HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>
Subject: Fourth in the Series--The Boeing XP-4
Keywords: experimental, PW-9, supercharger
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:39:33 GMT


From Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>

In June 1925, before the first of the PW-9s ordered in 1924  had  been
delivered,  the  USAAS decided to have the 30th and last PW-9 aircraft
(Ser No 25-324) modified during production to test  the  high-altitude
performance  of  the  new  510  hp  Packard  1A-1500 turbosupercharged
engine.  This modification was considered important enough to  warrant
a  designation  change to XP-4 in accordance with the new system which
had just been adopted.

The XP-4 had a new, more aerodynamic wing  profile,  with  both  wings
being  of  equal  size  and  larger than those of the PW-9 in order to
provide the necessary larger area needed to lift the increased weight.
The  fuselage-mounted  pair of 0.30-cal machine guns were supplemented
by two extra 0.30-cal machine guns mounted in the lower wing, situated
far  enough  outboard  to  clear  the  propeller  arc.   A four-bladed
propeller was fitted.   The new engine made it necessary  to  redesign
the  cowling,  and the turbosupercharger was mounted externally on the
right-hand side.

The XP-4 was delivered to the Army at Wright Field for tests  on  July
27, 1927. The Packard engine did not prove to be sufficiently powerful
to compensate for  the  800-lb  increase  in  empty  weight,  and  the
performance  of  the  XP-4 was rather disappointing.  It did, in fact,
actually perform more poorly than did the standard PW-9, and the  XP-4
project  was  abandoned  after  only  four  hours of flying time.  The
airframe was surveyed on May 1, 1928.

Empty weight was 2711 lbs, with gross weight being 3603 lbs.   Maximum
speed  was  161  mph.   Initial  climb  rate was 2055 ft/min.  Service
ceiling was 22,000 feet, and range was 375 miles.

Sources:

  Boeing Aircraft since 1916, Peter M. Bowers, Naval Institute  Press,
  1989.

  "Boeing F4B-4", Peter M. Bowers, in "Aircraft in Profile", Doubleday,
  1969.

  United States Military Aircraft Since 1909,  Gordon Swanborough  and
  Peter Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.

  The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books,
  1987.

Joe Baugher       AT&T Bell Laboratories    2000 North Naperville Road 
		  Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033.   (708) 713-4548


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: bobmcc@tcsi.tcs.com (Bob McCormick)
Subject: Re: How to spike a gun?
Organization: Teknekron Communications Systems Inc.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:32:20 GMT


From bobmcc@tcsi.tcs.com (Bob McCormick)

In article <BtHwyB.BL1@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR
COMAN) writes:

|> I was trying out some inductive logic based upon: (1) what an ordinary 
|> infantryman might have done in the heat of the moment at Cuidad Rodrigo to 
|> spike a cannon derived from; (2) a distinctly remembered military exhibit on 
|> Napoleonic-era artillery.  One of the items was a rammer-like stave with a *
|> flared* cork-screw (*not* like a pointed winebottle job -- imagine a large, 
|> normal c-screw but with the point absent and the diameter of the whole a 
|> comfortable fit in the bore) on the end.  Presumably if you had a charge 
|> that didn't go off or in the excitement of the moment a chap had rammed home 
|> a ball without the charge (see that happen with a black-powder muzzle-
|> loading musket!) the drill would be to: (1) depress the muzzle as far as you 
|> can, and (2) seize yon handy implement and work it around -- I guess the 
|> idea is to just get enough of a grip on the ball to assist gravity to work 
|> it loose from the back of the barrel and so down the bore.

I just got back from a small (US) Civil War Reenactment.....

The implement you describe is called a worm, from the shape of the screw-like
piece.  Its purpose is to clean the barrel.  Some charges are packed in cloth
cases, and the worm is placed down the barrel and turned to grab onto any loose
pieces of cloth.  The end of the coiled metal is sharp.

I was delighted when one of the soldiers started discussing spiking the gun.  On
thing that he did not mention directly is that spiking keeps the gun from being
turned on you directly as you retreat, but it can eventually be restored to
service, by the enemy or by you if you can recapture it.

BTW, these reenactments are good placed to learn about these things, IMHO.

