HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Re: B-70
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:39:19 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

Just a few notes;

When the 2 pilots of the XB-70 that collided with the USAF fighter
attempted to eject only one of them made it free. The ejection sys-
tem used individual capsules for each crewman & in the case of the
pilots the capsule had to move forward on rails before it could e-
ject. One of the capsules apparently jammed on it's rails & didn't
eject. A long time ago I read a magazine article by the surviving
pilot that described the incident. I believe he attributed the cause
to a photographer in the chase plane (2-seater) that wanted the pilot
to get into a better position for a publicity shot. I thnk both of
them were killed, BTW.

Also, there were planes to use the B-70 to carry satelites to high-
altitude so that they could launch themselves into orbit with a
single stage. (I understand that this version was supposed to be
able to reach 85,000 ft plus) It's too bad that this wasn't pur-
sued because because it could've been used a test bed for the con-
figuration that the Space Shuttle *should've* used. But that's a-
nother story.

PHIL


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: Question about aircrew bailing out
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:32:42 GMT


From geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)


From geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)



In article <Bw0oMH.LLG@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> bentrup@m.cs.uiuc.edu 
(John Bentrup) writes:

>In the 1970s I flew in a variant of the 135 that carried a crew of 25+. 
>We all had parachutes.  There were two primary exits.  One was right
>behind the front cabin, and the other was in the back of the plane.
>They consisted of a "hole" about the size of manhole and a bar.  One
>would hang from the bar and drop into the air stream.  

Sounds like fun, aside from the circumstances that would lead to taking
such action.  You mean there are tubes that run from hatches in the main 
deck, through what would be the baggage compartment on a commercial 707, 
and out the bottom of the fuselage?  I assume there'd have to be a door 
at the bottom end of each of these tubes, for aerodynamic purposes if 
nothing else. How would these outer doors be opened?

[ mod note -- in KC-135s, there is a crew entrance hatch on the lower left
side of the nose (kind of like the nose hatch on a B-17).  This can be used
for bailing out.  From what I remember, the hatch is jettisoned, the crew
member grabs a bar in the cockpit, hangs down inside the tube (yep, there
is a tube between the entrance hatch on the outside and the cockpit floor),
and then drops ]


>The secondary exits were the crew entrance (once exiting the aircraft, 
>one had to worry about the wing) and the starboard over wing door (the 
>training manual said something like "Place your left shoulder and foot 
>onto the wing, then gently slip into the air stream".  Right.  Of course
>one had to worry about the rear stabilizer.)

I can understand how hitting the wing might be a problem if someone were
to bail out from the cargo door (assuming it could be jettisoned for that
purpose, like the cargo door of the C-131) or from any side door forward 
of the wing.  But the crew entrance door on the -135 is on the underside 
of the forward fuselage.  Wouldn't someone egressing through this door
tend to fall free and pass well beneath the wing, out of harm's way?

Also, isn't there a plug-type emergency exit (like the overwing exits on
airliners) on the starboard side, partway between the wing trailing edge
and the horizontal stabilizer?  Seems to me that would be a good place to 
get out, since it's free of obstructions.

[ mod note -- I seem to remember one being there ]


Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM  + + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Hybrid subs (was Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?)
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:03:32 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology


From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)

>From dep+@cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh)
>I always wondered at the utility of putting a "small" nuclear reactor on an
>otherwise conventional sub. Ideally, the reactor would be large enough to
>provide housekeeping functions + a 5kts "creep" speed and small enough that
>it could be convection cooled (i.e. no noisy pumps) and leave some space for
>things like food, torpedoes and crew...

Bear in mind that some things, like shielding, don't necessarily scale
down linearly with the reactor output.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Nuclear reactors in space.
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:42:46 GMT


From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)

>From arw4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Aaron R Wininger)
>...Basiclly, the reactor
>heated the gas exhaust, increasing its temperute/velocity, therefore giving
>the rocket alot more thrust...

To nitpick a trifle, this gives the right general impression but is wrong
in detail.

The advantage of a nuclear-thermal rocket is not higher thrust -- the
thrusts typically are unimpressive -- but higher exhaust velocity.  This
is important because the exhaust velocity determines how much push you
get per kilogram of fuel, and hence how many kilograms of fuel you have
to stack up to get a particular spacecraft to a particular destination.
("Specific impulse", another term used, is exhaust velocity measured
in strange units.)

