HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette)
Subject: Re: The A-10
Reply-To: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette)
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 06:22:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.000451.23036@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>  
thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) writes:
> In article <1992Dec17.165306.14470@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>  
conan@northeastern.edu writes:
> >
> >>As an ex-air force type who flew 200 combat missions in VN
> >That means s**t, if you were any good you would be a career
> >air force type. Napalming unarmed civilians is probably all
> >you did.
> 
> conan, I owe you an apology.  

You don't owe any of these fast-talking USENET fools an
apology. These people are posers at best - when and if they
put their asses on the line for their country like you
already have they may earn the right to spout their
eloquent denunciations of your postings.  Not until
then.  You've been there - they read about it.  Fuck 'em,
especially that pathetic fool demeaning Northeastern
with his blathering. 

--
Nathan Janette
PPP link from hilbert.csb.yale.edu

Please reply to: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (NeXT)

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: prang@plato.ds.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja)
Subject: Movie Jets (was Re: PEARL HARBOR)
Organization: Boeing Defense & Space Group
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:51:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.025423.60@penet.fi> an1603@anon.penet.fi (Bastard Regiment) writes:
>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!
>
>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.

Calm down, boys.

Given the choice, would you rather there NOT be any new aviation films?
'Cause that's your choice.

Where do you suggest the movie makers GET the real MiG 29's?  Sure, the
Russians woould probably be willing to lease them out (NOW... the option
wasn't there for TOP GUN).  But probably not at a price the moviemakers
would be able to afford.  Historical accuracy doesn't sell movie tickets.
Look at MEMPHIS BELLE... probably the most accurate aviation movie made in
50 years.  Care to compare its box office with TOP GUN?

Why did they use F-4s for MiG-29s?  Because they found someone willing to
paint their Phantoms and fly them for the cameras, cheap.  My suspicion is
the Cal Air Guard, which has a long history of supplying aircraft for film
work... from P-51s (as BF-109s!) in FIGHTER SQUADRON to C-130s in RAID ON
ENTEBBE.

The alternatives... some sort of explanation in the plot line... are weak.
They've been used in some war movies, mostly the ground-based ones.  For
instance, I cringed when Lloyd Bridges as a Afrika Korps officer slapped the
fender of an M4 Sherman and affectionately called it a "Panther" in an
early '70s TV-movie... but I liked it even less when another movie went
through a long drawn-out explanation as to why the Germans were using
captured M-8 Greyhound armored cars....

So barring a source of available, cheap, actual aircraft, the moviemakers
are going to take what they can get.  Remember, 99% of the audience won't
know the difference (Did you know the Germans drove "Patton" tanks in
PATTON?) and with all the hassles of moviemaking, details like this are
easily dropped.  

So grin and bear it.  Remember, there are SOME advantages... where else are
you gonna see Cinemascope footage of those lovely old jets?

                                          Ron Wanttaja
					  prang@plato.ds.boeing.com

"I'm a son of Satan's Angels, and I fly the F-4D,
 all the way from Hanoi's railroad tracks to the DMZ
 I'm one of old Hoot Gibson's boys, and mean as I can be
 'cause I'm a son of Satan's Angels, and I fly the F-4D!" 


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: steve@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges)
Subject: Re: B-1s in Desert Storm - Why not?
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 18:38:34 GMT

stanford@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanford) writes:

>Why weren't B-1s used in Desert Storm?  USAF used F-117s and B-52s -
>why not give the B-1 a chance to prove itself (or was top brass too
>worried about losing them)?  Any ideas?

>Scott

From what I understand, although the B-1B is equipped to drop iron bombs,
the crews are not certified to do so.  In addition, keeping the B-1s on
nuclear alert frees up B-52s to drop conventional munitions.

Steve
-- 
Steve Bridges, Programmer/Analyst| NCR - Law Department, WHQ-5
steve@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM   ___| Phone:(513)-445-4486 622-4486 (VOICEplus)
Sci.military moderator        | "The airplane does not recognize attitude,
providing a maneuver is conducted at one G" -- A.M. "Tex" Johnston
From: JESTER@vax1.elon.edu (John Jester)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: B-1 Desert Storm
Date: 14 Dec 1992 03:46:02 GMT
Organization: Elon College
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: vax1.elon.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.22

I read in a previous article tht the B-1 did not have conventional bombing
ability.  I went and checked a couple of my books and they both say that
it can carry a good load of conventional bombs.  I was later backed up by 
a TV program"Wings" or "Brute Frorce" that said and showed the same thing.
I would contend that it was not a question of ability but of resources.  
They would not want to waste a good limited quantity aircraft on a small
conflict.
From: colangel@rebecca.JSC.NASA.GOV (Michael Colangelo/MDSSC)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Aircraft beauty contest  (Was Re: Advanced Tactical Fighter)
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:10:34 GMT
Organization: IGOAL

Has anybody nominated the WW I German Albatross (VIII, I think?)?  It has 
real smooth lines for its era.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: B-1s in Desert Storm - Why not? (Engine Story) 
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 09:13:43 GMT
Organization: Me? Organized?


