HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thos@suite.sw.oz.au (Thomas Cohen)
Subject: Re: Short landings (was Re: big a/c on carriers)
Organization: Softway Pty Ltd
Date: 13 Dec 92 22:25:44 GMT

In <SHAFER.92Dec10111751@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:

>I've got a video tape, currently loaned out, that shows the C-130
>carrier qualification.

Speaking of landing C130s in short spaces (which we weren't really),
the above reminded me of a story I heard once about an airshow down
in Melbourne. It seems (so the story goes) that a Caribou and a Herc
were having a short landing contest (I don't know how realistic this
is, so don't blame me) and the Caribou guy went first, touched down
and stopped as soon as he could. Fine. Then the C130's turn. Coming
in at a few feet altitude he shoved it into reverse thrust whilst
airborne, and from position of first contact to stop was some incredibly
short distance which beat the Caribou handily. 

A question I have is (well a couple really) how likely is this (ie. are
the Caribou and C130 remotely equal on landing rolls; and what sort of 
damage would this do to the Herc. I've seen their landing gear and it
is strong, but is it that strong?

regards,
-- 
thos cohen                                     |Softway Pty Ltd
                                               |ACSnet:         thos@softway.oz
 "Lex is a flaky implementation of a bad idea" |UUCP: ...!uunet!softway.oz!thos
                          - Ken Thompson, 1988 |Internet:    thos@softway.oz.au
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: rois@nobeltech.se (Rolf Isaksson)
Subject: Re: How are modern jet fighters to fly?
Organization: NobelTech AB
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 11:42:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.094905.14382@polaris.utu.fi> tiirola@polaris.utu.fi (Timo Iirola) writes:
>Hi,
>
>I'm interested in knowing how difficult modern jet fighters are to fly.
>I mean, if you for example start banking and then release the stick,
>what happens? Does the plane keep its course? How much do the computers
>help in controlling the plane?
>
In a flightreport some time ago regarding the F/A-18 it said that when
you let go of the stick the FBW will keep the bank constant and go to 1G.

This means that the nose will start to drop if in a bank. Another observation
is that the FBW takes out most of the trim changes you normally get with
changes in speed. This makes it much more difficult to keep the airplane
to a set speed. The tester in one intance set up a 250 Kt downwind leg, didn't
pay attention and a few seconds later was wizzing along at 450 Kt with
no big stickfeelchanges whatsoever.

Regards



-- 
Rolf Isaksson  NobelTech Systems ! I will NOT press Eject until I've
S-175 88 Jaerfaella      Sweden  ! landed this thing. You'll have to
ROIS@nobeltech.se                ! wait for your floppy!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: maierj@edmund.cs.andrews.edu (Joey Maier)
Subject: Aurora - fast new toy from skunkworks
Organization: Andrews University
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 16:59:52 GMT

Earlier, somebody posted that CNN had said  something about a fast (Mach
8?) new aircraft, and someone else posted that this may be the result of
project Aurora at Lockheed.
	What kind of propulsion would something like this be likely to
use?  Ramjets?  Recently, I've heard some aviation buffs talking about
*external* combustion engines.  The rumor goes that they would function
by dumbing fuel on the exterior of the fuselage, where it would ignite
from the heat of friction.  The walls of the combustion chamber would be
the fuselage and the shock wave of air comming off the nose.

Is this for real?  I don't think so.  It seems to me that the pressure
of the propulsive expansion of the ignited fuel-air mix would have more
pressure than the shock wave.  It would disrupt the shock wave.  Net
result:  the plane doesn't move forward.

Could someone out there with a little more knowledge on the subject tell
me if I'm crazy.  I just don't think this sounds real possible.

Joey                 maierj@andrews.edu
From: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Snaity check!!!.. [re: why w 
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 06:30:15 GMT
Organization: Me? Organized?


