HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: leem@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Lee Mellinger)
Subject: Re: Trivia
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:18:47 GMT

In article <1k0vslINN9gf@bigboote.WPI.EDU> chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss) writes:
:
:Years ago, I took a tour of Griffis Air Force Base.  They were still flying 
:the F-106 in an active duty SAC wing there, I think it was 1983 or so (Hey, 
:when you're only twenty, 1983 is years ago).   
:Chad Wemyss

SAC did not operate F-106's, that was more than likely a tennant Air
Defense Command Squadron.  That was not unususal, Castle AFB also had
a 106 ADC Squadron on the field with B-52 and KC-135 training
squadrons.

Lee

"Mit Pulver und Blei, die Gedanken sind frei."

|Lee F. Mellinger                 Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA
|4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/354-1163  FTS 792-1163     
|leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV
From: ccartee@dry.cisco.com (Claude Alan Cartee)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: C-5 Galaxy's in Australia
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:17:09
Organization: cisco Systems Inc., Menlo Park, CA, USA
Distribution: rec
NNTP-Posting-Host: dry.cisco.com

In article <1k74m9INNjj5@bigboote.WPI.EDU> megazone@lektroid.WPI.EDU (MegaZone) writes:


   In article <geoff.10@hawkesbury.uws.EDU.AU> geoff@hawkesbury.uws.EDU.AU (Geoff Russell) writes:
   >Currently there are two C-5's paked at our local RAAF base, one with problems
   >preventing it flying. (It has the name "Empire State" painted on the lower
   >forward fuselage).

   The 'Empire State' is NY State... Probably from *duh.. blank* Griffiths(sp?)...

   (I KNOW the name... what a time to blank...)

   >My question is where are the C-5's based in the USA and how many are 
   >operational? 

   Hmm... I think ~89 C-5s are still operational..

   ###############################################################################
   # I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
   #Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
   ###############################################################################
========================================

I'm afraid you're mistaken.  Griffis is home to the 416th Bomb Wing.
They recently transitioned from the B-52G to the B-52H.

The C-5 was from Stuart International Airport near Newburgh New York.
The plane came from an ANGB.  There is also an ANG unit in MA.

I know that regular duty C-5's are operated from Travis AFB (CA), and
Dover AFB (DE).

--

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claude Alan Cartee      "I don't want to achieve immortality through my works
1525 O'Brien Drive       I want to achieve immortality by not dying!"
Menlo Park, CA 94025                                 -Woody Allen
ccartee@cisco.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: lawrence@xenon.stanford.edu (Lawrence Taylor Waugh)
Subject: Re: Media mistakes (was Re: Iraq attacks U.S. Navy planes)
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 02:11:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.065729.4371@netcom.com> geoffm@netcom.com (Geoff  
Miller) writes:


> In article <C1DF8u.FB@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>  
creps@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu 
> (Stephen A. Creps) writes:

> >   I'm not quite sure how an A-6 can be called a "fighter-bomber" when
> >I don't think it's even capable of carrying air-to-air weapons.


> It's understandable.  To your typical layman, a bomber is a large  
airplane
> like a B-52.  An A-6, on the other hand, resembles a fighter to the  
casual
> observer because of its size and configuration.  So when such people  
hear
> about such  a fighter-like (to them) airplane dropping bombs, they  
assume
> it must be a fighter-bomber.

Technically, the A-6 is neither fighter, bomber, nor fighter-bomber:  it's  
a "medium attack aircraft", or just "attack aircraft" (hence the "A"-6, as  
opposed to "B"-6 or "F"-6).  The Navy uses the distinction to indicate an  
aircraft's primary role.  Generally, anything in the Air Force inventory  
that is jet-powered and not a huge platform gets the prefix "F", as in  
F-111 (sometimes F/B-111).  Noteable exceptions are the A-7 (which was  
designed for the Navy) and the A-10 (don't know HOW it got its name).

