately long for an aircraft of high gross weight.  The whole place
is covered with barbed wire, and I did sight some other intrusion devices
around the perimeter.  I think that Lockheed moved into the facility within the
last few years.
Cheers,

Mike

Mike Cancellier
Cal Poly Pomona, Geography Dept.
CVALJ000@csupomona.edu

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jfriday@westmark.Stanford.EDU (The Crazy Archivist)
Subject: Re: Exports of F-4's.
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 21:23:22 GMT

F-4's are also used by South Korea I believe.




Paul "Joe Friday" Stacy (not net.police)       Buffalo State College, New York
STACY54@SNYBUFVA.BITNET (Buffalo State College VAX)                JUST THE
jfriday@westmark.stanford.edu (Stanford, California UNIX)       "VAX", MA'AM!
Disclaimer:  This isn't the opinion of the school, police, Chief of Detective
             Staff Brown, Planet Spaceball, Starfleet Command, or the Pentagon.


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Blue Angels aircraft (Was: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25)
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
	<1992Nov13.165451.12439@cbnews.cb.att.com>
	<1992Nov13.211821.17127@u.washington.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:47:13 GMT

On 13 Nov 92 21:18:21 GMT, strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (Randy Haskin) said:

> 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.

Randy> Actually, I believe that the Angels fly aircraft that are normal
Randy> 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.)

The Blue Angels certainly do fly production aircraft.  No one in the
Navy ever flew pre-production F/A-18s except PAX.  The Blues didn't
switch to the F/A-18 until the aircraft was already operational.

Just for completeness, Dryden also has at least one ex-Blue Angels
F/A-18.

We also have a pre-production F-15 and have had a couple of
pre-production F-111s, another pre-production F-15, and a wide
variety of military cast-offs, including the NB-52B and the two
F-16XLs.

--
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
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military