HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gt8303a@prism.gatech.EDU (The Great and Mighty Confused)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: The A-10
Date: 15 Dec 92 00:11:43 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <92349.103907FWR100@psuvm.psu.edu> FWR100@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>In article <78250@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gt8303a@prism.gatech.EDU (The Great and
>Mighty Confused) says:
>
>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

Thus the idea of a coordinated attack force (Wild Weasels, F-16s, high-altitude
bombers, A-10s) comes into play.  The A-10 can carry some of the most 
sophisticated jamming and countermeasure equipment to help deal with the threat
of SAMs, while other planes can knock them off singly or in groups.  My point
is that the USAF will be (and is, from what I have heard at work) making a
big-time mistake if they mothball the A-10.  If they don't like the fact that
they are used to support Army ops, why don't they transfer them to the Army,
and take care of whatever legislation may obstruct such a change?  I'm sure
the Army would like to see the A-10 remain on active duty.

Andy


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: pscotto@MtHolyoke.edu (Peter J. Scotto)
Subject: Query: Pzl 24
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:38:03 GMT


Xref: sparky rec.aviation.military:1231 sci.aeronautics:2579
From: levchik@icomm.rostov-na-donu.su (Levchik Vasily Anatolievich)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military,sci.aeronautics
Subject: About >3M planes
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 17:32:57 +0300
Distribution: world
Organization: InterCommunications LTD
Reply-To: levchik@icomm.rostov-na-donu.su

	It was my little question for all (I know answer):

>  	What ordinary manned turbojet plane(s) could achieve more than 3M, 
>  besides wellknown XB-70, SR-71, F-108 (did it fly?) and MiG-25/31 ?
>
>  "Ordinary" plane means - with independent start and landing, without help 
>  of larger one. 

	My answer:

	This is Sukhoi's experimental machine Su-100 (T-4 ?). During the 
test flights since 1972 it achieved 3.2 M. The article about this secret
in past plane has been published in our popular magazine "Kryliya Rodiny"
at '90 or '91.
	I observed it myself in Monino museum. It is smaller Tu-144 look 
alike, but has been constructed only with titanium.

	THX,



-- 
Vasily A. Levchik             | E-mail: levchik@icomm.rostov-na-donu.su
Rostov-on-Don Relcom node     |     postmaster@icomm.rostov-na-donu.su
InterCommunications LTD       |Phone :+7(863-2)342200


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Fake planes (WAS Re: PEARL HARBOR)
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 10:12:45 GMT


The ultra-stupid 'Iron Eagle' films have IMHO the worst case of fake planes
depicted:

In the first movie, 'Mig 23's" were actually Israeli Kfir's (Israeli built
Mirages).  These were flown by a fictitious Arab country, but the bogus
markings merely looked like doctored Stars of David.

The F-16's shown were of course real, and were supposed to be American,
but their paint job was clearly desert camoflage (US F-16's are grey) with
bogus USAF tail numbers stuck on the tails.
The second movie was even worse, the same F-16's with the wrong painr and
sickle insignia added, as another user mentioned in a 'Magnum PI' episode.
I'm not 100% sure of this, but I think one or both movies was filmed in
Israel, which would explain the desert paint scheme on the F-16's as well
as the Kfir's in the first movie.
Top Gun:
  F-5's became 'Mig 28's"  (no such thing as an even numbered Mig!!)
Supercarrier (Stupid Carrier)
Short lived series on ABC, spring 1988:
  In one episode an F-16 becomes a Mig flown by a defecting pilot, who
  tries a carrier landing but ends up ditching.
Airwolf (CBS 1984-85, cable 1986-87)
  Every time the helicopter was attacked by enemy aircraft, the same
  four-abreast formation of planes attacked in every episode. These planes
  looked like 1950's era jet fighters.



