HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ggeorge@admin37.shearson.com (George George)
Subject: Re: Aircraft beauty: B-17
Organization: Lehman Brothers
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:52:25 GMT

I am quite dismayed that the subject even has to be brought up...
It's so obvious.

The DH Mosquito & the Spitfire are also in the obviously beautiful
category.

PS: The B-17 is not only pretty to watch, but it *sounds* good too!
From: ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Why didn't Luftwaffe paint propeller tips?
Date: 12 Jan 93 10:46:44 ACST
Organization: Economics, University of Adelaide
NNTP-Posting-Host: eco.economics.adelaide.edu.au

In article <gunnar.726605609@beppe>, gunnar@beppe.ericsson.se (Gunnar Forsgren) writes:
> cwilliam@bbn.com (Christopher Williams) writes:


> 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 ?


Are you sure about this.  I realise my source may be a little dodgy but a lot
of the model aircraft I have built have shields, lightning bolts and a few
other motifs for specific depictions of certain aces.  I thought I remembered
reading about a Bf-109 that had a wolf on the side of the fuselage or possibly
the engine cover.  For the life of me I can't remember the guys name but there
was a huge discussion in sci.mil a while back.



regs


Rob

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bishopjl@infonode.ingr.com (John L Bishop)
Subject: F-15E Performance
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:44:56 GMT

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? 

				John
-- 
Standard Disclaimer:  These are my comments, and not necessarily my employer's.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!
John L. Bishop, Tech. Manager, Intergraph Corp.     bishop@jlb911.b17a.ingr.com
From: scott@fraud.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: *** AF F15 Eagle/Strike Eagle vs. Navy F14 Tomcat ***
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:03:17
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF)
NNTP-Posting-Host: xcf-gw.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: nahst6+@pitt.edu's message of 11 Jan 93 20:58:05 GMT


% Which one is better?  I KNOW the F15 is supposed to be better, but I have a
% Jet Combat Simulation Game (very realistic) that would make the Navy F14
% Tomcat a little better.  Any facts/opinions?

Well, the TomCat can't carry the HARM or guide precision munitions, so it 
clearly sucks and the F-15E is better.

;^)

Scott
From: jpa@cs.bham.ac.uk (Jonathan P Alma)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Best fighterpilot ?!?!
Date: 8 Jan 93 16:21:25 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham,UK.

Keywords: 

I can understand why numbers of planes shot down is a fairly good measure to use
when choosing the "Best" fighterpilot, but shouldn't other factors be considered 
more.  Comparisons of aircraft performance, and balance of air superiority should
be considered - a pilot flying an outclassed plane against an enemy that has a 
huge air superiority and still manages to make kills (let alone just surviving) is
(IMHO) probably a better fighterpilot than one who flew against an outnumbered and
outclassed enemy, even if his 'score' was lower.    

Also, why not start a new subject - best bomber pilots/crews/squadrons.  
IMHO (again) 617 squadron stands head and shoulders above any other bomber 
squadron (and not because they blew up some dams and had a film made about them, 
but because of the incredible accuracy they achieved later on in WWII). 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Alma					         J.P.Alma@cs.bham.ac.uk
School of Computer Science
University of Birmingham, UK, B15 2TT.

The opinions expressed are my own and not those of Birmingham University 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: doug@alliant.com (Doug Bloomberg)
Subject: Re: SR-71 engines
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems Corp.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:41:13 GMT

In article <725928533snx@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz> mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell) writes:
>I was chatting to a chap the other day about possible engines for 
>"Aurora", being variable cycle and all that stuff, when he told me 
>that the SR-71 engines were/are variable cycle.  Apparently the 
>turbojet shuts down at high speed and theengine functions as a ramjet 
>thereafter.
>
>This was all news to me, as the sketchy info I have on this engine 
>(J58 (JT11D-20B)) simply calls it a low-bypass ratio turbofan with 
>afterburner.
>
>Anyone know any details?
>
>

	This from talking to a former SR-71 pilot.  The turbo jet
	engine  "J-59" was used to get to mach 2 then the ram jet
	were started. The turbo continued to operate, basically
	his words "Their thrust off set their weight and drag."

	The ram jet occupied the same nacelle as the turbo engine. 
	The air for operation of the ram jet was ducted around the
	turbine, the prominent nose cone for each nacelle was varible
	in movement to regulate speed of incoming air flow. He stated
	fuel flow decreased when the ram jets were started.