=-=-=-=-=-
Bob McCormick, Systems Engineer           | bobmcc@tcs.com +1-510-649-3881
Teknekron Communications Systems, Inc.    | bobmcc@tcsi.tcs.com
2121 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA, 94704 USA | uunet!tcs!bobmcc

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Lincoln McFarland <sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com!mcfar@leadsv>
Subject: Re: Phonetic alphabet corrected
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:23:31 GMT


From Lincoln McFarland <sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com!mcfar@leadsv>

In article <BtJnsx.9IC@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> you write:
>
>From fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu
>
> (about evolving phonetic alphabets...)
>> 
>> The duality of C and O is due to a general failure to accept the new terms,
>> and through common usage they worked themselves back to the original.
>> 
>> TH
>Note that some Army units still use the old terms for company designations.  At
>a recent demonstration, we could not get the Army announcer to call us by our
>`correct' name: Echo Company. He insisted on calling us `Easy' company over the
>PA.  At first i thought he was trying to slight my (Marine Reserve) company by
>calling us easy, but another Army soldier explained to me that some Army
>battalions customize their company designations- Echo becomes Easy, Foxtrot
>becomes Fighter, etc.
>We were still somewhat insulted.  You'll never find an `Easy' company in the
>Marine Corps, and i can't imagine anyone volountarily calling themselves that.
>
>James Zuelow
>FSJFZ@acad3.alaska.edu

I don't think he was trying to slight you.  There is a book out now, the exact
title escapes me, about an E company in the 82 airborne and their "adventures"
on the road from Normandy to Berlin.  The title is something like "on the
road with easy company".  The tone is one of pride in being one of the best
of the best.

Also, Sgt. Rock of comic book fame, was in "Easy" company.


-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "Just a Pedantics major from Berkeley" |            Randy McFarland         |
|                        - Spalding Gray | mcfar@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: schuck@sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
Subject: Re: Phonetic alphabet correction
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:06:09 GMT


From schuck@sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)

rda834x@nella3.cc.monash.edu.au (J. Zufi) writes:

>Here is Australia, we seem to have a different system, but I guess it
>varies around the world (English speaking countries that is). My question
>is: Is there an actual world standard.

>	A	Alpha		B	Bravo
>	C	Charlie		D	Delta
>	E	Echo		F	Foxtrot
>	G	Golf		H	Hotel
>	I	India		J	Juliett
>	K	Kilo		L	Lima
>	M	Mike		N	Novmeber
>	O	Oscar		P	Papa
>	Q	Qubec (city)	R	Romeo
>	S	Sierra		T	Tango
>	U	Uniform		V	Victor
>	W	Whisky		X	X-ray
>	Y	Yankee		Z	Zulu

>	Any comment?

Other than the misspelling of Quebec [ok ok I'm being picky]
thats the same phonetic alphabet I learned in Canada.

Maybe the Commonwealth countries are consistent?
From: henrya@yang.earlham.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Vietnam era ammo sabotage
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:16:34 GMT
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana


From henrya@yang.earlham.edu

In article <Bt4oJ6.208@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Cof
   fman) writes:
>
> From ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
>
> In article <Bsvn5J.E23@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ulowell!usl.edu!jab0684@samsun
   g.com (Boudreaux Jean A) writes:
>>
>>I friend of mine tells me that back in Vietnam, Americans would sometine
>>sabotage 7.62x39 mm ammunition.  The method was to take a shell,
>>pull the bullet, and replace the powder with a bit of c-4.  The
>>american would then load the 'doctored' shell in a full ammo clip
>>and leave it for some unsuspecting charlies to find.  Hopefully
>>the primer would detonate the c-4 and neutralize charlie.
>>Can anyone confirm or add detail to this method of sabotage.
>>Also, please add any other interesting American booby traps, as I hear
>>much of VC ingenuity, but little in terms of US sabotage etc.
>

I read in the Time-Life series on the Vietnam War that one of the most
routine operation that the SOG performed was the sabotage of Soviet-made
ammunition.  This was discontinued after American soldiers, using captured
AK-47's, were wounded or killed by the doctored ammunition.