In article <222@newave.newave.mn.org> john@newave.newave.mn.org writes:

  > > Weren't they also having engine troubles at that time?  I seem to 
  > > remember that the whole B-1B fleet was grounded for a while 'cos some 
  > > rotating part or other kept letting go.
  > 
  > I toured the jet engine shop at McConnel AFB just after Desert Storm.
  > According to the shop supervisor, McConnel is the primary center for repairing
  > the B-1 bomber engines.  They told me that all jet engines occasionally
  > have fan blades break or otherwise come lose.  The problem on the B-1 is

Yes - we had one of our freigter a/c "lose" an engine in this manner a 
couple of days ago.

  > that the engine case was slightly too thin, and the fan blades would exit

Both of our turbine failures have been fully contained within the 
engine.

  > the side of the engine.  The B-1 has two engines mounted next to each other,
  > so the fan blades would sometimes exit one engine, then enter the adjacent
  > engine causing very expensive damage.  Once this problem was isolated, the
  > USAF stopped non-essential flights of the B-1 (but they were still available
  > for alert status).  They did not want to lose an aircrew or an expensive
  > aircraft for a stupid reason.  A temporary fix was developed in about 45

This is known as "grounding the fleet", and is a common reaction from 
the military (who can't afford to buy replacements if something goes 
wrong) and the public (who dislike the thought of a/c engines falling 
apart @ 30,000 ft).

  > days, which allowed the B-1's to return to flight.  A long term fix is
  > being installed on all B-1's.  While they would not tell me what these
  > fixes are, they did tell me that the solution was to make the engine shrouds
  > a few thousandth's of an inch thicker.

A few is probably in the order of .050" or more!

  > 
  > The technicians at McConnel had just become fully qualified to repair the
  > engines on the KC-135R.  These planes have the new high-bypass GE engines.
  > One technician told me that they had yet to have one of the KC-135R engines
  > break, and the engines had no set maintenance interval.  Since they did
  > not have broken engines to work on, the were keeping in practice by working
  > on a new engine.  Everyone at McConnel was really impressed with this engine--
  > it was the one engine where GE really did everything right.

This is now common to modern jets.  I read in FLIGHT a year or so ago 
about a QANTAS B-747 engine that had gone to 13,000+ hours before it 
had to be pulled - can't remember the make of engine, but I think it 
had stayed on from delivery.



Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: aapo@niksula.hut.fi (A.J. Heijola)
Subject: Re: Aviation in the Movies (was Re: PEARL HARBOR)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:16:46


   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!

Right !!!

   -- Craig

Now, if anybody knows which movie it is, I would be interested to
know.

Can even reply by email to aapo@niksula.hut.fi
From: cstone@nodecg.ncc.telecomwa.oz.au (Charlie Stone 4915162)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SAAB J 21 (was Re: Ejection seats/capsules
Date: 21 Dec 92 02:24:49 GMT
Organization: Network Computer Centre, Telecom, Perth

In article <29687@castle.ed.ac.uk> ajpotts@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Potts) writes:
>msmith@crc.ac.uk (Mike Smith x3297) writes:
>
>>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.


 My recollection is that there was the minimum of changes made to the
 piston powered Provost to make it into the Jet Provost.  Photos of 
 early versions of the jet Provost still have the long undercarriage
 legs for prop clearance even though there was no prop.

 Charlie Stone.
 *******************************************************************
  											 
      My next trick is impossible;  Therefore I shan't attempt it.  
  											 
     C.Stone.    							 
     Perth, Australia.						      	
 *******************************************************************
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: BIG A/C ON CARRIERS (
Date: 13 Dec 92 11:57:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 

-> but late 1960's comes to mind. With respect to a C-130 using Jato,

When I was living it Alaska, it was at the beginning of the North Slope
oil development. We saw C-130s at the Fairbanks airport use Jato/Rato
assist several time when they were carrying VERY heavy equipment loads.
By the time they got to the landing areas, they had burnt off enough
fuel but they needed the boost to get some of those equipment loads off
the ground apparently. Though I never saw it, we heard that they were
often used up on the North Slope to get heavy loads off the rather
primitive airfileds up there.