	DOUG BLOOMBERG
From: narkiewi@madona.pilgrim.umass.edu (J. David Narkiewicz)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: New Book, ``Vultee Aircraft, 1932-1947''
Date: 8 Jan 93 03:26:48 GMT
Organization: Project Pilgrim, Umass

This is an advertisement for my step father's latest book (self published) on 
Vultee aircraft.  This advertisement falls within the net charter so no flames 
please.  If you're not interested in Vultee Aircraft, then don't read any further.
If you have any questions about the book, etc, please ask.  I've read it.
IMHO: It's slick.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

	For historic airplane buffs in general and for World War II pilots
in particular, ``Vultee Aircraft, 1932-1947'', a book published this month
by Jonathan Thompson, adds an important chapter to the story of America's
air power.  For the first time in book form, all Vultee aircraft -- from
the V-1 airliner in the early Thirties to World War II bombers, fighters,
trainers and floatplanes -- are covered, including their design, production
and service, as well as production and serial numbers, specifications,
and performance figures.

	The book contains more than 230 splendid photographs, the
majority appearing in print for the first time.  Twenty-three drawings
show the various aircraft in 1/72, 1/96 or 1/144 scale.

	Thompson, formerly Associate Editor of ``Road & Track'' magazine,
is the author of twelve other books, on such subjects as Ferrari,
Porsche, and Italian aircraft of World War II.

	``Vultee Aircraft'' may be ordered from Jonathan Thompson,
Publisher, 1331 South Birch Street, Santa Ana, CA 92707.  The prices is
$29.95 plush $3.55 shipping and handling.  California residents add
7.25 percent sales tax.


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: energy and tactics (was: Finnish Defense)
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
	<1993Jan12.071713.26362@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:45:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.071713.26362@netcom.com> noir@netcom.com (Noel Ang) writes:

>In article <1498@blue.cis.pitt.edu> nahst6+@pitt.edu (Nathan A Horstman)
>writes:

>>I don't agree with this.  I think you turn TIGHTER when your airspeed is 
>>slower, not faster.  You MIGHT turn faster if airspeed is faster, but you
>>won't turn tighter corners.

>It depends.  A F-16 fighter has an optimum turn rate at 450 knots, for
>example.  Go faster or slower than 450 knots and your turn rate degrades.

I think you're confusing several things here.  The original poster was
speaking of turn _radius_, and this is indeed minimized at very low
airspeeds, like 1.4x stall.  There is also maximum turn rate, both
instantaneous and sustained, usually expressed in degrees per second.
This number is usually in the 10 to 15 degree per second range.  The
number to which you are refering sounds like corner speed.  That is
the speed at which if you yank to maximum lift coefficient you end up
at the G limit of your aircraft.  Faster and you can exceed your G
limit, slower and you cannot achieve maximum G limit.  This number is
typically in the 400 knot range.  Knowing which of these is best to
use for a particular situation is exactly what we pay fighter pilots
for.

--
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: C13040@maccvm.corp.mot.com (Markus Zielke)
Subject: Re: Greatest Ace
Organization: Motorola
Date: 11 Jan 1993 06:39:21 CST

========================================================================
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:00:24 GMT

Matthew L. Ward wrotes:


>I think the greatest fighter pilot of all time was Hans Joachim Marseille, a Ge
>WWII ace with 155 kills.  My reasoning is simple;

>1) All 155 kills were of fighter aircraft, with trained British pilots who knew
>what they were doing.  Unlike the Eastern front Aces, Hans had competent oppone

>2) All 155 kills were made while flying a Stuka Dive Bomber.  Using the Stuka's
>fantastic dive rate, Hans would dive head-on at his target for a frontal attack
>the Stukas firepower was thus directed at the unarmored front of the cockpit.

>A true innovator and tactician, Hans found a method and used it.  He was never
>down. By using a dive bomber against fighters he found a soft spot and took ful
>advantage of it.

Sorry,
but if I remember right, Hans didn't flow a Ju-87 called "Stuka", as i
know he flow a ME-109.

If someone know's better, please correcr me.

Markus
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: F-22 Question
From: gjs@hawk.dsto.gov.au (Graeme Simpkin)
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:52:10 CST

Andrew.Brooks@launchpad.unc.edu (Andrew Brooks) writes:

>Speaking of which, I borrowed a video on the XB-70 yesterday and it
>only contained footage of the crash site of XB-70-A2 and not of the
>collision itself.  However, I seem to remember people mentioning
>having seen this particular footage.  Does this footage exist?
>If so, is its availability restricted?  [etc.... etc....]     

Funny you should mention that.  On saturday I was walking past an
electronics store and noticed they were running some aviation footage
on their televisions to demonstrate the reception.  The footage
was a compilation of aviation crashes sequenced, one after the other.
It was all actual footage (and mostly fairly bad quality .. as you might
expect).  I'm 90% sure that one of the crashes featured was the XB-70,
but I wasn't taking a whole lot of notice, and some of the frames weren't
easy to make out.

Regards,
Graeme Simpkin
gjs@aeg.dsto.gov.au
(My opinions only)

 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: hagood@sabre.den.mmc.com (Dave Hagood)
Subject: Re: THE A-10
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:36:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.203512.29175@pony.Ingres.COM>, kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki) writes:
|> [deletia]
|> Remember that there are two parts to a weapon.  The weapon itself
|> and the fire control system.  I don't think you can get those systems
|> in a P-47 and thus make the statement "destroys a target just as
|> effectively as one launched from an A-10".  I'm thinking of Mavericks
|> and Hellfire missiles.
|> 
|> Then there is total cost vs individual platform cost.  Total cost
|> includes servicing, training, logistics, etc.  My guess is that
|> overall, the initial procurement cost is not as big a factor as
|> we make it to be.

	In general, the procurement cost of a weapon system is typically
5 to 10% of the total cost required to field a system throughout its service
life.  In addition to the factors mentioned aabove, capital improvement to 
existing facilities (lengthing runways, for example) should not be forgotten.

	Makes you think, don't it?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
									|
David M. Hagood			Martin Marietta Astronautics Group	|
									|
Voice:  (303) 977-9657		When in danger, or in doubt,		|
E-mail: hagood@den.mmc.com	Run in circles, scream and shout.	|
Fax: (303) 977-1530							|
									|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
     static char *disclaimer = "My opinions, not Martin Marietta's."    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: CHANGE THE SUBJECT LINE!
Date: 6 Jan 93 06:38:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 

-> 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?

Picky, Picky, Picky! Anyway sorry. I didn't notice the subject. I had
just scanned the text. Will do next time.
                                        Rocky
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: FINNISH DEFENSE
Date: 4 Jan 93 06:24:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 

-> 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
From: moret@disuns2.epfl.ch (Pierre Moret)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Re: Best fighterpilot ?!?!
Date: 7 Jan 93 13:25:28 GMT
Reply-To: moret@disuns2.epfl.ch (Pierre Moret)
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

WW1:

  Ritmeister Manfred von Richthofen - Germany - 80
  Capitaine Reni P. Fonck           - France  - 75
  Major E.C. Mannock                - UK      - 73


WW2, Spain War, Japanese actions in China:

Germany (day fight):
  Major Erich Hartmann     - 352
  Major Gerhard Barkhorn   - 301
  Major Gunther Rall       - 275
Germany (night fight):
  Major Heinz-W. Schnauffer- 121
  Oberst Helmut Lent       - 102 (and 8 more during day)
  Major Heinrich Prinz zu Sayn-Wittgenstein (!) - 84
Japan:
  Hiroyoshi Nishizawa      - 87
  Tetsuzo Iwamoto          - 80
  Shoichi Sugita           - 70
Russia:
  Ivan N. Kozhedub         - 62
  Aleksandr I. Pokryshkin  - 59
  Grigori A. Rechkalov     - 58
UK Commonwealth:
  Squadron-Leader M.T. St J. Pattle - South Africa - 51
  Group Captain J.E. Johnson        - UK           - 38
  Wing Commander B. Finucane        - Ireland      - 32
USA:
  Major Richard I. Bong         - 40
  Major Thomas B. McGuire       - 38
  Commander David S. McCampbell - 34
Finland:
  Lentomestari Eino Ilmari Juutilainen - 94
  Kapteeni Hans Wind                   - 78
  Majuri Eino Luukkanen                - 54


Corea war:
  Captain Joseph McConnell Jr  - USAF - 16
  Major James Jabara           - USAF - 15
  Captain Manuel J. Fernandez  - USAF - 14.5

Viet-nam war:
  Colonel Tomb                 - Pop. Rep. of V-N - 13
  Captain Nguyen Van Bay       - Pop. Rep. of V-N -  7
  Captain Charles De Bellevue  - USAF             -  6
From: hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: energy and tactics
Date: 12 Jan 93 00:27:24 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <C0po9M.8x6@srgenprp.sr.hp.com>, jeffc@sad.hp.com (Jeff Crowell) writes:
|> 
|> More one 1:1 T/W--
|> 
           [ stuff deleted ]
|> 
|> Jeff Crowell
|> former USN jet pilot 
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 Obviously an imposter - everyone knows they're NAVAL AVIATORS!!

 Travis
 former USMC jarhead

 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: THE A-10
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 06:02:04 GMT

rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins)  writes:

>-> Well, even though the old WWII aircraft had tremendously powerful
>-> engines, they had nowhere near the payload that an A-10 does... I
>-> think a P-47 was able to get off the ground with 2 500lb bombs, a
>-> small drop tank and a few rockets.  That is about a ton or two of
>-> ordinance at best, but an A-10 has

>But on the other hand, you could probably build a couple of squadrons of
>P-47s or comparable types for the cost of one A-10. "Quantity has a
>Quality all it's own." and a weapon droped from a P-47 destroys a target
>just as effectively as one launched from an A-10.

	I think a lot of it also depends upon what sort of environment
you are in.  Scouring the sands of Iraq is arguably a place for an A-10,
while providing cover in Somolia is arguably just as easily done with
that P-47 replica.  The threat level should most likely dictate what
machine is best suited for the job, since machines that survive in
high-threat areas tend to be much more advanced and expensive.

	I do wonder, though, how much the avionics packages add to
the cost of each aircraft?  A P-47 had pretty primitive sights, an
A-10 pretty advanced; what is their cost to adapt to a P-47?

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin)
Subject: Re: Best fighterpilot ?!?!
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:40:15 GMT

The most successful fighter pilot of all time was Erich Hartmann whose
official tally was 352 aerial victories.  He flew Bf-109 of various
marks on the Eastern Front from (check Tolliver & Constable's book,
"The Blond Knight of Germany" for accurate dates & facts) '42 or '43
until the end of the war when he surrendered to the Russians along
with his squadron.  After 10 years as POW he was finally released and
eventually commanded the first jet squadron in the W. German Luftwaffe.

Quite a few german pilots had over 100 victories and several had over
200 in WW2.  The fact that most of the best of them flew missions almost
continuously for the whole war contributed to these large tallies and
most of them were each shot down themselves several times.

There were a number of Soviet aces with over 100 kills too, I believe.
Unfortunately, few details about these aces are known in the west (does
anyone know of good books about any of them?)
In many respects, the air battles over the eastern front were the biggest
of the war.

The Finnish-Soviet battles are often overlooked in histories of WW2.  The
Finnish efforts against a numerically overwhelming enemy, particularly
in the air during the 41-44 war, were quite remarkable.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Corvin 	      PP-ASEL, PP-G		zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com
just another spaced rocket scientist at    Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============    My views, not Martin Marietta's   ========================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo)
Subject: Re: *** AF F15 Eagle/Strike Eagle vs. Navy F14 Tomcat ***
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:09:28 GMT


I wrote:

>After all, the F-14 is an interceptor and the F-15 is more
>of a strike aircraft.
      ^^^^^^

I gotta quit writing when I'm tired.
Should say "fighter/strike" aircraft.
Where, of course, strike is for the -15E.
Sorry for the misinformation.
Yawn.


Derek
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There Are Two Great Tragedies In Life,
        One Is Not To Get Your Heart's Desire.
                The Other Is To Get It.
                                -Bernard Shaw
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: msmiller@Rational.COM (Mark Miller)
Subject: Re: Greatest Ace
Keywords: Aces, Kill records
Organization: Rational
Distribution: global
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:16:08 GMT

In article <wardml.726501624@catfish26>, wardml@rtsg.mot.com (Matthew L. Ward) writes:
|> 
|> I think the greatest fighter pilot of all time was Hans Joachim Marseille, a German
|> WWII ace with 155 kills.  My reasoning is simple;
|> 
|> 1) All 155 kills were of fighter aircraft, with trained British pilots who knew
|> what they were doing.  Unlike the Eastern front Aces, Hans had competent opponents.

As did Molders, but Marseille had a lot of multi-kill missions just
flying on his own.

|> 2) All 155 kills were made while flying a Stuka Dive Bomber.  Using the Stuka's
|> fantastic dive rate, Hans would dive head-on at his target for a frontal attack.
|> The Stukas firepower was thus directed at the unarmored front of the cockpit.

Huh? I have never heard of this.

He died trying to bail out of his Me109 in N. Afrika - I believe he
hit his back on the vertical stabilizer on the way out of the
cockpit.

Maybe you're thinking of Rudel who had some insane number of missions
in the Stuka over Russia. Sank a battleship too I think.

	-MSM

-- 
________________________________________________________________________
Mark S. Miller                                     msmiller@Rational.COM
"Life is a 4-letter word."                        msmiller@world.std.com
[ insert tedious disclaimer drivel here ]                           IV-Q
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney)
Subject: Re: F-15E Performance
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 12:33:17 GMT

Maybe he should put up the landing gear...