--Henry Appel
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: km4ba!alan@kd4nc.ampr.org (Alan Barrow)
Subject: Re: is the A-10 going bye-bye?
Organization: km4ba's packet radio gateway
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 12:04:27 GMT


From km4ba!alan@kd4nc.ampr.org (Alan Barrow)

In <BtLC7D.578@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> bobmcc@tcsi.tcs.com (Bob McCormick) writes:



>In Desert Storm, it appeared that no tank kills were made with the GAU-8
>cannon on the A-10.  Is this correct?  Would this be an additional reason

I think there were tank kills made. Where did that article go. I will
try to find it.

In "Wings over the Gulf" (A discovery channel documentary), they indicated 
the A-10's had the toughest role and took the most casualities due to 
ground fire. The Iraqi's had current AA technology, and a ZSU type radar 
guided gun seems to be pretty effective against low flying craft.

Given the high casuality rate (The A-10's took the worse, per the documentary)
it looks like the went ahead and used the mavericks if it was hot. The doc
did show them using the maverick as a "field expedient" FLIR, then use the
gun.

The fast movers had it much easier, as they could fly higher than most
of the AA could deal with, since they owned the skies.

In most conflicts, it would not be as easy for the fast movers.

The second reason is extended sorties. Per the documentary, the A-10's
flew killer sorties. (12-18 hours per pilot) They would hot refuel, reload,
and get a briefing, and be in the air again. You only have so many mavericks
on a plane. Any time you can use the gun, you are ahead.

The third reason is cost. Mavericks a big bucks. Think of training issues
as well. (Gun practice VS live maverick fire)

>to drop the A-10, since the F-16 can (I presume) handle Mavericks just
>as well as the A-10?

Even if the F-16 could replace the A-10, ( I still see the advantage
for the A-10 in it's defined role) I think the army will keep the A-10.
I remember a big issue about the army "owning" the close air support 
role. US army VS USAF politics, and priorities when sorties are defined.


 Alan Barrow  km4ba | I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack
 jab@               | ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched
 hpuerca.atl.hp.com | C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
 ..!gatech!kd4nc!   | All those moments will be lost in time -
         km4ba!alan | like tears in rain. Time to die.          Roy Batty
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Depleted Uranium et al
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:04:42 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

In article <BtC4s0.5v6@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID) writes:
> 
> From     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil> 
> Some gleanings from the latest INTERNATIONAL DEFENSE REVIEW:
> 
> Rheinmetall is developing a 55 cal long 120mm tank gun (current US and
> German is 44 cal; French is 52). Effort is underway on a joint French-
> German 120mm APFSDS cartridge using a tungsten penetrator (L/D 22 and
> dia 27mm, MV 1780 m/s, 560mm RHA @ 2000 m). French developing on their
> own a DU version (1740 m/s, 640mm RHA @ 2000m), and they also are
> working on a 105mm DU round (1525 m/s, 540mm RHA @ 2000m).
> 
> Also a short piece on British/French/German 140mm tank gun, with Germans
> developing a W penetrator cartridge and France working on a DU model.
> 

Since the frontal armor on an M1 equipped with DU in it's Chobham armor
matrix is rated at 600mm, only the DU penetrator would be effective. Now
the 140mm gun will probably be a different story but I wonder how much
ammo a tank could carry for a gun so big? The there's also the handling
problem. Or will all the loaders look like the Incredible Hulk? ;*)

PHIL
Newsgroups: sci.military
From:         "S.K. Whiteman" <WHITEMAN%IPFWVM.bitnet@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
Subject:      green troops ...... :) ......
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:23:57 GMT


From         "S.K. Whiteman" <WHITEMAN%IPFWVM.bitnet@UICVM.UIC.EDU>

>In an Army transportation unit, I've heard of sending poor saps out looking
>for a "trailer stretcher" as well...  keep them coming...

Ok:

When I worked for the Air Line (USAF) green troops were
sent looking for any of the following:

- The electric shop in search for a can of dielectric.
    Generally new officers fell for this one. :)
    Officers were easy marks, not much fun.

- The jet shop for 'flame-in-a-can' or jet blast.

- Several feet of flight line.

- The keys for a B-52 or any other A/C; usually to base ops.

- To the hydraulic shop in search of various O-ring and
    gasket stretchers or an O-ring internal inspection tool;
    a knife.

- In search of a multi-meter to take a voltage reading across
    a vortex generator.