That's all I can think of now!  Hope I haven't flamed anyone's favorite
movies or TV shows! :-)

Simon

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Re: The A-10
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:02:38 GMT

In article <viking.724529948@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) writes:
>
>> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
>>>	Somehow, it sounds like the best CAS weapon we could field would be
>>>a P-47 Thunderbolt, and maybe an few P-38's with chain guns under the
>>>nose for those pesky armored targets.
>>>	Considering how cheap an old piston fighter would be to produce and
>>>maintain compared to the jets of today, this might be worth kicking
>>>around as a CAS idea.
>>>	It also has the side benefit of giving us great Army surplus!
>
>>Are you interested in an honest discussion of the issue and the opinions of
>>those who have an intimate familiarity with close air support, or would you
>>rather just engage in a smartass contest to see who can post the cleverest
>>put-down?
>
>	Not had your coffee yet, or did the cat whiz in your corn flakes?
>Get that first cup of coffee in you, check your ego at the door, and read
>my article again.  I've included it for your reference.  There was
>absolutely nothing in there that could be remotely construed as a put-down,
>and furthermore the only joking comment was about surplus.


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.

TH
From: asp+@pitt.edu (Anandeep Pannu)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Bf 109 (was Ejection seats/capsules)
Date: 20 Dec 92 15:45:18 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Dec15.015848.18995@den.mmc.com> zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin) writes:
>
>In its later versions the FW-190 (Ta-152) was probably the best all-round
>German fighter.  Kurt Tank is said to have easily shot down two P-51D's 
>that attacked him during a test flight (he was the chief designer).  An
>interesting aside about Tank - in the sixties he was in India consulting
>on the indigenous design for the supersonic Hindustan Aircraft Industries
>Marut fighter (Hf-24, I believe).  Development continued into the seventies,
>with better engines being considered, but by then it was a dated design.
>I don't know much about its service history.
>
> 

The HF-24 Marut entered service with 3 Squadrons of the Indian Air Force
(Nos 10, 222 and 221 Sqn) and served for about 10 years. It was a good 
aircraft to fly and would have been a very effective but for its engines.
These were Bristol Orpheus 1 engines (non afterburning). The actual deal was
that the Marut would use the Bristol Orpheus 2 engines that the TSR 2 aircraft
that the British were developing used. But the TSR2 was cancelled and so no 
actual engine production took place, resulting in the Marut being underpowered.

The HAL factory tried all kinds of engine combinations but none seemed to work.
The Marut was a success as a ground attack aircraft and was used extensively 
during the 1971 Indo-Pak War. The pilots called it a "twin engined Hunter".

Anandeep Pannu


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: 841613t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Don Tyzuk)
Subject: Spitfires all round! (was Re: The A-10)
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:00:41 GMT


>thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) writes:
>> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:

>>>	Somehow, it sounds like the best CAS weapon we could field would be
>>>a P-47 Thunderbolt, and maybe an few P-38's with chain guns under the
>>>nose for those pesky armored targets.

Cool.  I think that for air superiority we should all be given
Spitfires!  They're cheap enough to give to everyone. 

Dan: If you start an air force, I'll be your armologist! Just
make sure I get my very own Spitfire...

:-)
--
Don		don.tyzuk@acadiau.ca
From: gopal@cirrus.com (Gopal Ramachandran)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SU-29
Date: 12 Dec 92 02:54:20 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.

In article <990.417.uupcb@the-matrix.com> rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) writes:
>I just recently read an article on the Sukhoi-29 aerobatics plane that
>is being produced in Russia. It talked about some of it's history and
.....
>address (snail mail or Internet) for the Sukhoi Design Bureau. I'd love
>to write them for more info on it.

The sole worldwide agent for this airplane is the Pompano Aerobatic
Center in P-Beach, Florida. Call Brian Becker or Clint McHenry at
305-943-6050. Buying one is like a getting a home mortgage ($300K?).
Much as I'd love one, I think a $60K Pitts S-1S is what I'll have to stick
to.

