HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: THE A-10
Date: 6 Jan 93 07:59:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 

-> Indeed.  One of the biggest problems with this approach is training
-> enough pilots to man all these aircraft.  The current training cycle
-> takes more than a year, and costs a great deal of money, to turn out

I wonder if the training requirements of something like an A-10 which is
a VERY complex aircraft are so high because of the mission itself or
because of the systems in the aircraft and the complexity of the
aircraft itself. What were the training requirements to bring a P-47 or
perhaps a Skyraider pilot up to snuff versus an A-10 pilot?

And I am not trying to posit replacing the A-10 or F-16 with a "P-47" or
a clone of it. But it seems that there is a role for slower lighter
aircraft that some of the more sophisticated craft simply cannot perform
effectively. Especially now that we are entering a period where we are
no longer in a mad all out arms race with the Soviets. Offer the Army a
wing or two of their very own P-47s and tell them that their other
alternative is to rely completely on the Air Force for ground support.
Which do you think they would choose?

That's not intended as a slap at the AF. I suspect many AF pilots see
their role (regardless of mission statements) as control of the air. And
ground support is a poor second to air superiority. Perhaps I'm wrong,
but I suspect that if you chose a dozen AF pilots at random and asked
them would they rather fly ground support missions or air superiority
missions and the vast majority would chose air superiority. That's a
natrual attitude for a pilot who thinks he is God's gift to aviation.
Which any good pilot should believe anyway. <g>

The attitude that jets like the A-10 are naturally superior is like
saying that a car is superior to a bicycle. It depends on what you want
to use it for.

-> one pilot.  If you look at needing, say, 10 P-47s to deliver the same
-> amount of ordnance as one A-10, the pilot training cost gets very
-> high very fast.

Unless you happen to need weapons delivery in ten different places at
the same time and only have 1 A-10. If you're on the ground would you
rather have the P-47 overhead right now or a promise of an A-10 in 30
minutes or so when it finishes hitting those other 9 places before they
get to yours? I suspect the bad guys would tuck their heads down just as
far when a P-47 starts a run on them as they would when the A-10 rolls
in.

                                        Rocky
     
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: P51s are Shiny Metal
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:22:06 GMT

Alexandre Fortin <T726@music.mus.polymtl.ca> writes:

>Most of the USAAF fighters were left with there shiny metal finish
>because this lowered drag and gave speeds 20 to 30 mph higher than
>a camouflaged plane.

	Car buffs <ahem!> may recall that racing autos are often waxed
to reduce turbulence and improve airflow over the body.  As I recall, one
land-speed-record attempt picked up another five mph or so which was
attributed almost solely to having waxed the car.

	Then there's Mach 2+ flight, where the wax would certainly melt
and run off the skin due to friction forces heating it up.

	What is SOP today for Mach 1.5+ aircraft?  For that matter, were
aircraft maintainence crews given tubs of Turtle Wax to coat the planes
with back in World War II?

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter)
Subject: Re: Best fighterpilot ?!?!
Organization: Bull HN Informations Systems Inc.
Date:  5 Jan 93 21:27:11 GMT

skronkvi@aton.abo.fi (Stefan Kronkvist INF) writes:
>Who is the most successful fighterpilot in the history? The answer may be
>different depending on who you are asking.

True enough.  But note that "most successful" is not necessarily "best".
Erich Hartmann is arguably the "most successful", having a total of 352
victories.  "Best", on the other hand, could be argued from now till the
oceans freeze over :-).
-- 
Roger Ritter N1FZZ (R.Ritter@ma30.bull.com) PP-ASEL, AGI
1946 Luscombe 8A N71983 "Rocky"
Sheep do not so much fly as plummet!        NH CAP: Profile 49

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter)
Subject: Re: Best fighterpilot ?!?!
Organization: Bull HN Informations Systems Inc.
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:10:31 GMT

bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) writes:
>For instance, 18 March, 1945.  A bombing raid on Berlin, there were
>1,221 American heavy bombers escorted by 632 escort fighters (can you
>imagine a formation of 1,853 planes?!?).  The Luftwaffe put up 29
>sorties against this armada.  In the end, there were two Luftwaffe
>losses on this occassion with eight bombers shot down (Luftwaffe
>claims were for 12 bombers and one fighter).  The following day there
>were 45 sorties, six bombers lost for two Luftwaffe losses.  The 20th
>of March, 29 sorties, nine bombers shot down, four Luftwaffe losses.