- To any office for a 'U' shaped fastener insertion tool; a
    stapler.

- The sheet metal shop for a louver tool.

- The crudest one I have ever heard of:
     6 feet of fallopian tube from the base hospital.

- A B-1 are dee (bird).

It might be well to note that an isolated assignment does
things to the mind.

One other thing that I took a certain delight in was getting
the new troop to lean forward in a downward ejection seat on
a B-52. His heels would invariable hit the triggers for the
ankle restraints and they would deploy. Seat safety was high
priority in tech school and to realize that the seat moves
at 44 ft/sec, its only 3 feet to the ground, the thing has
just grabbed you, and you are undoubtly on your way is enough
to induce religion. :() I remember when it happened to me; my
entire life passed before my eyes, and it was boring....

                                              What do I know;
       |         /      MI                    I'm a geology major.
        \       /___________________          Sam
         \_____/                   |          IBM Systems Programmer
Chicago/ |                     *   |  O       Indiana University -
    I    |               Ft. Wayne |  H       Purdue University at Fort Wayne
    L    |               1794-1994 |          Fort Wayne, Indiana USA

Sorry Bill, I grabbed the wrong address on the previous post....

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Chinese F-9 fighter?
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:53:47 GMT


From dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)


   A friend of mine follows Chinese military affairs closely, and would like
to know if anything is known about a Chinese fighter project called the F-9.
He has only seen a brief mention of the project, and wonders if there are
any articles on it in any of the various magazines. Apparently, the F-9 is
supposed to be similar in concept to the F-16 and Mig-29.

   If anyone has more info on this plane, or knows of any references to it, 
please send me e-mail. I'll post a summary if I get any replies of interest.

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
From: nak@archie.att.com (Neil A Kirby)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Autofocus and the Stealth
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:07:59 GMT
Organization: AT&T


From Neil A Kirby <nak@archie.att.com>

In article <BtAJDu.Cuz@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> john@phobos.sscl.uwo.ca (John Tucker) writes:
>
>From John Tucker <john@phobos.sscl.uwo.ca>
>
>I work in a photo lab and have recently processed a bunch of airshow
>pictures which were taken of the Stealth F/B. 
>
>I know that they were taken using a garden variety compact autofocus
>camera, and the pictures came out crystal clear in focus.
>
>Given the Stealth's "stealth", how come a commercial autofocus system
>can "lock-on" for a sharp picture?

Did the aircraft fill or nearly fill the frame [static shots are often like
this]?  If not was it far enough away to be taken at infinity [as in most
flyby shots]?

Even a cheap system works real well when all it can see is the target!
THink about it.  Radar Cross Section is never zero.  Get close enough and
you'll get a clean return.

Some autofocus cameras use sound, not radar, to get the job done.


Neil Kirby

I got to see the F117 flyby Rickenbacker last Sunday - from the top steps of
the AN-225!
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Tigger <greg@pomona.claremont.edu>
Subject: Re: Kevlar Body Armour vs. Kevlar Rounds
Organization: Pomona College
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:43:28 GMT


From Tigger <greg@pomona.claremont.edu>

In article <BtHwzH.Bpy@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, doi@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Daniel Kuan Li Oi) writes:
>
> 	Folklore has it that teflon coated bullets have good penetration
> characteristics, they can slip past the fibres, but as to the truth, I
> can only speculate.

If I recall correctly, the teflon has nothing to do with it.  The bullet
itself is made from a much harder than normal metal and so does not
deform as much on impact.  This greatly reduces the Kevlar's stopping
power.  The teflon coating is there only to protect the barrel of the
gun.

--
|  Greg Orman                         greg@pomona.claremont.edu  |
|     A man's best friends:  a Harley, a Beretta and a Gund.     |
From: swkmorri@nuscc.nus.sg (Perry Morrison (Dr))
Subject: Re:  Re: light aircraft in strike role
Organization: National University of Singapore
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:38:18 GMT


From swkmorri@nuscc.nus.sg (Perry Morrison (Dr))

    "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil> writes:
: From     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
: 
: 
: Perry Morrison writes:
: #The reason I ask this question is because the Australian armed forces
: #believe that in the next 20 years or so they will face small numbers
: #of insurgents in the far north of the country (Northern TErritory).
: 
: Wow. What is the expected origin of these insurgents: dissatisfied
: citizens or outside agitators?