As posted before, the A-6 is quite capable of carrying A/A weapons, it  
just usually doesn't - for a variety of reasons.  I won't get  
philosophical here, though.
From: megazone@coal.WPI.EDU (MegaZone)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: B *25* != B*52* (was Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Date: 23 Jan 1993 10:27:22 GMT
Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal
NNTP-Posting-Host: coal.wpi.edu

Yes, I'm following up my post...

In article <1jqlumINN9q3@bigboote.WPI.EDU> megazone@coal.WPI.EDU (MegaZone) writes:
>The B-52A-G had a quad mount of .50-cal machineguns. I believe the G was the
>first model to move the gunner up to the forward fuselage from the tail
>position. (I haven't read up on the BUFF in a while, so take that with a
>grain of salt.) The final model, the B-52H, mounted the M-61A1 6-barrell 20mm
>gatling gun as a tailgun, and the gunner WAS up front with the rest of the
>crew.

Yep, so I commited the cardinal sin of USENET... I looked it up. So what if
it's 5:20 in the morning and I'm still up.... I dug through my boxes and 
checked my books on the BUFF. The A-F models had a quad mount .50 cal
system with a tailgunner. 

The G model had several changes. New nose, a wet wing, no ailerons, the fin 
was shortened from 48ft to 40ft, revised engine nacelles, it retained the
quad .50 cal mount but had a remote gunner (he controlled the gun from the
forward crew area via teleoptical and radar tracking), and smaller external
fuel tanks.

The H model retained the fuselage mods of the G. The biggest change was
from J57 turbojets to the TF33 turbofan, giving more thrust at a lower 
Specific Fuel Consumption (from .8 to .56). The nose was modified and the
quad .50 cal mount was replaced with a single M61A1 gatling gun.

Oh... the data is from "Boeing B-52: A Documentary History" by Walter Boyne
Director National Air and Space Museum. (Glad I dug this out, it's an
autographed copy, I should take better care of my stuff....)

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################
From: erudnick@claudius.pica.army.mil (Edward J. Rudnicki )
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ?
Date: 23 Jan 93 00:00:31 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army  Armament Research Development & Engineering Center, Dover NJ
Originator: erudnick@claudius

P. VASILION writes:
#	B-52 with a 75mm howitzer? Never heard of this. What is your reference?
#As for the AC-130, yes, it does pack a 105mm Howitzer. The gun is unmodified
#and is fired via the fire control computer, which deflects the rudder some
#10 degrees or so at the moment the un fires to cancel the yawing effect the
#recoil induces. The AC-130U, in addition to the 105mm, carries one 40mm Bofors
#cannon, two 7.62 mini-guns, and two 25mm M-62 (? -- cant remember the desig-
#nation). It can also drop the 15,000 pound BLU-82 bomb.  The two 25mm
#vulcan cannons can destroy a regiment of troops in less than 10 seconds.
#
#PV


I had intended to sit this one out, as posting is a pain with my system, but
what the heck :)

Last year I posted a question to sci.military regarding aircraft carrying
"large" guns. Not counting recoilless, here's what the folks there came
up with (I was able to corroborate all of these):

WW2 German -       Me-410 and Me-262 with 5cm gun
                   Hs-129 and Ju-88 with 7.5cm
WW2 Japanese -     Ki-45 with 50mm or 75mm
                   Ki-102 with 57mm
                   Ki-109 with 75mm
WW2 British -      Mosquito with 57mm
WW2 US -           B-25 with 75mm
Postwar Swedish -  B-18T with 57mm
Current US -       AC-130H/U

With the exception of the last, all of these were intended as bomber
destroyers or anti-shipping aircraft. I guess the logic was that if
the target was large a larger gun might be more effective.


As to the Spectres, the AC-130H carries 2 M61A1 20mm Vulcans, a single
40mmL60 (the older model) Bofors, and a 105mm howitzer. It used to
carry a couple of 7.62mm Miniguns, but standoff ranges have increased to
the point where they would be useless. The 20's are marginal as it is.

The AC-130U replaces the Vulcans with a single 5-barrel 25mm Gatling
(GAU-??), again for increased standoff.