>Can you imagine 632 Mustangs/Thunderbolts/Lightnings chasing after 29
>Messerschimitts?  And only getting two of them?

Well, yes, assuming that the Messerschmidts were Me-262 or Me-163 types.
And this late in the war, that may have been :-).

-- 
Roger Ritter N1FZZ (R.Ritter@ma30.bull.com) PP-ASEL, AGI
1946 Luscombe 8A N71983 "Rocky"
Sheep do not so much fly as plummet!        NH CAP: Profile 49

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: *** AF F15 Eagle/Strike Eagle vs. Navy F14 Tomcat ***
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 07:57:47 GMT

In <C0poyM.9F4@srgenprp.sr.hp.com> jeffc@sad.hp.com (Jeff Crowell) writes:

>F-14 has some significant advantages over the F-15:

> Track-While-Scan radar and associated Phoenix missile system can track
	[...]
> EW gear--it's been too long, I'm no longer current.

	Just sort of a shot-in-the-dark, but I seem to recall the F-14
radar could also send information to another F-14 arriving on station,
which for some reason was considered a Good Thing to do.  I thus have
to assume that radar data is stored for a decent period of time, and
possible intercepts maintained and updated on-board.  It makes
sense if you're flying CAP and there's civilian or unknown traffic about
you just wish to monitor, not target.

	Does this ring a bell with anybody?  I have no idea where I
heard this at, but I'm fairly certain it was in reference to the F-14.
I only remember this because I tried to figure out the data transfer
rate and was quite impressed.  If the F-15 doesn't have this, it might
be considered another advantage of the F-14, in certain circumstances.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: DC1/3
Date: 8 Jan 1993 06:00:12 GMT
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: obsidian.wpi.edu

In article <1712@tdat.teradata.COM> wbj@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com writes:
>What relationship (if any) is there between the DC1 & DC3 aircraft? I read/he
>at one time that the DC1 was the prototype to the DC3, and that few were built
>NONE are still flying. Is this true?

The DC-1 was designed as direct competition to the Boeing Model 247. It is
very similar to the DC-3 in appearance, excepting a narrower fuselage. There
were only a handful built. It could seat 14, and a sleeper version was built
too, I think it slept less than 14...

This was quickly followed by the DC-2, which was the real production model.
This was mainly a sleeper, and again 14 people. Douglas realise that they
could expand the fuselage and add another row of seats, making 21 total. This
and a few other modifications to the basic design were made. This design was
the most successful transport of all time, the DC-3. 12,00 - 13,000 being
built worldwide, including license production in Japan and Russia.

Even now companies are reengining the DC-3 with Pratt & Whitney PT-6 turbo-
props for continued life as the radials get too old. There is even a 
tri-motor conversion with a PT-6 grafted to the nose for higher performance
at high weight or hot conditions.

I'm pretty sure off those facts, but all are from memory. I did a paper last
term on the DC-3... I can get the exact specs and dates if wanted... 
Basically the DC-1 was a production aircraft, but it was passed by for the 
DC-2 immediately. In effect it did serve as prototype, or more of a proof
of concept aircraft.

>Also, I've seen photos of WWII era Dakota aircraft being used to spread chemic

The Dakota is the Enlidh name for the military DC-3.. In the US it was C-47
and C-53 (more power, etc..) The Skytrain/Skytrooper if I recall correctly.
VERY widely used, still inservice for Vietnam, famous as AC-47 gunships,
Puff the Magic Dragon...

###############################################################################
# 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: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: LANTRIN POD/F-16
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:29:42 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1993Jan8.160846.19559@cs.cornell.edu>, Taimur Khan writes:
|> Can any body clearify something for me?  From what I understand an F-16
|> can be fitted with a LANTRIN navigation and targetting pod for attack on
|> targets in the dark.  An F-15E I believe also has a LANTRIN pod.