Well, most military excercises in Australia have an enemy force from
"an island state somewhere to the North". After the indonesian invasion
of Timor in 1975 and their continued reprsession of the independence
movement in Timor, plus occasional incursions into Papua New Guinea,
most observers guess that this "state to the North" is indonesia.

Whether real conflict is likely is anyone's guess, but if it is most
people would bet on a low level one involving small groups island
hopping in rubber boats or whatever and infiltrating into Nothern
Australia with the intent of occasional acts of sabotage.

Everyone hopes this won't happen, but misunderstandings have a habit
of escalating--unfortunately. I studied with many indonesians and found
them to be gentle and warm. So it could all just be Aussie paranoia.
(i hope).

perry morrison


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: akula@ecst.csuchico.edu (Guo Han-Zhang)
Subject: Re: Chinese F-9 fighter?
Organization: California State University, Chico
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:39:17 GMT


From akula@ecst.csuchico.edu (Guo Han-Zhang)

In article <BtJo1o.9tp@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>
>From dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
>
>
>   A friend of mine follows Chinese military affairs closely, and would like
>to know if anything is known about a Chinese fighter project called the F-9.
>He has only seen a brief mention of the project, and wonders if there are
>any articles on it in any of the various magazines. Apparently, the F-9 is
>supposed to be similar in concept to the F-16 and Mig-29.
>

There's an article in Defence Technology Monthly ( a magzine published in
Taiwan) talking about Jian-9 fighter on its Feb. '92 issue. From the picture
of the J-9 model, it looks like a shorten Mig-23 with fixed delta wing and
canard on the intake. 4 hardpoints under the delta wing. The air-to-air
missile hanging under two of the pylons looks like AIM-120. According to
the article, Chinese tried to copy the swing-wing design of MiG-23 but
failed, so they use fixed wing instead of VG wing. They also introduced
fly-by-wire in this aircraft. The power plant is the same one used on 
J-8, with 4350 kg of trust.
From: erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Use of light aircraft for close support
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:24:20 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department


From     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>


Jason Brooks, who can't post, sent me an interesting E-mail on this.

Apparently, due to limited availability of US air support for Australian
troops during the Vietnam War, some of the RAAF Cessna spotters were
fitted with Miniguns for an "unofficial" ground attack role.
 
Followups on this would be appreciated.



Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"It demoralized them. Not to mention killed them."
     --- 3rd AD officer describing effects of DPICM in ODS
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Breaking in green submariners
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:04:11 GMT
Organization: Indiana University


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

In article <BtC566.6Ko@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:

  Since a sub at depth must over come 
|the outside sea pressure to pump anything out of a tank, the sewage tank must 
|be pressurized in order to pump it to the sea.  Normally, signs are posted in 
|all the heads warning that this operation is occurring, but "sometimes a sign 
|may disappear".  Needless to say, when the unsuspecting person goes to flush 
|the toilet....

So does the toilet start geysering bilge or does it simply
overflow since the stopcocks are shut off?





-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: cmr@cvedc.prime.com (Chesley Reyburn)
Subject: Re: light aircraft in strike role
Organization: Computervision R&D, Beaverton OR
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:43:15 GMT


From cmr@cvedc.prime.com (Chesley Reyburn)

erudnick@pica.army.mil (FSAC-SID) writes:


>From     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>

>Wow. What is the expected origin of these insurgents: dissatisfied
>citizens or outside agitators?

Try pirates.  Yep, pirates.

I am told that piracy is fairly common in the Strait of Malacca and
the South China Sea.  Pirates can use bases.  Bases where there is
little likelyhood of being disturbed.  The north half of Australia
fits that bill very nicely.

Or drug smugglers.  Northern Australia is not _that_ far from the
`golden triangle' of SE Asia.  The illegal drug industry can always
use places where there is little likelihood of disturbance.

There are also several dictatorships in the area.  One day one
of those dictators might get to lusting after all of that 'unused'
land in Australia.

Looking at it another way, where is their threat from the south?

Chesley Reyburn (cmr@cvedc.prime.com)


Newsgroups: sci.military