Gopal


-- 

Gopal Ramachandran <gopal@cirrus.com>
UUCP:  uunet!cirrus.com!gopal
Cirrus Logic Inc, Fremont CA  PH: (510)-226-2138 FAX: (510)-226-2160
From: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Info needed on Pzl 24 
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 06:23:19 GMT
Organization: Me? Organized?


In article <BzC0xI.5Kq@mtholyoke.edu> pscotto@MtHolyoke.edu writes:

  > 
  > 
  > Can anyone tell me where I can find some detailed information
  > on the Pzl 24?  As far as I know, it was a Polish-built, high- 
  > wing monoplane fighter that saw action during the WWII.  There
  > are several pictures of it in the Squadron-Signal book on the
  > air war in Greece, but that's all that I have.
  > 
  > Any leads would be appreciated.

Ohh, it was a long time ago now, and the references are no longer in 
my library, but I seem to remember the PZL 24 was the ultimate 
development of the PZL-7 and -11 family (high gull-wing, radial 
engine, fighter), with enclosed cockpit, retractable undercart, and a 
cannon armament.  Mostly produced for export.


  > 
  > 
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: watk@cbnews.cb.att.com (e.l.watkins)
Subject: Re: Movie Jets (was Re: PEARL HARBOR)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:00:40 GMT


>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.
>

Actuall I believe all the flying was done by the Isrial AF.
-earl
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: urf@icl.se (Urban F)
Subject: Re: Info on NAVY jet called "Cutlass"
Organization: None. On USENET I speak only for myself.
X-Alt.reply-Address: n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 12:35:14 GMT

m05751@foxtrot.data.st.statoil.no (Bjorn Hell Larsen) writes:


>   Still, the pilots considered the
>  Cutlass to be so unreliable that they routinely performed their
>  takeoffs with the canopy open.

Wasn't that done with all carrier take offs and landings before
zero-zero ejection seats?
--
 Urban Fredriksson  urf@icl.se  
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: wjc@guardian.austin.ibm.com (Bill Collum)
Subject: Re: The A-10
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:44:18 GMT
Organization: IBM, Austin

>In article <9212151339.AA01791@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil> davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil writes:
>>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?  [:)]
>

Neither is optimal. The 'hog is armored like a battelship, and
just about as fast. The F-16, however, is at its heart an
air-to-air knife fighter, and is probably too fragile to survive
long when fighting "down and dirty" (regardless of its speed and 
gee-whiz electronic warfare gadgetry). 

Maybe if we traded some F-16 payload for a BIT of armor so the
pilot can at least pretend he has a chance (one can get to
feeling pretty naked under that great huge fish bowl of a
canopy when watching tracers whiz on by)? How about an afterburning 
A-10 (stranger things have flown)? 

(Note: The preceeding 2 statements contained "HUMOR".) 

Seriously though, why not just start over and do it right this time. 
Why CAN'T we have a fast (transonic?) CAS A/C with the ruggedness of 
the Warthog (and keep a bit of a strategic industry alive at the
same time)?
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: stout@cis.Stanford.EDU (Susan Stout)
Subject: Re: Info needed on Pzl 24
Organization: Center for Integrated Systems, Stanford University, California
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 01:15:32 GMT


>>
>Peter J. Scotto writes:
>#Can anyone tell me where I can find some detailed information
>#on the Pzl 24?  As far as I know, it was a Polish-built, high-
>#wing monoplane fighter that saw action during the WWII.  There
>#are several pictures of it in the Squadron-Signal book on the
>#air war in Greece, but that's all that I have.
>#
>#Any leads would be appreciated.
>

>J. W. R. Taylor's book is very general.

There is an excellent article in Air Enthusiast #28, 1985:  
"The Era of the Gulls, an Account of the PULAWSKI fighters
from the Pzl 1 to the Pzl 24".

Also, Profile Publications #170, The PZL P-24, Profile Publications,
Ltd., 1969.