In article <1992Dec14.223600.3047@ncsu.edu> rsingh@eos.ncsu.edu writes:
  > 
  > In article <1992Dec7.212624.2442@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>,
  > colangel@sam.JSC.NASA.GOV (Michael Colangelo/MDSSC) writes:
  >  
  > > Su-26/29 aerobatic a/c), but like
  >  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^           
  > What the hell are these aircraft? I've never heard of them . Either it
  > shows clearly that Micheal is an avid admirer of Soviet aircraft or
  > (well) just the opposite of it! 
  > 
  > :-)                     

Single seat, piston engined (radial) aerobatic monoplanes.  The Yak- 
18PM was similar, and also cleaned up the world champs in the late 
'60s.



  > 
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz
From: luh700@gosset.kodak.com (Jeffrey D. Morris)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Movie Jets (was Re: PEARL HARBOR)
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:03:35 GMT
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY

MEMPHIS BELLE accurate???  Please explain what you mean.  Certainly not
the accuracy of the story of the final flight.
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Movie Jets (was Re: PEARL HARBOR)
Date: 18 Dec 92 15:57:24 GMT
 <BzA59B.GoM@plato.ds.boeing.com> <4190@eastman.UUCP>  
 <BzG4EH.1zH@plato.ds.boeing.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <BzG4EH.1zH@plato.ds.boeing.com>
prang@plato.ds.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja) writes:

> Yeah, for the most part the plot stunk.  But the technical details were
> apparently accurate.

I spoke with a gentleman who participated in enough missions to get his
ticket home.  Instead he stuck around flying in England teaching other
plane captains how to lead.  He said that when the Messerschmitt's came
in at the aircraft with their guns blazing (one of the more effective
of the movies action shots) he nearly jumped out of his seat backwards.
 He actually forgot where he was and had to apologise to the people
sitting behind him so vividly did he remember what that was like.

This trauma, of having to just sit there with no means for retaliating,
Infantry can at least hit the deck, gunners have a weapon to fire and
fighter pilots can head for the deck or shoot back, is what one study
characterised as being the main reason for so much combat fatigue among
bomber pilots.

Corky Scott
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)
Subject: Conan vs Hughes
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 07:29:58 GMT

After observing grown men throwing their toys out their respective 
playpens for a week....   Please, can't you blokes either sort out your 
differences or exchange obnoxious personal insults via e-mail?

Thank you in anticipation.

Keith Coman
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If we pay dogfood salespeople more than we   :  Dept of Management
 do teachers, we should not be surprised if   :  Rhodes University
 our dogs eat like kids, and our kids end     :  Grahamstown, 6140
 up reading like dogs."                       :  Rep of South Africa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: an1603@anon.penet.fi (Bastard Regiment)
Subject: Re: PEARL HARBOR
X-Anonymously-To: rec.aviation.military
Organization: Anonymous contact service
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:59:30 GMT

jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew) writes:
>O.K. This really makes me angry. If there is one thing I hate it is passing
>off second rate 'allied' planes as the enemy! Last night I saw five minutes
>of the worst movie I have ever seen in my life - Iron Eagles II. They started
>off with some F-16's in a fight with four MIG-29's. So far so good - except
>they didn't have any MIG-29's so they painted some F-4's and called them that
>thinking everyone would be too stupid to notice. I was so angry I could have
>shot the producers! I mean MIG-29's are beautiful planes and they were trying
>to pass of this hunched back piece of junk off as one (no offense to all those
>people who like them but I am sure you know what I mean) They would have had
>to borrow the footage or the planes from the Airforce anyway - why did they
>give them a decent looking plane - a F-18 perhaps.

This pisses me off too, but not for your reasons.  It pisses my off
because they take one of the best damn airplanes ever built (the F-4) and
expect no-one to notice when they pass it off as a MiG.  Ditto "Top Gun"
trying to pass off another great plane, the F-5, as a MiG.  If they
can't be bothered putting in some effort why don't they just fuck off and die.

NB:  Referring to the F-4 as "a hunched back piece of junk" is not very wise.