 Actually, the F-16 was fitted with LANTRIN before the F-15E was. 


|> Range and payload considerations aside, does this mean that the Fighting
|> Falcon can strike targets just as accurately using laser guided weapons 
|> (e.g. GBU-24 glide bomb) at night or are there other features of F-15E
|> which make it more accurate.

 Any aircraft capable of using LANTRIN is capable of the same degree of
 functionality.  Pilot skill would be the only factor determining in
 acheived accuracy results.

 BUT...
 It is my understanding that the F-15E's used in the Gulf only had use
 of the Navigational functions of LANTRIN as the Targeting and Tracking
 functions were not yet operational.


|> Also, was the LANTRIN pod used on the F-16s during Desert Storm?

 I would guess so, though I haven't heard one way or the other.  While
 at General Dynamics, I've viewed hours of video of F-16s using LANTRIN.


 TRAVIS
 hhtra@chevron.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: marc@mercutio.ultra.com (Marc Kwiatkowski {Host Software-AIX})
Subject: Re: P51s are Shiny Metal
Organization: Ultra Network Technologies
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 21:37:30 GMT


In article <1i9otoINNi6t@transfer.stratus.com> kvk@questor.sw.stratus.com (Ken Koellner) writes:

>   On the topic of WWII fighters.  I always see p51s (in movies,
>   documentaries, models, pictures, museums, etc.) with an unpainted,
>   polished metal finish.  Most other fighter planes of that era, appear
>   painted (I seem to remember seeing some p-38s and p-47s shiny though).
>   Most of the navel planes are painted blue which makes sense.  A lot of
>   the fighters (p-40, spit, etc) are painted though.  Does anyone know
>   the criteria they used for deciding whether to paint a plane and what
>   color?

Hey, I can answer this, sort of.  The obvious reason is that a completely
painted plane weighs a bit more (If my memory is correct, I believe
@ 30lbs for a fighter).  The other reason was that in winter over 
northern Europe, forest camoflage didn't.  I heard an interview with
a P47 pilot on Our Century where he described mentioning in passing
to his ground crew that he had seen snow on the continent in his last
sortie.  The next morning his plane had been stripped of all paint.
He was telling the anecdote to demonstrate the dedication of his crew,
but it also gives at least one reason why paint was stripped.

Now, in pure conjecture mode, I imagine that in the European theatre
every pound counted for fighters flying bomber escorts.  Pilots probably
first discovered that they could dispense with paint in winter, and then
some probably chose to leave it off in all seasons, as they felt the weight 
savings more than offset the stealth.  In the Pacific theatre there
was no snow, fighters mostly flew CAS and carrier defense, not long distance 
bomber escorts, and had very little cover to hide in, so camoflage
was more important than weight savings. 

Finally, I think the bare metal scheme was just a U.S. Army Air Corp.
practice.  P-51s used by the RAF were painted in standard RAF camoflage.
It seems that USAAC squadrons had a lot more leeway than those of the US Navy,
the RAF or the Luftwaffe, as is evidenced by the ribald nose art and
variety of paint schemes employed by the former.  Even within the same
fighter group, USAAC planes often employed radically different schemes.  
Compare Gabreski's scheme for his P-47 (Messy looking grey on grey
top with bare metal under, and probably the rattiest looking invasion
stripes ever seen) with other planes in the 56th fighter group (bare
metal and olive drab). If anyone can comment more authoritatively on 
this I'd like to hear it.  