                                        Rocky
From: prince@fund.omsk.su (Rustam Kh. Yusupov)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Aircraft beaty ... P38 ( Yak ...)
Date: 19 Dec 92 06:43:58 GMT
Reply-To: prince@fund.omsk.su
Organization: Omsk Property Fund

to  Al Crawford :

>Wasn't the Yak-11 a 2-seat trainer (as if single seat trainers were
>commonplace) based on a Yak-9 airframe with a radial engine? I was sure the
Yes

>"take a Yak-9 and bung in a Jumo" was the Yak-15.

Yak-15 = Yak-3(with shortest wings) + Jumo engine.
Yakovlev said about this in his book "Tsel jizny" ("Target of life")

  Rustam

Property Fund of Omsk
prince@fund.omsk.su
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: cpetersn@iastate.edu (Clifton R Peterson)
Subject: Re: Aviation in the Movies (was Re: PEARL HARBOR)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 10:06:52 GMT

In <viking.724409883@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell) writes:

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

>	The movie title is "The Final Countdown" for those who wish to
>spend a buck and rent it.  The scene with the F14's dogfighting Zero's
>is certainly worth the dollar it cost you.

"Permission granted to splash the zeros!"  <g>  certainly my favorite part
of a thouroughly enjoyable film, poor landing sequence and all.


-- 
 _________________________________________________________________________
/ Clifton R. Peterson    1108 Burnett		(515)232-5254	    	  \
| B.S. Chem E            Ames IA  50010                                   |
\_______________"42"_is_one_hell_of_an_answer!!___________________________/
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: colangel@erin.JSC.NASA.GOV (Michael Colangelo/MDSSC)
Subject: Re: Snatiy check... err, Sanity check :-) :
Organization: IGOAL
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:09:16 GMT

Hey guys and gals,
let's cut the crap with this "I'm better than you" stuff.  If anything, it's immature.
As I understand it, rec.avaition.military is for fun, hence the "rec." in the group
title. 

Thanks,
       Mike

P.S.  To the person who works at NASA Dryden: Your ranting and raving and claiming
you're an expert because you work at a NASA facility looks bad.  I work at NASA JSC
and don't appreciate your using the NASA title to feed your ego.
From: nyo@dcs.exeter.ac.uk (Neil Youngman)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SAAB J 21 (was Re: Ejection seats/capsules (was Re: B-1B))
Date: 15 Dec 92 09:12:52 GMT
	<ByrqAt.HAw@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz> <1992Dec7.214151.2827@den.mmc.com>
	<1992Dec8.070307.8200@julian.uwo.ca>
	<1992Dec9.010737.17315@den.mmc.com> <urf.723883624@sw2001>
	<29437@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Computer Science Dept. - University of Exeter. UK

In article <29437@castle.ed.ac.uk> ajpotts@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Potts) writes:


   urf@icl.se (Urban F) writes:

   >It was called J 21 R. 'R' for 'Reaktion' which is what 'jet' used
   >to be called in Swedish at that time.

   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...

   AJP

Excluding of course the Percival Provost trainer, which became the
Jet Provost and was exported to many countries as the Strikemaster.
I don't know whether the piston engined version ever carried
weapons, but I believe the Strikemaster saw action in the middle east.
Sorry SAAB!

Neil
--
Eighteen Plus - THE NATIONAL ACTIVITIES ORGANISATION FOR YOUNG ADULTS
		For your nearest group ring 0531 821210 (UK)
This message the sole responsibility of Neil Youngman
nyo@uk.ac.ex.dcs		nyo@ex-dcs.uucp
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: steve@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges)
Subject: Re: Mustang Family
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 02:00:33 GMT

gunter@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt) writes:

>While we are on the subject of beautiful aircraft, how about variations within
>the family?

>Wheras the P-51 Mustang might be an attractive aircraft, consider the P-82C
>Mustang! A horrible mutant, two fuselages joined, but sporting a huge erection
>(SCR-720 radar pod) that extended from the wings to past the props! Luckily only
>one was made before they castrated it and it became a P-82B

Don't forget the PA-48 Enforcer -- a CAS aircraft built by Piper (at least
I remember the data plate said PA-48) that was based on the P-51 airframe,
but powered by (if I remember right, a PT-6 turboprop).

