🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1406@carthage.swatsun.UUCP>, leif@swatsun (Leif Kirschenbaum) writes:
 
>In article <663@wheaton.UUCP> coulter@wheaton.UUCP (Scott D. coulter ) writes:
>>The aviation terminology is interesting, but do we need it in sci.space
>>AND in sci.space.shuttle?
>>Scott D. Coulter                    CPO 462, Wheaton College
>>ihnp4!wheaton!coulter               Wheaton, IL   60187
>
>Maybe it would be best in a newsgroup meant for airplanes; i.e. REC.AVIATION.
Sorry to keep rechewing this issue which is exactly what Scott was trying
to avoid, but this again brings up the question of why there isn't a
category "sci.aviation".  A lot of the aviation/aeronautics stuff that
goes on in "sci.space" or "sci.space-shuttle" does not belong in there,
nor does it belong in "rec.aviation".  Pilots aren't necessarily familiar
with aeronautical engineering, nor are aeronautical engineers necessarily
too familiar with actual flying.  If this question has been answered
a million times before my time, nuke me.
 
Joakim Karlsson                               iceman @ pucc.Princeton.edu
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering '88      BITNET only: iceman @ pucc
Princeton University
                       "You can be my wingman anytime..."