HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: FWR100@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: The A-10
Date: 14 Dec 92 15:39:07 GMT
 <1992Dec5.070700.18616@news.columbia.edu> <1992Dec12.205009.10601@cs.mun.ca>
 <78250@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <78250@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gt8303a@prism.gatech.EDU (The Great and
Mighty Confused) says:

>                                            The other point I wanted to
>address was the compatibility of the attack helicopter and the A-10.  Load-
>bearing capabilities aside, there are a few other advantages which belong to
>the A-10.  A helicopter makes a distinctive sound (BVI - I'm working on
>cutting it down), whereas the A-10 is nearly silent over 10 thousand feet.
>The altitude difference between the two also has its sides.  A helicopter's
>performance degrades as it gains altitude because the air gets thinner and
>the rotor blades have less air to "pull" on.  The A-10 on the other hand,
>suffers no appreciable loss of ability as it climbs.  Thus it prefers to
>remain as high as it can while attacking.  This helps the pilot to avoid
>ground fire, the most common cause of pilot "retirement" in a combat
>situation.
>A helicopter usually attacks from lower altitudes, subjecting itself to more
>danger from its target(s).

Sure, this is all true, but there's a little problem: SAMs.  If the A-10 is
flying anywhere near a battle area at 10,000 feet, it's going to be greeted
by a Surface to Air missile.   Considering that the US Navy took out a
destroyer(!) with a SAM, _no_ armor is going to save you from that.  Any
aircraft (A-10, F-16, Helos, etc.) near the battle area has to stay low or
it's life expectancy is very short.

The A-10 was designed for this, though.  It has been designed to be shot at
repeatedly and still fly.  The whole rationale behind using the F-16 for CAS
was that the missile threat was too high, and the A-10 would be exposed to
missile fire for too long.  The F-16 is supposedly fast/maneuverable enough
that it can evade these missiles...to have that one big engine right in the
center of the underbelly catch some anti-aircraft rounds.

The basic concept is - fly high, get shot with SAMs, fly low, get shot with
AA.  In the Gulf, we did enough SAM suppression to keep this from being a
problem, and were able to fly above the AA.  Had we been less successful with
the SAM killing, a _lot_ of F-16s would have been lost to ground fire.

Of course, this is just my opinion, all facts subject to review (though I
think I've got them right this time...)

-Frank
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri)
Subject: Re: "Fake" MiGs (was Re: PEARL HARBOR)
X-Posting-Software: GNUS 3.14.1 [ NNTP-based News Reader for GNU Emacs ]
Reply-To: ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu
X-Signature-Virus-Protection: Version 1.51
X-Get-A-Clue: Have two, they're small.
Organization: 3WA, Boston Office. Or Nu Meta Chi. Take your pick.
	<RATINOX.92Dec14115306@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
	<1992Dec14.191716.6838@olaf.wellesley.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:34:11 GMT

>>>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:17:16 GMT, lhawkins@annie.wellesley.edu (R.
>>>>> Lee Hawkins) said:

>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

Lee> Err... NO.  All the NASA birds are T-38's.

Umm... actually, you're right. I sit corrected :-).

BTW, is NASA actually using SR-71s as chase a/c, or are the few they
acquired just collecting dust in a hanger?

--Rat
||||| | | | |  |  |  |   |   |    |    |    |   |   |  |  |  |  | | | | | |||||
Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat          ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu
I'm the best there is at what I do.  Trouble is, what I do isn't very nice.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: The A-10
From: David_Martin@kcbbs.gen.nz (David Martin)
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:23:47 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

>(ATX?).  Given the existing A-10 requirements:
>
>        * huge loading for bombs and anti-tank missiles.
>        * survivability from ground fire.
>        * long loiter.
>        * low-level, slow-speed manoeverability.
>        * A Big Gun.
>        * low procurement cost  (The A-10 was always a cheap program).
>
Given the way the Air force seems to work they will probably make an 
aircract that has
    * Complete stealth qualities
    * Requires fly by wire
    * Masses of electronics
    * Pathetic weapons load

But I doubt it :-)
All those points you raised above seem to be very valid-especially the 
gun.  I heard alot ot people a while back knocking the Avenger cannon 
because it saw little or no service in the Gulf War with missiles taking 
out most if not all of the targets.  I still beleave the cannon is an 
essential part of the aircraft (remember the militaries stance on aircrafts 
cannons back in the 60's?) and maybe in another time/theatre the Avenger 
will more than prove it's worth.