The higher exhaust velocity, moreover, is *not* due to unusually high
temperatures.  The shuttle main engines run hotter than any nuclear-thermal
engine ever built.  Nuclear-thermal engines have to hold temperatures down
or else their solid cores -- where the heat is generated -- will melt;
in most types of chemical rocket, the heat is generated within the gases
and no solid part of the engine has to take the full exhaust temperature.
(I'm ignoring some advanced nuclear-thermal concepts that use liquid or
gaseous cores.)  So nuclear-thermal engines don't run particularly hot
by rocket standards.

The exhaust velocity of a thermal rocket engine (nuclear, chemical,
whatever) is determined mostly by two things:  temperature and molecular
weight of the exhaust gases.  At a given temperature, lighter gas molecules
move faster.  This is why liquid hydrogen gives such high performance in
chemical rockets:  its exhaust is mostly water, which at a molecular weight
of 18 is considerable lighter than the exhaust products of other fuels.
The high performance of nuclear-thermal rockets comes about because their
exhaust is hydrogen gas, with a molecular weight of *2*.  Exhaust velocity
scales roughly as the square root of molecular weight, so nuclear-thermal
would be about three times as good as hydrogen-oxygen chemical if the
temperatures were similar.  In fact, the nuclear-thermal rockets run
cooler, and only get about double the performance of hydrogen-oxygen.
It's still enough to make a big difference to ambitious missions.

>... If the program was not 
>cancelled the US should have had a manned mars mission in late 70's/ early
>80's.

Actually, this is backwards.  The manned Mars mission was cancelled (well,
never seriously begun, actually) because it cost too much.  Then the
nuclear-thermal rocket program was cancelled because it had no mission
to fly.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Rick Lafford <lafford@serum.clpd.Kodak.COM>
Subject: F-14 as a strike bomber
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:58:15 GMT


From Rick Lafford <lafford@serum.clpd.Kodak.COM>

Just when I thought the Navy had begun to conserve the F-14 airframes
they had for fleet protection, the following appears in Navy News.

---------------------------
 NNS140.  "Bombcats" Join the Fleet
ON BOARD USS SARATOGA (NNS) -- Two fighter squadrons embarked on
board USS Saratoga (CV 60) recently received the hardware necessary
to add the strike mission to the list of F-14B capabilities.
     Maintenance crews from Fighter Squadrons 74 and 103 installed
the bomb racks while the ship was inport Trieste, Italy.  
     The morning Saratoga sailed from its pierside berth, the first
"Bombcats" announced their arrival with authority, executing a 1700-
mile bombing mission to the Wadi Natrun Range in Egypt from
Saratoga's deck in the Northern Adriatic Sea.  Over the course of two
days, four missions were conducted and 27 aircraft delivered ordnance
on target and on time.
     The two squadrons have also carried out additional missions to
the Avgo Nisi Range in the Aegean Sea, and have demonstrated their
new capability during a visit by Commander, Naval Air Forces,
Atlantic Fleet.  
     The Navy's newest addition to the strike fighter family, the F-
14B has become another viable means of projecting power ashore at
long distance and high speed.
Story by NAVEUR News Service
--------------------------------

Rick Lafford
Eastman Kodak Co.
lafford@serum.kodak.com
=====================================================
From: jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: WWII: Why Japan didn't invade Hawaii
Summary: Remember the oil embargo!
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:29:08 GMT
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: Statistics, Pure & Applied Mathematics, University of Adelaide


From jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew)


In article <Bvq4qF.DLw@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> DEICHMAN@cisco.nosc.mil writes:

>From DEICHMAN@cisco.nosc.mil

>In reply to rdh@sli.com (Robert D. Houk):

>  Much of their rationale for attacking the United States in
>the first place was to allow the Japanese to focus on the
>lucrative rubber trade in Southeast Asia (which was needed to
>sustain their campaigns in support of the Axis forces).  The
>Imperial Navy felt that if they were to seize an abundance of
>territories in Southeast Asia to support their material needs,
>the U.S. would attempt to intervene (since it would have
>affected U.S. commerce -- and that would have been sure to
>bring the U.S. into the war).  Believing that U.S.
>intervention was therefore inevitable, the Japanese hoped to
>make a decapitating blow by attacking Pearl Harbor.

With all due respect to the writer of this, the *only* reason Japan entered
the Second World War was because the Americans forced them to. The US had
placed an oil embargo on the Japanese and would not lift it until Japan
withdrew from *all* of its conquests since 1904. The Japanese economy and
military power were rapidly grinding down and they felt the only responce
they had left was to grab the oil reserves of the Dutch East Indies ie
Indonesia. The real question is why the US wanted to force the Japanese
into fighting. According the US government memos the Roosevelt adminstration
wanted to enter the War but could not get Congress to agree. Thus they placed
an embargo on Japan with the intention of getting Japan to attack the US and
so put the US in the War. Unfortunately it appears that the US underestimated
the Japanese thinking they could only attack the Philipines and so were
suprised. The Japanese always knew they could not win, their only goal was to
grab as much as they could and then grind the US down in a war of attrition.
Citations and sources available on request.