PS:  Re: beautiful/ugly planes:  I think the F-4, A-10 etc are beautiful.
                                 I have yet to see an ugly aircraft.  And
                                 yes, I have seen a lot of aircraft :)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Please note you _don't_ have to have an anon id to receive anonymous mail!
To see how your anonymized message would appear, mail it to test@anon.penet.fi
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: geoff@hawkesbury.uws.EDU.AU (Geoff Russell)
Subject: Re: Aircraft beauty contest  (Was Re: Advanced Tactical Fighter)
Organization: University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 02:34:53 GMT

In article <SCOTT.92Dec14131847@sting.Berkeley.EDU> scott@sting.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) writes:



>The Air Force museum in Dayton OH used to have a George on display.  I
>don't know if it's still there though.  Anyone know if they've picked 
>up any other Japanese aircraft over the last 20 years or so?

>Scott

Don't know about that museum, but there is a Nakajima Oscar due to fly
any time in Australia. Owned and restored by Col Pay, along with his
Spitfire, Mustang, Kittyhawk etc

Geoff Russell
University of Western Sydney,
AUSTRALIA
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: The A-10
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Date: 17 Dec 1992 17:19:07 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com



>Boy, Geoff, you really put me in my place, didn't you? 

I'm sure that if I did, you'd never admit it.  :^>


>The underlined passages from your posting sort of prove my point 
>about smartasses, wouldn't you say?

No, I wouldn't.  And I'm curious exactly how the use of metaphors makes
one a "smartass."  They must have a different definition of the word
down in Texas.  Or is a smartass simply someone who says something you
happen not to like?


>The "Knock it off!" comment must have gone completely over your head.  
>"Knock it off" is the radio call used to terminate an air-to-air
>engagement.

Uh-huh.  In casual conversation among most people, it has slightly
different connotations.  The fighter types in the audience here 
are a pretty small minority, after all.


>And whatever Dan wants to plead about his response, his reference to 
>'chain guns for that pesky armor' and 'making good war surplus' were 
>a bit too flippant for an old fart who takes close air support
>rather seriously.

Well, that's up to you.  This isn't a military briefing room, though, so
I can't see that it was all that terrible a transgression.  Hell, it's
not even sci.aeronautics, but a rec.* newsgroup, for crissakes.


>As for being out of line, nobody told me there was a line.  What is the line?
>Don't step on any toes?  Don't respond in kind?  Don't ever tell anyone that
>he's wrong?  Don't ever think that personal experience can conflict with
>what's in the book?  I missed the posting on acceptable responses.

A line for this newsgroup?  Not what I had in mind; I was thinking more in
terms of a general rule of thumb for dealing with others, something along
the lines of "Why go out of your way to get pissed off and issue a sharp 
rebuke when someone obviously meant no offense?"  

While we're talking about lines, where would you draw the line on  
flippance, and why?  Maybe Dan didn't know there was a line before you
flew off the handle.


Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller			+ + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM	+ + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
From: cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Focused on Infinity)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Bayerische Flugzeugwerke's finest (was Re: Ejection seats/capsules (was Re: B-1B))
Date: 12 Dec 1992 00:38:18 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucscb.ucsc.edu
Summary: Israeli Independence


In article <1gacriINNnp9@rave.larc.nasa.gov> d.j.piatak@larc.nasa.gov (David J. Piatak) writes:
>Don't forget that all of the flying "Bf-109's" (except for the one at 
>Duxford) are Spanish built Buchons powered by Merlins.  Didn't these 109's 
>and Spitfires fight against and side by side each other in some war (in 
>Egypt?).  
Not exactly. In one of the classic ironies of war surplus, the fledgling
Israeli Air Force was equipped with Me-109's (let me check references...
damn, I can't find *ANYTHING* today!) as their first fighter planes. These
109s ended up escorting B-17s on bombing raids over Cairo and other Arab
territory, defending the Fortresses against... Spitfires??!? Yes, the Arab
forces were, of course, British equipped. Later on the Israelis also got
some Beaufighters, which flew alongside the 109s on some missions and were
also used for ground-attack missions.
-- 
..___... ...___... ...___... ...___... ...___... ...___... ...___... ...___...
Marc Reeve
cmraman@ucscb.ucsc.edu	cmraman@deeptht.armory.com
I want a MAC!
Naturally my opinions are unheard by UCSC, as it is a bureaucratic monolith.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Re: Prop-Driven CAS
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:27:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.152550.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu> cvalj001@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu writes:
>    The A-1 was probably the best prop CAS platform ever built.  The
>side-firing gunships (the AC-47, the AC-119s, the AC-130s) also make very good
>CAS platforms- in low threat environments of course.  During the early
>'eighties Piper built a turboprop version of the P-51 and called it the PA-48
>Enforcer.  It had good speed, range, load, and loiter time.  It was tested by
>the USAF but no one ever bought it.  There's also a small prop-driven plane
>called the Sadler A-22 that has been recently built that could provide CAS in
>guerrilla wars.  Then there was the Fletcher Defender of the 'fifties which was
>a small, cheap CAS plane for guerrilla wars and this was later copied by the
>Yugoslavian AF in the 'sixties with a plane called the Kragju (I think that's
>how it was spelled).
>    If some one were really smart they'd put the A-1 back into production.