The 105mm howitzer on the H/U is basically the M137 mount from the M102
howitzer. It is modified by the addition of a muzzle device with two
features: two "wings" to catch the barrel and keep it from going out the
other side of the plane if the recoil mech should fail, and a "blast
extender" to move the muzzle blast further away from the skin of the
aircraft. Ammunition is M1 HE and M60 WP.

The AC-130 CANNOT drop a BLU-82. The 105mm position is just a few feet
inside once you walk up the ramp. Besides, why waste an asset like a
Spectre when basically any Hercules can drop it?


Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply (and more)
From: juha.veijalainen@compart.fi (Juha Veijalainen) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Saab Drakens in Holly
Date: 23 Jan 93 01:33:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: ComPart BBS, Helsinki-Finland, +358 0 506 3329 (14 lines V.32bis)
Reply-To: juha.veijalainen@compart.fi (Juha Veijalainen) 

Urban F wrote:

UF>From: urf@icl.se (Urban F)
UF>References: <MORSE.93Jan15091551@quark.mpr.ca> <janm.727149357@Kiev>
UF>
UF>So, in Sweden we have 66 fighters + 4 trainers in use. If the 
UF>budget allows, they will be flying to about 2005. 
UF>
UF>As far as I can recall, Finland still have all of theirs in service.

Yes, I cannot remember any Drakens lost in accidents in Finland - only 
Mig-21bis fighters have been lost, last one just a couple of months ago.  
Maybe that tells something about quality or maybe Migs are more difficult 
to fly.

Lately Finnish Air Force has had problems with Mig spare parts 
availability.  It seems that Russia cannot deliver parts reliably anymore 
(this is according to newspapers).


---
 . WinQwk 2.0 a#152 . Mielipiteet omiani/Opinions personal/Facts suspect
                                                                                             
----
+=======================================================================+
|    ComPart BBS     PCBoard 14.5a/100  +358-0-506-3329 (ZyXEL V.32bis) |
| Helsinki, Finland       14 lines      *** Number 1 BBS in Finland *** |
+=======================================================================+
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Air Force One
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Date: 21 Jan 1993 22:30:45 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com



In article 63574@mimsy.umd.edu, hoel@umiacs.umd.edu (Erik Hoel) asks:

>>My question is - what are those things - some sort of anti-infrared missle 
>>device?


exudnw@exu.ericsson.se (Dave Williams) responds:

>That's my (somewhat educated) guess. Those "pods" use an IR flash to blind 
>IR guided missles as they are headed for the engine exhaust(s) - that's why 
>they face rearward.


The first time I saw a picture of those, they were installed on the NASA
747 shuttle transport airplane prior to its flight to the Paris Air Show
with the shuttle Enterprise aboard.  The photograph was in AvLeak, and
the caption explained that they were IR jamming devices.  There were two
per engine, mounted on either side of the rear edges of the engine pylons
and angled slightly downward and outward.



Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller			+ + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM	+ + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
From: gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: USE OF B-52 TAIL GUNS
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 19:28:13 CST
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.

zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin) writes:

> Can anyone give us the numbers on how many B-52 tail gun kills there were and
> conversely, how many of the B-52s and other bombers were lost to NV
> fighters as opposed to SAMs?  Were the NV interceptors ever a real
> factor?  My impression is that it was mostly the SAMs and heavy flak
> that did the damage to the B-52s.
> 
 My sources don't have anything about the number of Migs killed by 
B-52's but one does list all the aircraft lost to Migs and there 
were no B-52's lost. It also notes that Migs accounted for only a 
little over three percent of all combat losses in the North. In 
fact, Migs were never really a big factor over North Vietnam. SAMs 
and AAA were far more of a problem. One interesting note is that 
the U.S. Navy lost more aircraft to "own ordnance" than they did 
to Migs!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - 
                      gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: vec@alnitak.Kodak.COM (Vance Cochrane)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:56:59 GMT
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY

In article <30751@castle.ed.ac.uk>, ajpotts@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Potts) writes:
>zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin) writes:
>
.
.
.
>Wasn't there a Me262 varient with an enormous gun mounted on the nose -
>I think it was a 40mm cannon. The thing looked ridiculous - its gun
>projected straight out about 4m from the nose. But I don't have the
>details - anyone care to elaborate?
>

Yes, it was tested and found to be impractical due to the blinding 
flash produced directly in front of the pilot.
vec
-- 
+------------------------------------------------------+
+ Vance Cochrane                Email: vec@Kodak.COM   +
+ Research Laboratories	        Voice: (716) 722-3709  +
+ Eastman Kodak Company	        Fax:   (716) 477-8681  +
+ Rochester, NY 14650-1826                             +
+ USA                                                  +
+------------------------------------------------------+
From: megazone@yoyodyne.WPI.EDU (MegaZone)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Date: 21 Jan 1993 19:53:32 GMT
Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal
NNTP-Posting-Host: yoyodyne.wpi.edu

In article <1993Jan21.082449.29908@unipalm.co.uk> steven@unipalm.co.uk (Steven Vincent) writes:
>powerful (Single) Gun. The German Hs-129 mounted a long barreled 75mm AT Gun w

The GAU-8A Avenger does indeed have the highest KE per round of any gun flown
on an active duty aircraft, according to many sources. It uses a very dense
round at very high speed... Perhaps the sources are dated, but I remember one
such that mentioned the 105mm howitzer on the AC-130 too...

>would stall the Aircraft on the second  or third shot! I know that the B-25H a
>mounted a 75mm Howitzer (converted but basically low pressure) in the nose wit

WHAT?!?! When did the B-52H Stratofortress EVER carry any gun other than the
M61A1 in the tail? The B-52 is a bomber, not an attack aircraft. BTW, so the
Germans had a gun that stalled an aircraft in WWII. How much power did the 
aircraft have? How big was it? (momentum) etc... that means nothing...
If I recall correctly the Avenger at normal service trim produces 9000lbs 
of force in recoil.

>equally detrimental affects to air speed. I know of rumorse that the AC-130s m
>a 105mm weapon but this is side firing. 

Not a rumor, the AC-130H (And I think 'E') carry a side firing 105mm howitzer.
The most I've seen on an AC-130 was 2-Vulcans, 4-minigus, 1-40mm Bofors cannon,
and the 105mm howitzer. I have a book on the C-130 and they have several illos.
of the AC in its different configurations.

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################










Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: edhresko@hresko.eos.ncsu.edu (ERIC DAVID HRESKO)
Subject: Re: If Tomahawk Didnt Arm, where is the warhead now?
Originator: edhresko@c00553-1403br.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: edhresko@eos.ncsu.edu
Organization: Techno-Geeks Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:28:57 GMT



	The explosion caused by they missile was most likely caused by the fuel,
and this is nowhere energetic enough to detonate the high explosives used.  In 
fact, my former Air Force instructor described practice bomb ranges where
partially exploded bombs could be found...tough stuff to set off!
-- 


Eric

******************************************************************************
Eric Hresko		* Mail:  edhresko@eos.ncsu.edu                        
Kanki House of Steaks   * Voice: (why would you want to call?) 1-919-821-5168
Dishwasher 2nd Class    * HK Rules!!! (But a FAL will do in a pinch)         
DISCLAIMER:  I don't wear sandals, eat granola, or tiptoe thru the Tulips    
                                                                             
At what temp will a frog become a superconductor?                             
				-Me at 3 a.m.                                
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: B *25* != B*52* (was Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:26:26 GMT

megazone@yoyodyne.WPI.EDU (MegaZone) writes:

>In article <1993Jan21.082449.29908@unipalm.co.uk> steven@unipalm.co.uk (Steven Vincent) writes:
>>would stall the Aircraft on the second  or third shot! I know that the B-25H a
>>mounted a 75mm Howitzer (converted but basically low pressure) in the nose wit

>WHAT?!?! When did the B-52H Stratofortress EVER carry any gun other than the
>M61A1 in the tail? The B-52 is a bomber, not an attack aircraft. BTW, so the

During WW2 (the Big War, everybody was in it) in the South Pacific
USAAF General Kenny (sp?) troops did field modifications to their
B-25 Mitchell Medium Bombers that did make them much more effective
in their role in anti-shipping attacks.  Four externally mounted,
forward firing .50 cals added to the projectile weight on target.
Eventually one enegentic armouror stripped the non-essential parts
off a field artilary peice and mounted it in the nose.  One shot
but what a shot!