-- 
Marc P. Kwiatkowski                  /|/|            Ultra Network Technologies
internet: marc@ultra.com     \______/ | | W.A.S.T.E. 101 Daggett Drive
uucp: ...!ames!ultra!marc    / (__) \ | |            San Jose, CA 95134 USA
voice: 408 922 0100 x249             \|\|
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: ebstokes@uncc.edu (Edward B Stokes)
Subject: strike variant of F-14
Reply-To: ebstokes@uncc.edu
Organization: University of NC at Charlotte
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:48:40 GMT

I read somewhere (sorry, I forgot where) that there was a study some time ago about the possibility of replacing the F/A-18 with a modified F-14 (F/A-14?). It supposedly had greater speed, range, payload, etc. Has anyone heard anything about this?
From: v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: KC-10 Tankers for SR-71????? and quick Book Review
Date: 10 Jan 93 06:08:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan9.163732.26460@athena.mit.edu>, cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo) writes...
>I was recently reading a book, one of
>those techno-military books of tom clancy fame
>(Him and Stephen Coonts worked with the author, Harrison Payne)
>and in any case, the book was discussing
>a SR-71 flight deep over russia.  In mentioning
>refuelling, the KC-10 was the tanker.  I thought only KC-135Q's
>were used.  Were some KC-10's also committed to JP7???
>Anyway, the book is "Storming Intrepid" and is really good otherwise.
>I would recomend it (although this KC-10 thing has me wondering)
>to everyone. 
> 
>Summary:  The Russians Shuttle program sucks, they decide to capture an 
>American shuttle with SDI payload to get a double bonus, and all kinds of 
>interesting things happen. If you like military fiction like Tom Clancy, 
>this is at about the level of his work.

	As of August 1992, no KC-10's have been converted to carry JP-7.
The KC-135Q is the only aircraft capable of delivering the light oil
that the SR-71 burns. This from AF Colonel who is DO for 101st FIW.

Peter Vasilion
From: jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Was RADARs' impact on the Battle of Britain overstated?
Summary: ENIGMA was not so hot
Date: 7 Jan 93 00:48:43 GMT
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Organization: Statistics, Pure & Applied Mathematics, University of Adelaide

In article <1993Jan4.191812.25928@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> acura@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (james.r.feeney) writes:
>A friend was telling me about a book he read that described the exploits of the
>British code-breakers during WW2. One of the things he said was that this
>group had broken most of the German codes including the first generation
>ENIGMA by the end of the battle for France (a substantial amout of help came
>from anti-nazi German military personnel).

German Airforce traffic went by cable, at least in France. It was not broadcast
as Naval orders to submarines were. Therefore I have the greatest problem in
believing that ENIGMA had anything to do with the Battle of Britain. In fact
I have always though ENIGMA greatly overstated as some sort of compensation.
The British couldn't outfight the Germans, their Generals were much worse but
they did manage to read their codes. It is the only thing that saves them
from total humiliation in WW2. Thus I think it is all nine tenths propaganda.
Where ENIGMA was of use was with submarine traffic but as you could tell
where a sub was with Huff-Duff more or less immediately without spending
hours fiddling around I expect even here it was of no great use. I have
seen pictures of British Naval Destroyers with the Huff-Duff (that's High
Frequency Direction finding equipment) mounted *above* the Radar so the
British Navy obviously loved it.


Joseph Askew


-- 
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  Barbarian horns draw out the northern wind;
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu  Paler than water lies the Thistle Pass;
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  Sky swallows up the road to Kokonor;
One China One Korea One Eire32  Moonlight, a thousand miles along the Wall.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: dave@admiral.uucp (Dave Litchman)
Subject: Re: F-22 Question
Organization: The Admiral's Unix System & The Grid BBS
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 12:50:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.124740.22430@samba.oit.unc.edu> Andrew.Brooks@launchpad.unc.edu (Andrew Brooks) writes:
>In article <pierre-080193145737@mac-28.43.synopsys.com> pierre@synopsys.com (Pierre Wildman) writes:
>>Can anyone tell me the date of the F-22 prototype's
>>unfortunate demise?  Also, does anyone have a lead
>>on where I could get the video footage of the "landing"?

Demise? I remember seeing a news item (with footage of the incident) in which
the landing gear of the F-22 collapsed upon touchdown. Is this what you're
talking about? It didn't look too bad...