There was also an experiment done on the T-28.  The airplane was re-fitted
with a turbo-prop engine and designated the YAT-28. This was the 'counter-
insurgency' airplane that was envisioned as the answer to small countries
involved in brushfire wars.  Don't know what became of the idea, although I
seem to remember something about the prototypes and maybe a couple of others
ending up in South America.
From: d.j.piatak@larc.nasa.gov (David J. Piatak)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: "Fake" MiGs (was Re: PEARL HARBOR)
Date: 14 Dec 1992 22:15:21 GMT
Organization: NASA-Langley Research Center
Distribution: world
Reply-To: d.j.piatak@larc.nasa.gov (David J. Piatak)
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac153.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Dec14.191716.6838@olaf.wellesley.edu>, 
lhawkins@annie.wellesley.edu (R. Lee Hawkins) writes:
> In article <RATINOX.92Dec14115306@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> 
> ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu writes:
> >of it's design concepts was similarity to the T-38. The F-5 is used in
> >the US as a MiG simulator and as NASA space shuttle chase planes. It's
> 
> Err... NO.  All the NASA birds are T-38's.


Not quite.  Here at NASA-Langley we have a Northrop F-5F two seater.  I think 
it was one of only 3 F-5F's supplied to the U.S.AirForce.  In addition to the 
F-5F we have 2 T-38's. One is used as a parts ship though...too bad.

David Piatak                                 "Excuse me, while I 
Penn State Student Co-Op                         kiss the sky...."
Filght Research Branch                          -Jimi Hendrix  
NASA-Langley Research Center




Yes, I too           \    David Piatak
wish I owned a   /    Penn State Student Co-Op
P-51 Mustang    \    NASA-Langley Research Center


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell)
Subject: Aviation in the Movies (was Re: PEARL HARBOR)
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:51:45 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Dec14.025423.60@penet.fi> an1603@anon.penet.fi (Bastard Regiment) writes:
>jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew) writes:
[ bitching about Israeli F4s passed off as MiG-29s deleted]

My favorite case of mucking with aircraft types happened in some movie about
an aircraft carrier going back in time to 1941.

You start out with a pilot in an F-14 in trouble.  See footage of an A-4
turning onto final.  Then there's a shot of an F-4 coming in over the stern
and finally they pull the pilot out of an A-7.

CONSISTENCY!

-- Craig
From: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Bf 109 questions 
Distribution: world
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 19:27:34 GMT
Organization: Me? Organized?


In article <1992Dec17.184355.16018@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu writes:

  > In article <724571214snx@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
  > mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell) writes:
  > 
  > > The definitive Ta-152H certainly had no problems outrunning any allied 
  > > fighters at virtually any altitude - it was equipped with Water- 
  > > Methanol as well as GM-1 injection for power boost, giving max speeds 
  > > of 465mph @ 30,000 ft, & 472 mph at altitudes in excess of 41,000 
  > > ft!!!.  In fact the FW-190D, which was redesignated the Ta-152 had a 
  > > maximum speed, with water-meth injection, of 440 mph @ 37,000 ft (D-9, 
  > > the first operational version).
  > 
  > Sorry, I should have been more specific.  What I was talking about was
  > a version of the 190 that came out with an inline engine before the
  > advent of the definitive Ta 152.  Joe Baugher can likely list the
  > specifics.  No question it was faster than the radial engined 190's,
  > but in it's initial version, it wasn't faster than the Mustangs and
  > Thunderbolts.  The allies called it the "long nose" Focke Wulf.  As I
  > mentioned, the comments of the German pilots from the book JG 26
  > indicate that while they appreciated the added speed, they didn't like
  > the reduction in the roll rate.  Many prefered to fly the old radial
  > engined 190 for it's neck snappingly quick roll rate.  It was this roll
  > quickness, by the way, that characterised the aspect of maneuverability
  > for which it initially was so feared.  Highly trained pilots understood
  > how to use this advantage to great effect.