On the subject of air-frames...how long has the A-10 been around?  Surely 
it wouldn't suffer from severe fatigue as it isn't always being used 
for any maneouvers that stress the plane and all the beefing up of the 
armour and stuff must strenghten the whole body even more...?

Cul8r...
David Martin
David_Martin@kcbbs.gen.nz
From: merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Bay area warbirds
Date: 11 Dec 1992 22:13:06 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuro.usc.edu

>>Just south of Moffet is Onazuka Air Force Base, which consists of nothing
>>more than a building and a bunch of satellite dishes.  Rumor has it that
>>this is one of the most secure air force installations despite being in
>It's popularly known as the "Blue Cube". They control most (all?) of
>the US's spy satellites according to published reports. I believe
>there is another alternate control center (Colorado? maybe). 

Verry interesting.  Has anyone from the public ever managed to get a tour
of the 'blue cube' facility?  Do the antennae move regularly (i.e. tracking
low altitude satellites) or do they remained fixed (tracking geostationary
satellites)?  If indeed, the antennae do not move does the facility simply
collect data from sensor birds via TDRS (NASA & military tracking and data
relay satellites)?  With the new openness about previous cold war operations
perhaps facilities like the blue cube might be turned over to civilian use?
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: prm@genesis.ecn.purdue.edu (Philip R. Moyer)
Subject: Re: U-2 Gifs?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: 14 Dec 92 13:51:51 GMT

erik@tera.com (Erik Hedberg) writes:
>I can't get alt.pictures.*, how about the skunk-works archive at
>harbor.ecn.purdue.edu (/pub/skunk-works/pic).  They already have some
>nice SR-71, F-117, and F-107 GIFs there.

Well, I maintain that archive (and the skunk-works mailing list), so if
you've got interesting pics, let me know and, as long as disk space holds
out, I'll put them out there.

Cheers,
Phil
From: v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Military headsets --> civilian impedances
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:40:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

I have a military flight helmet and a headset that terminate in the standard
U-174/u four conductor plug, and would like to use them in civilian a/c and
other uses. I have seem matching cords to adjust the impedance from high
to low (civilian specs) for outlandish prices. I can only assume that the
cords have an extra few resistors and capacitors in line and that companies
are getting away with highway robbery. If anyone has a schematic of the needed
circuits, I would appreciate an e-mail copy or any suggestions how to find
an adaptor for the U-174 to the std 1/4 inch plugs (w/out spending $ 40.00)
Thanks ahead of time,

Peter Vasilion
v111qheg@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
KB2NMV@KE2VW.#WNY.NY.USA.NA
2/LT CAP NYW
From: oconnor0@ksg1.harvard.edu (ERIN O'CONNOR)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Float Plane in North East?
Keywords: Float training
Date: 18 Dec 92 16:30:18 GMT
Organization: Kennedy School of Government

I'm interested in getting float plane certification in the Boston area, but 
can't find anyone offering it. I'm a Canuck, and way up where I'm from, 
everyone offers it. Any info?

E.M. O'Connor

oconnor0@ksg1.harvard.edu
From: jskean@unlinfo.unl.edu (jonathan skean)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Past the speed of sound...
Date: 17 Dec 1992 14:35:21 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: all
NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu

eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:

>> Now I'm curious.  These propellors must have been relatively short,
>> with more blades, and/or spinning at a higher RPM?

>More or less, isn't this the same thing as a jet/turbofan that is
>used in supersonic aircraft today?  Maybe someone who knows about jets
>can enlighten us......

Until someone who REALLY knows comments, I'll take a stab.  I think
one of the tricks of designing a supersonic engine is controlling the
intake configuration so that the airflow to the compressor stage is
actually subsonic.  I think all the supersonic aircraft I've ever
seen have an intake area much smaller than the area of the compressor.
Of course, a lot of aircraft have variable intake geometry.  Other
folks my age may remember when pictures of the new F-104 always had
airbrush editing to conceal the cones in its intakes.  So, powerplant
engineers, what are the facts about supersonic compressor stages?
--
Jonathan Skean                     usenet: JSKEAN@UNL.EDU
502 Hamilton Hall                  bitnet: JSKEAN%UNL.EDU@UNLVAX1
University of Nebraska              voice: (402)472-2684
Lincoln, NE 68588-0304   USA          fax: (402)472-9402
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.products
From: jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown)
Subject: NiCad charge/recharge (was Re: Using a handheld ...)
Organization: Quarterdeck Office Systems, Santa Monica CA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 07:35:35 GMT

spencer.wbst129@xerox.com (Andrew Spencer) writes:
>However there wan an article in the past couple of months in the EAA
>magazine that said this procedure was necessary many years ago with
>the NiCads, but newer technology has eliminated the need to do this.