Both contain histories and particulars, including general
arrangement drawings, color 5-views by P. Castle in the Profile
publication and color side views in both.

Both publications go into greater depth that Taylor's book.

One P-24 still exists and is preserved at the TUAF museum at
Yesilkoy Airport, Istanbul, Turkey.

Susan Stout
Integrated Circuits Lab
Stanford Univ.
From: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Aircraft beauty .. P38 
Distribution: world
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 06:36:38 GMT
Organization: Me? Organized?


In article <AAcvMAhK_6@fund.omsk.su> prince@fund.omsk.su writes:

  > >Russian A/C were fairly good by all accounts - once they decided that
  > >all they really needed was low-medium altitude fighters and ground
  > >attack types.  The later LaGG aircraft (-5FN, -7, -9) could
  > >outmanouvre all common German fighters, and the Yaks were no slouches
  > >either.

  > If I not mistaken You talk about La (Lavotchkin) aircraft, not LaGG.
  > We has Lagg-1,Lagg-3, but La-5FN and other...
  > 
Yes, you are right, as may be expected :-).

LaGG = Lavochkin-Gorbunov-Gudkov, and should only be applied to the 
LaGG 1 & 3.  The others are attributed to Lavochkin only - mea culpa.

Interestingly - the "West" only found out about the ultimate La-series 
piston engined fighter, the La-11, AFTER it had ceased production - 
when a young Soviet pilot got confused and landed one in Sweden in 
1949.

Someone mentioned in another thread about early Soviet jets, with the 
engines podded under the front fuselage, and how some may have been 
taildraggers - the Yak-11 fits this bill - it was essentially a Jumo- 
004 put in a Yak-3 airframe!



Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: wjc@dss1.austin.ibm.com
Subject: Re: The A-10
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 01:05:34 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.15 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: wjc@dss1.austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

In <9212111550.AA14705@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil> davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil writes:
>If a hit on a helo takes the pilot out, at least you have the option or
>illusion of being able to transfer control.  Take the pilot of an 
>A-10 out and I guarantee a "real-estate transaction".
>
>And there's probably more time to handoff in a helo at 50-150 knots 
> than a (2-seat :)  ) tac jet at 300-500 knots low level.

In my original post, I was trying to make the point that rotary wing 
aircraft (in general) require an "active pilot". If a non-lethal hit 
is made on the pilot of a (one or two seat) fixed-wing mud-mover 
flying "zero feet at the speed-o-heet", the instinctive reaction 
would be to pitch up, trading some of that airspeed for an altitude 
cushion while attempting to sort out the cockpit damage. For many 
seconds, the aircraft can "fend for itself", not requiring active 
guidance from the pilot. Wether or not the aircraft continues 
effective, departs the area, or impacts the ground depends on 
(1) the severity of the pilots injury and (2) the pilots ability to 
cope with shock, surprise, pain, blood-loss, etc. In family-models,
the period while the jet is balistic can be used to transfer
control to the back-seater, providing additional operational
options.

A helicopter, operating NOE at very low airspeeds is at a very low
energy state. A similar hit on the pilot of such an aircraft would 
undoubtedly result in a similar period of confusion. Knowing that
his options are limited, the pilot's instinctive reaction to this
situation might well be to pull pitch and pedal-turn away from the
area of suspected danger (remember, a helicopter is virtually a surface
vehicle at this point, and the crew is more intimately in contact with
the bad guys than the jet driver above). If not co-ordinated properly, 
this maneuver may well result in some part of the aircraft striking
the ground (or nearby obstructions such as trees, power poles, etc.). 
Even if the pilot does not attempt to manuever, but is simply 
distracted by his injury, the results will almost certainly be 
similar, as pilot inattention is instantly apparent in a low, 
slow helicopter. 