This field mod was picked up and some factory modifications were
made.  (There was a war on ...)

As to the B-52 HEavey bomber, I recall that one variant may have
had a 20 mm gun in the tail position.

just the faded recollections of an AF-brat.

chus
pyotr
 
-- 
Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
Nothing says loving like a bun in the oven.
EOF
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Date: 21 Jan 93 19:26:23 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1993Jan21.082449.29908@unipalm.co.uk>, steven@unipalm.co.uk (Steven Vincent) writes:
|> ebstokes@uncc.edu (Edward B Stokes) writes:
|> 
|> The GAU-8 is the most powerful gun ever mounted on an attack aircraft.
|> 
|> I know that the GAU-8 is a very powerfull gun but I am not sure that
|> its the most powerful (Single) Gun. The German Hs-129 mounted a long
|> barreled 75mm AT Gun which would stall the Aircraft on the second or
|> third shot! I know that the B-25H also mounted a 75mm Howitzer 
|> (converted but basically low pressure) in the nose with equally 
|> detrimental affects to air speed. I know of rumorse that the AC-130s
|> mount a 105mm weapon but this is side firing. 

 Yes, 105mm and 40mm guns are/have been on the AC-130s.

 There are also 40mm gun pods that can be mounted on several aircraft.
 One was test fired on an F-16 at General Dynamics in Fort Worth, TX
 several years ago and was deemed unsuitable due to the tremendous 
 recoil-induced vibrations.

|> The recoil from the (GAU-8) gun at full rate of fire is so great,
|> that it can stall the aircraft if fired for too long.

 Huh, really?  It generates enough recoil to negate the thrust of
 two turbo-fan jet engines?  Can someone else confirm this?

 TRAVIS
 hhtra@chevron.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: mtissand@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael D Tissandier)
Subject: Re: Trivia
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:52:09 GMT

  If I'm not too terribly mistaken, the 106 at the USAF Museum in Dayton
did a post-ejection wheels-up landing.  Don't know if it is the same one,
however....
  I believe that there are pictures of the landed craft on the display..

  --Mike

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than
   a thousand bayonets.

        ---Napoleon Bonaparte

                  mtissand@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------


>> >
>>  I find these stories interesting, but one thing bothers me about
>> them; in all of the aircraft mentioned, once the pilot has
>> "punched out", the loss of the weight of the pilot and the
>> ejection seat would shift the CG (center of gravity) so far aft
>> that there is no way the aircraft could maintain level flight. I
>> have seen film of aircraft after the pilot ejected nosing up into
>> a tail stand and then doing a tail slide into the ground. What I
>> can't figure out is how any of these aircraft could have managed
>> to land with the CG that far aft. Any ideas??
>
>
>I'm not sure how intolerant these aircraft are to minor CG shifts.  A
>friend of mine (a personal friend, whom I could name, not a friend of a
>friend of someone who heard of someone) punched out after a hook-point
>failure during a carrier landing (aircraft grabs wire, slows down,
>hook-point departs aircraft, aircraft doesn't stop and dribbles off deck)
>when it became apparent to him (and his B/N) that it wouldn't fly.  Or so
>they thought.  After they both ejected, the plane flew in ground
>(water...) effect for awhile, climbed out slowly, then gradually rolled
>off on one wing and fell into the water.  No tail slide, just a little
>roll from too much flaperon trim, despite being about 1000 pounds (2
>aircrew, 2 seats) lighter in the nose.
>
>Surprising, I admit, but true.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military