Most rechargeable batteries are still NiCads.  (Well, most are wet cells,
but I mean the kind you might have in your walkie-talkie.)  Far as I know,
NiCad "training" is still important.  There do exist chargers that
automatically discharge the battery before charging it, but I've only
seen them for expensive equipment.

There may be newer battery technologies that don't have the annoying
NiCad "memory", but they are not yet commonplace.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.products
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: Headsets for planes vs choppers
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:19:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.173701.1@cc.curtin.edu.au>, scostant@cc.curtin.edu.au writes:
|> 
|> Could someone suggest a headset that would be suitable for flying in a plane
|> and for use in a helicopter. I have always been under the impression that you
|> needed one for each (different requirements).
|> Cheers,


The David Clark H10-60 has a removable cord.  You can buy a second cord
with the desired plug and exchange the cord depending on which type of
plug you want.  A cheaper alternative is to buy an adapter plug that
converts one to the other.

-- 
***********************************************************************
 Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
 Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
 phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
From: leed@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Lee Devlin)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:42:08 GMT
Subject: Dick Rutan, Jeana Yeager, and the Microlon debacle
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Wilmington, DE
From: schayne@acs.ucalgary.ca (Stephen Hayne)
Subject: Re: GPS Products
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 19:31:25 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta


I have gotten hold of a publication titled "GPS World" (a monthly
trade rag - subscription is $59) that has lots of ads for "black box"
GPS.  All of these are capable of working for aviation (accurate, and
can handle high speeds).  In my previous post about connecting
Flightsoft's Moving Map to a generic GPS, we used the Motorola (an
older version).  I think that an "interesting" setup would be a
notebook with your favourite software (and Flightsoft's) that
connected to a "black box" GPS with external antenna.  Total cost
would be around $700 without the notebook.  And, you get to plan your
flights from ANYWHERE using interpreted DUAT (Flightsoft can connect
using your modem and insert the info directly into your flight plan),
besides using your notebook for "real" work at your destination.

I have NOT followed up on all this information, so standard disclaimer
applies!  Some of the "black box" info follows (some of these are OEM
and may not be easily avialable to the general public):

1) XR5 GPS receiver "black box" from Navstar - the 4x2.8x7.5 unit
weighs less than 1lb, updates once per second and has six parallel
channels in a DSP (L1 position and time sensor) with NMEA0183 output.
Works with range of antenna types.  Price approx. $500.

2) Navcore V GPS from Rockwell International, TX - the 5.5x3x2 (16oz.)
sensor includes RS-422 or RS-232 output that updates every second.
Power circuitry is available in 2.4-38V configurations.  Also has
NMEA0183 output, built-in patch antenna and reported time-to-first-fix
of 30 seconds, 90 seconds without current ephemeris, and 15 minutes
without initialization (downloading).  Price approx. $350.
(214)705-1702

3) GPS "black box" from Lowrange Tech., OK - uses Rockwell Navcore
(above), but is housed with antenna in a rugged, fully waterproof and
dry nitrogen filled case (20oz.).  Power consumption, 2.3W, 8-18VDC,
7x4.1x2.5.  Available to general public for $599.  (918)437-6881 or
(918)438-8578.

4) GPS "black box" from Motorola, IL - 6 channel receiver, 12VDC,
4x2.75x.65 (also includes remote antenna).  NMEA0183 and RS-232
output.  Price approx. $500.  (800)421-2477

5) GPS ceramic external antennae from Ball Aerospace, CO -
onmidirectional aizmuth coverage, hemi-spherical elveation and
right-hand circular polarization.  Price approx. $100.