>
>Speaking of which, I borrowed a video on the XB-70 yesterday and it
>only contained footage of the crash site of XB-70-A2 and not of the
>collision itself.  However, I seem to remember people mentioning
>having seen this particular footage.  Does this footage exist?
>If so, is its availability restricted?  One would think that an
>aviation video on the Valkyrie would have included it if it were
>available.

The Discovery Channel's "Wings" did a show on the Valkyrie. They showed  
footage of the accident, although I think the camera was not trained 
directly on the Valkyrie when the plane got hit. But you get a pretty good 
view of the plane falling away from its escorts into the clouds below.
A real shame... The Valkyrie was a beautiful craft, IMO...


 
-- 
"Dr. McCoy, would you do me the very great honor of eating my shorts?" -Spock
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ray, when somebody asks you if you're a god, you say YES!" -- Winston Zeddmore
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: acura@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (james.r.feeney)
Subject: Re: Best fighterpilot ?!?!
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 14:53:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.191722.7674@rational.com> msmiller@Rational.COM (Mark Miller) writes:
>In article <BOWERS.93Jan5122043@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov>, bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) writes:
>|> In article <m0n9GwX-000QzKC@aton.abo.fi> skronkvi@aton.abo.fi (Stefan Kronkvist INF) writes:
>|> 
>|> ===========================================================================
>|> Erich Hartmann         352             WWII                Germany
>   [...]
>|> Han-Joachim Marseille  158             WWII                Germany
>
>From numerous things I've read, many in the Luftwaffe felt that
>Marseille was the most gifted natural fighter pilot who ever lived
>________________________________________________________________________
>Mark S. Miller                                     msmiller@Rational.COM
>"Life is a 4-letter word."                        msmiller@world.std.com
>[ insert tedious disclaimer drivel here ]                           IV-Q

I have a book written by Martin Cadin (sp?) about the Bf-109. In it he
talks about how Adolf Galland complained when the Bf-109f armament was
reduced to a single cannon and two cowl machine guns (from the Bf-109e two
wing cannon and two cowl machine guns). Galland complained that the more
compacted field of fire would hinder the newer pilots since it required
a more acurate aim even though the planes' performance was better. He went
on to say that the only pilot who would be happy was Werner Molders (sp?)
who Galland said was the best shot in the Luftwaffe. I believe Molders
was killed in a He-111 crash that he was a passenger in sometime in 1941.

Jim Feeney

From: tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:00:16 GMT
Subject: Re: MiG29 on TV
Organization: the HP Mtn.View Resp. Cntr.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

So I get E-mail from someone in the former USSR.

He says all the Russian pilots hate the defector  because he 
killed the guard...and sold state secrets...  

As I recall, the 60 min segment indicated that the guard was not killed,
and there was nothing said about the defector "selling" tactical info
on the MiG29.  

The main beef seems to be the way in which the pilot escaped..very embarassing
indeed...  Does anyone really think the former USSR would have given him
permission to leave on his own free will??? 

As for state secrets, leaving the SU potentially defenseless...give me a 
break... both sides have enough goddammed crap to blow each other off
the face of the earth 20 times over... I dont think getting tactical 
info on the MiG29 would ever change this fact..And I dont think that
in the event of conflict with the SU, in which US air power overcame
Soviet air defenses, that that would determine the outcome of the 
conflict...
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: Re: P51s are Shiny Metal 
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 19:09:13 GMT

In article <726220782snx@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz> mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell) writes:
>
>From '43 or so on the Yanks figured that they could save considerable 
>weight on their a/c by leaving them "polished".

>Who needs camoflage @ 24,000 feet with 10 mile long contrails 
>giving away your position anyway??
>
An owner-pilot friend of mine who is in his 60's was an infantry footsoldier
in the post-Normandy-invasion days of 1944.  He said that it was quite
a sight to look up and see the flashes of reflected sunlight off of the
Eighth Air Force bomber and fighter formations high overhead on sunny
days.  He said most of the grunts thought they'd rather be up there than
down in the mud, except when they would march by overlooks where they
could see miles of fields with the shiny wreckage of P-51's and Jugs
dotting the landscape.

Dan Masys
masys@nlm.nih.gov