The helicopter's sensitivity and inherent lack of stability make it 
much more likely that an otherwise non-lethal hit on the pilot will
result in the loss of the aircraft when operating in the near-earth 
environment, regardless of the number of crew members. Furthermore, 
the helicopters's combat environment makes it much more likely that 
the pilot will suffer such a hit.

Armor is nice, but airspeed = altitude = options.

------------
Bill "Speed is Life" Collum
wjc@dss1.austin.ibm.com
From: colangel@erin.JSC.NASA.GOV (Michael Colangelo/MDSSC)
Subject: Su-26/29 (was Re: Cobra Maneuver (was :Re: Snaity check!!!.. [re: why would anyone consider the MIG-29M]
Organization: IGOAL
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:24:55 GMT

Ranbir, did I confuse you?  Sorry, I didn't mean to. 

The Su-29 and Su-26 are among the best aerobatic aircraft in the world these days.  
Some may go as far as to say that they are the premier PRODUCTION aerobatic a/c 
that a person can buy.  These aren't military a/c so maybe that's why you never 
heard of them.  Pompano Aircraft in Florida is a Suhkoi dealer (only AEROBATIC
a/c - NO fighters!) and appears to be selling a healthy number of these a/c.

They are taildraggers and have a mid-mounted wing.  They also have a radial engine
but I don't know the size or output.  The Su-26 is a single seater and the original
Su-29 was a two-seat trainer (structurally very different from the Su-26!).  There is 
available now a single seat version of the Su-29 that takes advantage of the 2-seat 
Su-29's newer structural design.  

- Mike

p.s. my original article questioned the merit of the "Cobra Maneuver" in combat.
From: rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin)
Subject: Re: PEARL HARBOR
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:09:07 GMT

In article <1948@spam.ua.oz>, jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec07.192623.7400@eng.umd.edu> rex@eng.umd.edu (Rex Root) writes:
|> >My thoughts on December 7th:
|> 
|> Exactly one week later.....
|> 
|> >I've watched several re-enactments of the bombing of Pearl Harbor over
|> >the past few years and noticed that the cast of single engine fighters
|> >that play the part of the "Zeros" are AT6's .. as a matter of fact, one
|> >T6 had the "Zero" paint scheme.
|> 
|> 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!  [...]

I realize that the rest of the response dealt with Iron Eagle II and the
kerosene burners that are so haphazardly repainted and called something
else...

However, at least with movies like Tora Tora Tora!, in the days when
movies were a little closer to movies, the efforts were made to convert
aircraft into the best semblance of enemy aircraft as was possible.

When these movies were made, Japanese Zeros, Kates, Vals, and all the
rest simply did not exist or were extremely rare.  Since that time,
restoration activities are increasing to preserve what remains, but there
is precious little there.  

The result is either no aircraft (hard to do a movie like Tora or Midway
without airplanes) or cosmetically change available aircraft to represent
the enemy.

Today's philosophy is primarily to take an airplane, repaint it, put some
foreign country insignia on it and then call it something that sounds
wonderfully enemy-like.

When these other films were made, a lot of effort went into the cosmetics
and appearance.  North American AT-6's and Vultee BT-13's were heavily
used since they had roughly the same shape, size, weight and performance.
These aircraft were torn apart, modified, lengthened in many cases and
rebuilt with new sheet metal and exterior components to give it as much
of the same shape as possible as their now non-existant counterparts.

Yes, those are T-6's and BT-13's flying.  But they no longer can honestly
call themselves that because of the radical change they went through.  And
they will never return to their T-6 or BT-13 heritage.

When compromises have to be made, at least credit those that made an effort
to do as good a job as possible to bring through the correct look and feel
of the enemy aircraft.

[Iron Eagle, et. al., could learn something from that - though which other
budget would have to be trimmed?]

-- 
// Robert J. Granvin                                         rjg@stat.umn.edu
// School of Statistics - University of Minnesota        System Administrator
// ``One of the `right' people.''
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military