-- 
Stephen C. Hayne, Assistant Professor, MIS, University of Calgary
    __!__       (403)220-7161    schayne@acs.ucalgary.ca
_____(_)_____   "I love to fly - my banker will verify."  BL30-GZJS
Xref: sparky rec.aviation.products:233 rec.aviation.ifr:468
From: ewv@craycos.com (Eric Varsanyi)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.products,rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: GPS Products
Date: 13 Dec 92 02:15:41 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <92Dec11.193125.21343@acs.ucalgary.ca> schayne@acs.ucalgary.ca (Stephen Hayne) writes:
>2) Navcore V GPS from Rockwell International, TX - the 5.5x3x2 (16oz.)
>sensor includes RS-422 or RS-232 output that updates every second.
>Power circuitry is available in 2.4-38V configurations.  Also has
>NMEA0183 output, built-in patch antenna and reported time-to-first-fix
>of 30 seconds, 90 seconds without current ephemeris, and 15 minutes
>without initialization (downloading).  Price approx. $350.
>(214)705-1702

The Navcore V requires a +/- 5V supply (you can make one from two
regulator IC's and a DC-DC convertor, that you can feed with 11-30ish volts).
You can optionally supply it with a 3V keepalive battery to improve TTFF
to the 30 second range from the 90 second range.

The I/O format is RS-232, but the electrical levels at HCMOS (0/+5). Rate
can be 9600 full duplex or 9600 input/76800 output, both methods use
8 bits, odd parity, 1 stop. 

TTFF is 12.5 minutes only on a cold-start (6 months since last use or
moved a large distance since last use), otherwise TTFF is between
30 and 90 seconds (90% probability). If you know where you are and
approximately what time it is you can bypass cold-start for a 90
second acquisition.

There is no antenna, this is a raw board with a power-I/O connector and
an RF connector (SMA).

The format is binary and conforms to no standard. Rockwell will not disclose
the format other than selling you the developement kit ($995). The format
uses non-standard floating point numbers which must be converted to
IEEE-754 (manual gives algorithm, only requires some shifts and logical
operations). Without the manual you will a really tough time
figuring out the format (it has checksums and headers on top of the
bizarre floating point format). I have the manual and would be happy to
describe this format to anyone who asks, there is no copyright notice
on it (I'm not willing to copy it verbatim).

Price:	$995 for developement kit (power supply for car, antenna, manual,
				AC power supply, serial cable, manual,
				PC based diagnostic floppy)
	
	$435 for board alone (with special power-I/O connector)
	$335 in qty > 100
	There is another version with lower temperature tolerances rumored
	to be on the way (1Q93) that will be between $50 and $100 less.
	(The current unit operates between -40 and +85 C).

>5) GPS ceramic external antennae from Ball Aerospace, CO -
>onmidirectional aizmuth coverage, hemi-spherical elveation and
>right-hand circular polarization.  Price approx. $100.

The passive Ball antennas on my price list are:
	Unpackaged, SMA			$18.75
	Unpackaged, SMA, Rgt Angle	$21.25
	Packaged (sealed) SMA		$25.00
	Packaged, TNC			$27.50
	Packaged, mag mount, with
		8' cable+SMA		$43.75


-Eric Varsanyi		Cray Computer		ewv@craycos.com, ewv@vars.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.products
From: km11480@medtronic.COM (Keith A. Meisel)
Subject: Re: Filtering Fuel Strainers
Reply-To: km11480@medtronic.COM
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:45:08 GMT


>>Does anyone have any experience with these fuel strainers which claim to
>>allow you to pour the fuel you drained back into the tank since they
>>filter out any "non-fuel contaminants" when the fuel is poured back?
>>
>>Do these really work?  Would you trust them?
>
>I'm very happy with Sporty's GATS jar.

I also purchased a Sporty's GATS jar, and am pleased with it's performance
so far (still alive anyways). We have experimented with the screen, and
found that after wetting the screen with fuel, it would hold back a 
great deal of water.  I also now use the screen to check for jet fuel
contamination, since it is so easy with the GATS.

While the petcocks end works well, the pin end of the sump actuator interface
could work better.  The pin seems way too long, and located offcenter from the 
fuel collecting orifice, so if you aren't very careful the fuel splashes out 
on top of the screen.  This could be trouble, since any water removed from 
the sump would be sitting on the *outside* of the screen, and would be flushed
 out of the screen and into..you guessed it.. your fuel tank when you dump the
 test sample back through the screen into the tank.  In these cases I will use
 the regular fuel sampler that I find with the plane to extract the fuel, then
 remove the GATS jar cap and dump the samples in.  After I have taken all my
 samples, I replace the GATS jar cap and pour the sample through the screen
back into one of the tanks.