I saw one at the USAF Museum Annex, and the Piper data plate is on there.
I've been tempted to call them up and say I want to buy a PA-48! :-)

Oh yeah -- this was built, I think 10 years ago or so.

Steve
-- 
Steve Bridges, Programmer/Analyst| NCR - Law Department, WHQ-5
steve@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM   ___| Phone:(513)-445-4486 622-4486 (VOICEplus)
Sci.military moderator        | "The airplane does not recognize attitude,
providing a maneuver is conducted at one G" -- A.M. "Tex" Johnston
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin)
Subject: Re: SAAB J 21 (R) and J 29 "Flying Barrel"
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:09:39 GMT

In article <urf.724085737@sw2001>, urf@icl.se (Urban F) writes:
|> ajpotts@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Potts) writes:
|> 
|> [J 21 (R)]
|> >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...
|> 
|> But the J 29 was a _good_ aircraft, which not only took some speed
|> records for 500 and 1000 km closed circuits: It is also one of the
|> very few Swedish-designed aircraft to be used in combat, both in
|> fighter-ground attack and reconnaissance versions.
|> 
|> (Besides, I like the look of it!)
|> --
|>  Urban Fredriksson  urf@icl.se  

When, where and by whom was the J 29 used in combat?  The "Tonnen" was
a unique aircraft and it's performance was indeed quite good, 
possibly the best European fighter aircraft of the day when it was new.

If you want some really wierd-looking early jets, look at the very
earliest Yaks and Migs, some of which were tail-draggers.  The engines
were podded in the lower, forward fuselage with a short jet pipe
emerging just behind the wind trailing edge and below a boom rear fuselage.

I think that the SAAB Lansen (JS 32?) was the most handsome of SAAB's products,
and very good aircraft also.  It looks sort of like a big brother to the
T-33 (which I think has a classic shape).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Corvin 	      PP-ASEL, PP-G		zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com
just another spaced rocket scientist at    Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============    My views, not Martin Marietta's   ========================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Re: The A-10
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:25:30 GMT

In article <9212151339.AA01791@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil> davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil writes:
>
>Just seeing what I can stir up...
>
>In <1992Dec15.010534.20195@watson.ibm.com> wjc@dss1.austin.ibm.com
>writes:
>
>>Armor is nice, but airspeed = altitude = options.
>
>>Bill "Speed is Life" Collum
>
>Exactly.  So, I can I assume this is another vote for the F-16 over the A-10
>for CAS?  [:)]


In all this talk about armor vs speed, etc, the focus is on the survivability
of the airplane and crew.  Important, especially if you are the crew, but NOT
the primary consideration in CAS.  Close Air Support is exactly that. Close.
You have to be calm, cool, and good.  And you have to have a delivery platform
that ensures the utmost accuracy. Miss by very much and you kill the good guys.
Speed is life for the pilot, but it detracts from accuracy, and inaccurate CAS
is worse than no CAS at all.

When avionics and fire control develops to the point where we can pinpoint the
weapon from any altitude at any speed, or better yet, provide standoff CAS,
then the argument has merit.  We're not there yet.  Right now, if I'm the guy
on the ground, and understand what's going on, I'd rather have a Hog overhead
every time.

                 |
                /O\
      \_______[|(.)|]_______/
        o   ++   O   ++   o
From: 92vanatter@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Information needed on NBC Equipment
Date: 12 Dec 92 14:45:31 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University


Hello,

I am doing research on NBC equipment used in different military 
aircraft.  I am most interested in personal equipment for pilots and 
crew-members.

If someone has any information that they would like to pass along, 
please e-mail me back. (even if you can only tell me where to go to 
get the information!)

Thanks 

Dion VanAtter
Western Michigan University

92vanatter@gw.wmich.edu


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: conan@northeastern.edu
Subject: Re: The A-10
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:53:06 GMT

thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) writes:

>I don't drink coffee.
>I don't have a cat.
>I HATE cornflakes.
>I NEVER check my ego, anywhere, anytime.
>To quote CBS News, I stand by the original story.
 
OOOOOOOOOOOOH! John Wayne lives. Please dont slap us around.
We will clean your shoes. Yeah right!!!

>As an ex-air force type who flew 200 combat missions in VN
That means s**t, if you were any good you would be a career
air force type. Napalming unarmed civilians is probably all
you did.
>those who have an intimate familiarity with close air support
If you were any good at anything you (and same goes for other
self appointed net god/godess) you would not have the time to harras
and put people down on the net. 
C
C
self appointed net gods)you would not have
the time to waste on us morons.


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military