>  With the destruction of their most forward Naval port, the
>U.S. would have been delayed long enough for Japan to secure
>their conquests in Southeast Asia and vanquish their other
>foes before the U.S. could get involved.

The Japanese won all their battles so fast the US couldn't have intervened
from Hawaii no matter what. We are talking a couple of weeks here! Besides
which the most forward Naval port was in the Philipines not Pearl Harbour.


Joseph Askew


-- 
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  At dawn with staff in hand I climbed the crags,
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu  At dusk I made my camp amoung the mountains.
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  Only a few peaks rise as high as this house,
One China One Korea One Eire32  Facing the crags, it overlooks winding streams.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: MiG-29M for EFA?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:43:11 GMT


From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)


From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)

In article <BvArvr.9p8@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> glynnw@ul.ie writes:

>If the Soviets knew one thing, it was how to build good, reliable and easy to 
>maintain airframes, perhaps with the exception of engines. 

On the other hand, I do remember reading somewhere that Mig-21 
wings had a life of 100 hours. Not too long-lived...



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: martin.briscoe@almac.co.uk
Subject: controversy over v-2
Organization: ALMAC BBS Ltd
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:27:51 GMT


From martin.briscoe@almac.co.uk



BH4Has anybody heard more detail?  Has the story appeared in print?

There was a lot in the press in the UK.  Partly because Germany in not
exactly the most popular country in the UK at present !

One BIG difference was that the V2 was built at the cost at many
1000's (if not 10,000's of slave labourers).  I just was watching the
report on TV news here of the "commemoration" ( as it is now called ),
and it said that despite promises there was still no recognition of the
people killed by the V2 and in its construction.

               Martin
---
 ~ 1st 1.01 #405 ~ Martin Briscoe - FORT WILLIAM - Inverness-shire - Scotland
--
ALMAC BBS Ltd. 0324-665371
Dos based USENET access,  call for details!
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: 50 Years Ago: Sunday, 4 October, 1942
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:42:28 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


From Markus Stumptner <mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>

>From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
> In article <Bvwr70.KAv@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams) writes:
>>>>General Paulus opens a new series of attacks in Stalingrad.  Combat

>>What does "Von" denote?  Is it a title of respect like the British "Sir"?
 
> I think it has some kind of tititular significance. Its probably something
> like "from" or "of", and probably denotes that the person was of noble de-
> scent

Exactly.  "Von" (translating as "of") is a proposition that denotes
line of descent.  It is not a name, and therefore it's not
capitalized.

> more in terms of landowning gentry rather than a knighthood (i.e. 

I wouldn't know about that.

> In any case I'm also pretty sure
> its part of the last name and shouldn't be left out.

Depends on context.  At least nowadays, the "von" is relevant only if
you write down the full name (either first name or title) or
explicitly want to refer to social status, heritage or whatever.  For
example, Richthofen, the WWI ace, is commonly referred to like that,
just "Richthofen".  If you included his first name it was "Manfred von
Richthofen", with his (aristocratic) title it was "Freiherr von
Richthofen".  Therefore, writing "General Paulus" is quite adequate.
The two German admirals at the battle of Jutland are generally
referenced as "Scheer" and "Hipper" even in German sources, even
though they both were aristocratic as well.  This is simply a matter
of convenience, same as talking about "the campaigns of Marlborough"
even though he really was "the Duke of".

This was a bit longish, but I hope it clears things up a bit.

>>How many (or what percentage) of WWII German generals had "Von" in their 
>>names?

> Not just generals, probably a fair proportion of Germans in general.

True, since the "von" is completely independent of military position.
I would assume, though, that the proportion was indeed higher among
generals. Before WWI, officer was a traditional profession for a
nobleman (the Prussian heritage), and that did not change much in the
twenty years up to WWII.

--
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Raymond Man <raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu>
Subject: German tanks and anti-tank guns (Re: Bofors 40mm AA in WW2)
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:33:26 GMT


From Raymond Man <raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu>


From Raymond Man <raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu>


The PzKw I was essentially a training vehicle so it was hardly used
at all in battle. The PzKw II was used widely but more as a recon
and never replaced. The PzKw III and IV are the main tank and continually
upgunned and up armoured to meet the opposition. The Panther was
intended to replace tham but never was enough in number.