I like the idea of using the GATS jar.  I wonder how much fuel (and raw sewage 
as well..but that's another topic) is dumped into the watertable within the 
confines of the airport boundaries?
boundaries?    
back through the screen 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.products
From: RandyL@MCES.MsState.Edu (Randy Loper)
Subject: GPS/LORAN information needed???
Organization: Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:20:20 GMT

Let me begin by saying that I am posting this message on behalf of a
friend, and I do not entirely understand what it is that I am asking.
So, if I ask something that doesn't entirely make sense, please forgive
me, and no flames please.

Anyway, the December issue of _FLYING_ magazine in the "REPORTING POINTS"
section states that the KLN 90 GPS navigation system by Bendix/King
became avaliable in September.  The article states that this model
combines GPS positioning with a "...worldwide Jeppesen NavData database."

For someone who might have one of these units or who might know the
answers to these questions, here goes...

What information does the database contain?

Does the database show ALL restricted airspace and frequencies of
the controlling agency for such restricted airspace (i e MOA's, etc)?

Does this system contain an alert feature for restricted airspace?

How is the database updated (magnetic cards, sent back to factory,
new rom chip, etc.)?

Any other pertinent information about the KLN 90 would be appreciated.

Also, if anyone has this same type information for the latest
Northstar LORAN and/or GPS units, that information would be
appreciated also.

Due to the fact that I do not ordinarily monitor this newsgroup, PLEASE
EMAIL responses to me at RandyL@MCES.MsState.EDU.

After December _18th_, my system will be shut down for maintenance
and MAY NOT be avaliable again until January.  Therefore, if you get
messages 'returned to sender', PLEASE mail them again to me in
January.  

Thanks a million....
From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.products
Subject: Re: Dick Rutan, Jeana Yeager, and the Microlon debacle
Date: 19 Dec 92 14:03:16 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy

In article <48270002@hpgrla.gr.hp.com> leed@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Lee Devlin) writes:

!Rutan told the Aviation Consumer he challenges Williams to
!try out this concept in his own aircraft by draining out all the oil on
!the ramp and then taking off and flying around the pattern 'just once'".

!I think that Bill Williams' behavior speaks quite convincingly against the
!validity of the Microlon claims.  I too, would like to see him fly his
!engine sans oil around the patch "just once" and perhaps we wouldn't
!have to listen to all the fantastic claims any more.

I'll be happy to act as a consultant on how to return to the runway
when the engine quits on take-off. For big bucks of course :-}=

Dave Rogers

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.products,rec.video
From: stephens@access.digex.com (John Stephens)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.products
Subject: Re: King KX-99 (was Re: Sporty's A300 transceiver)
Date: 16 Dec 1992 15:28:02 GMT
Organization: Severn Companies, Inc., Lanham, MD 20706
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1992Dec10.053910.11360@qdeck.com> jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown) writes:
[ deleted stuff re my earlier posting and plan to put a separate
external antenna on aircraft]
>
>Not really necessary.  King has an adapter for cheap ($15?) with two
>BNC males and a submini phone plug, and a cable with a submini male and
>a BNC female.  You break the cable going from the antenna to your panel
>radio and plug the antenna into one side of the adapter and the radio into
>the other, and mount the adapter on the panel someplace, either on the
>bottom or by drilling a couple of small holes.  Everything operates
>normally until you plug in the cable leading to your KX-99, which
>disconnects the panel radio.  That sounds fine, since presumably the
>reason you're doing this is that your panel radio is inop...
>
  [other stuff deleted -- but good info!!]

I have my C-172 on leaseback, and WILL NOT install the King antenna
connector.  Why? With the handheld plugged into the connector, the
connection between the normal comm and the antenna is broken.  If
you accidentally transmit, you will (eventually) fry the rf output
transistors in the comm unit.  I do not wish to risk this when the
plane is rented out to others.  If I were the only one to fly it,
then I would probably go this route.

I checked into the costs of an external antenna.  To do it with a
panel jack: approx $225.  To do it with a length of coax coiled in
the map pocket, about $175 (you save a couple of BNC connectors
and some labor). Will probably go with the coiled coax, terminated
in a standard BNC that will fit anybody's handheld.

Xref: sparky rec.aviation.products:255 rec.aviation.ifr:506 rec.aviation.misc:1078 rec.aviation.owning:288 rec.aviation.piloting:495