The 190D I mentioned above was the first operational version of the 
"Long-nosed FW".  The D-12 subtype had a max speed, again using MW-50, 
of 453 mph @ 37,000 ft.  As I alluded to, the D types were eventually 
re-designated as Ta-152, so they are all one and the same.

However I thought I'd better look up the American fighters also, and 
loa nd behold:  P-51D 445 mph @ 24,000 ft (which is much closer to the 
actual altitude they might be expected to fight at while escorting 
bombers), and P-47D 440 mph @ 29,000 ft.  The P-47M also saw some 
service, a specially lightened version, with a max speed of 460 mph 
(altitude unknown).  Also remembering that the German machines relied 
upon water-meth injection it seems I may have been a bit hasty.

Interesting that the Germans preferred the manouverability of the 190A 
subtypes - fighter pilots all through WWII found speed a decisive 
advantage over manuovre (eg the Fiat G.50 vs Hurricane, Gladiator or 
Hawk 75 vs Bf-109E, etc).



Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: johnm@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com.mcm.hp.com (John Mosbarger)
Subject: Re: big a/c on carriers
Organization: HP Cardiology Business Unit - McMinnville, OR
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:08:52 GMT

Barney Lum (barney@sol.usc.edu) wrote:

[.....deleted.....]

: Just as impressive, if not more so, were the 16 B-25 Mitchells that flew 
: off of the Hornet to bomb Tokyo back in 1942.  Even though they faced into 
: the 30-knot wind, Doolittle's lead plane had only about  half the deck 
: length (400 feet?) to work with.... and they were probably quite loaded even
: with all gun turrets removed.  They also timed their takeoff runs to coincide
: the upswing of the pitching deck with liftoff.

     Watching (or reading) an interview with one of the Doolittle raiders, he
said that the Hornet had to reduce speed as it was taking water over the bow.

John
--
*****************************************************************************
| John Mosbarger          |    You know why many people commit suicide      |
|                         |    during the holidays?  It's because they're   |
| HP McMinnville, OR      |    forced to spend time with their relatives.   |
|                         | 	                  --John Belushi            |
| johnm@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com |                     	                    |
|***************************************************************************|
|                     Opinions are mine and mine alone.                     |
*****************************************************************************
From: ajpotts@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Potts)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SAAB J 21 (was Re: Ejection seats/capsules
Date: 17 Dec 92 14:07:37 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

msmith@crc.ac.uk (Mike Smith x3297) writes:

>In article 29437@castle.ed.ac.uk, ajpotts@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Potts) writes:
>[ About the SAAB J 21 ]
>> 
>> But it was (and still is) the only military aircraft to see full service
>> in both a piston powered and jet form, which makes it kind of special,
>> and a fact of which SAAB are rather proud. OK, it may have had the range
>> of a milk float but it was very pretty - especially compared to SAAB's
>> next jet effort which looked like a flying beer barrel...

>This is an interesting point. What is your definition of full service?  Are
>you excluding trainers?  Hunting made the piston-engined Provost before the
>Jet Provost. How similar were the airframes?

Yeah, well, sort of. What I really meant by the two power forms was that
they seem simply to have taken out the piston engine and popped in a jet
with the minimum of alteration which could hardly be said of the (Jet)
Provost. But it's a good point. I think the rear fuselage ie tail, and
the wings were the only common bits, but I'll have to check. To look at,
though, they were very different, unlike the SAAB. I must confess,
though, I completely forgot about the Provost.

AJP

PS I never meant to imply the J29 was a crap aircraft...