The 37cm PAK was superceded by 50cm PAK when their effectiveness
against the oppositions like the KV I, T34, Matilda, Lee/Grant
etc. was obviously inadequate. Even the 50cm PAK had probelms
with them and so the 88 were used, first in the desert.
The 37cm PAK was not really scrapped, just relinquish to
auxiliaries.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: WWII -- Why didn't Japan invade Hawaii?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:47:15 GMT


From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)

ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:

>Most accounts I've read about this say that the reason the Japanese 
>carriers were sunk was because the Japanese CAP was all at low altitude
>engaging torpedo bombers, who were massacred. They forgot about the 
>dive bombers attacking from altitude.

	Does the phrase "sacrifice fly" mean anything to you outside
of baseball?  When the zeros were done with the torpedo planes, they
were low on fuel, ammunition, and the carriers were taking them
aboard.  The dive bombers (Douglass SBD's if I'm not mistaken) had a
clear initial run and took advantage of it.

	Most accounts place the timing at coincidence.  I'm not so
sure, looking back on it, that it was.  Could this have been planned?
In any event, may the flyers of Torpedo 8 R.I.P.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Titanium (was Re: How good is the Mig29 vs F16/F18 ?)
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:43:10 GMT


From dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)

In article <Bvq4q3.DHv@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Christopher.W.Page@dartmouth.edu (Christopher W. Page) writes:

 > I wouldn't put it past the Navy to have a titanium-hulled design or
 > two waiting for the day when massive titanium deposits are discovered
 > somewhere in the U.S. :)

I hope the :) means you aren't one of those folks laboring under the
misapprehension that titanium is a rare element.  It's actually quite
common, some 100 times more abundant than copper in the earth's crust.
The cost is from refining and working it.  Titanium compounds are
almost dirt cheap -- ilmenite concentrate goes for about $.06/lb --
and titanium dioxide is used in most common house paints as the white
pigment.  This use of titanium dwarfs the use of metallic titanium by
several orders of magnitude.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson)
Subject: Re: Performance of Greek armour against Persian arrows.
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:32:21 GMT


From pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson)

In article <Bvq4EL.D3q@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, viking@iastate.edu (Dan
Sorenson) writes, in part:

>	Yes, to a large extent.  The armor of a hoplite varied with
>his wealth, of course, but generally consisted of a breastplate of
>bronze or thick, laminated linen.  This is strong stuff, really.

	An interesting point.  In some reading on WWI personal armor, it seems
	the British experimented with "many layers of linen (or was it silk?)"
	in a throat defense (perhaps also as a vest....)).  The reports were
	that it was quite effective, reasonaly light but...  Very expensive and
	impossible to keep clean, sanitary and rot-free in the trenches.
	Perhaps the origin was with some classical scholar.

====
And a question:
A recent (nominally documentary) show on TV included acted footage of American
Indians (Seminole?) in Florida (specificallly) using bows and arrows.  The
thing that puzzled me was the arrows were recognizably bamboo, with bamboos
periodic natural "joints".  Now it seems to me this would make singularly BAD
arrows, both for accuracy and for strength.  Am i being hypercritical?

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
146 Main St			|I am the NRA.
Maynard, Mass		01754	pierson@msd27.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: B-70
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:29:26 GMT


From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)


From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)

>From megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
>Trivia: The XB-70's intakes are still the largest variable intakes ever
>designed...

Also the most complex, and the biggest nightmare to debug.  Ray Whitford's
"Design For Air Combat" comments:

	The basic geometry of these intakes would be sufficient if
	the airflow entering them was uniform and ambient conditions
	standard.  Neither of these conditions are met in practice,
	however, and both the XB-70 and SR-71 required a number of
	auxiliary doors and bleed-air passages to handle variations
	from design conditions.  On the XB-70, for example, the intake
	was unable to tolerate even a 0.1deg error in the setting of
	its large bypass doors, even though this variation was barely
	within the limits of accuracy of its door control system.  As
	a result, what happened in practice was a back and forth
	movement of its terminal shock, known as a "buzz" and sensed
	by the pilot as violent buffet, while the control system
	hunted for the correct setting...

	[The complexity] and the highly sensitive nature of the required
	intake control system make the mixed-compression intake
	uncompetitive for aicraft other than those designed to cruise
	above Mach 2.5...

(The competition, external-compression intakes, has higher drag, especially
at very high speeds, but is otherwise a whole lot less trouble.  The B-1
program started out with mixed-compression intakes to reduce drag, but
eventually switched.  High-supersonic fighters like the F-14 and F-15 use
external-compression intakes.)
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry