HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Subject: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:32:40 GMT

watk@cbnews.cb.att.com (e.l.watkins) writes:

[stuff from Phil Moyer deleted for brevity]

>	The name SR-71 was a miss spoken name for the plane by President
>	Johnson. It was supposed to be RS-71 for Recon Strike. It was realy

	This part is largely correct.

>	the B-71. It carried a wepons pod much like the B-58. This was
>	probibly a large contributor to the cancelation of the B-70 (once
>	refered to as the RS-70). After the president miss spoke the
>	Air Force decided to keep it secret that the aircraft was
>	at least in part a bomber.
>	Cheers
>	Earl

	Chapter and verse, please.  Can you validate this with some 
references?  I have yet to see a reputable source for this theory....

	As I understand it from Steve Pace's book on the XB70, the
RS-70 was an attempt to keep the Valkyrie project going.

Duane

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Re: ACM
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:27:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.184606.8304@almserv.uucp> smith@ur-guh.com writes:
>In some random article, thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes), says:
>>Energy....better have some.
>>
>>Anything else?
>
>Energy. Quantity. Discuss.

More than the other guy. Beaucoup. All you can get. Put it in the bank.
Maverick might be able to 'chop the power and hit the brakes and he'll fly
right on by,'  but the real world don't work like that.  Piss away your
energy like that and I'll be waiting at your six when you try to get it back.


>
>Egg shaped volume/surface. Elaborate.

"God's 'g'."  You've got one more available pulling down that you had going
up.


>More as see fit.

"A MiG at six o'clock is better than no MiG at all, but you'd better have your
 shit together!"   - Boots Boothby

TH


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: watk@cbnews.cb.att.com (e.l.watkins)
Subject: Re: Blue Angels aircraft (Was: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:35:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.211821.17127@u.washington.edu> strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (Randy Haskin) writes:
>> The Streak Eagle was 1 of many pre-production Eagles built
>> for testing and training. The same goes for the A-10
>> at the Air Force Museum. Its also true for the Navy's
>> Blue Angels, they fly pre-production F/A-18s.
>
>Actually, I believe that the Angels fly aircraft that are normal production
>run, but merely high in their life cycle.  
>
>Randall Haskin
>L-17 N77BH
>strega@u.washington.edu

	OK you got me! 
	The Streak Eagle was in fact production aircraft 19 (72-119).
	Eagle from Squadron Signal.

	I can't remember where I read about the B-58 type pod on the
	SR-71 , But as for being originaly the RS-71 it is mentiond
	in the SR-71 in Action page 4. If not the B-71 then where are
	the other 70 SR aircraft.

	Now for the Blue Angels F-18s. They were drawn from
	the first production batch of F-18's used by VAFA-125 for pilot
	and ground crew training. These aircraft were not equiped with
	carrier landing gear.(F-18 Detail and Scale part 1, Hornet Squadron
	Signal publications), So these aircraft were never ment for squadren
	service. There were 25 of these aircraft built.
	-earl
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: watk@cbnews.cb.att.com (e.l.watkins)
Subject: Re: Advanced Tactical Fighter
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:33:35 GMT
Keywords: ATF advanced YF-22 YF-23 grey ghost lightning fighter

>What of the NATF?  As I recall, the showdown was scheduled for sometime in 1994,
>but that the ATF contract requires that the winner (F-22) be used in the NATF
>role also.  There was a big stink about this requirement and that Northrop was
>pursuing having this changed.  What ever came of this.  Will the F-23 be 
>resurected?  
>
According to the Aerofax Minigraph the NATF version of the F-22 is to be a swing
wing version of the F-22 and only the nose was Kept from the Orginal F-22.
It also stated that the navy has pretty much backed off from getting the
F-22.
As far as Requirements for the new NATF the F-14D meets over 80%
of them and the navy would like to keep purchasing F-14's, its congress
pushing the NATF.
From: randys@hpcvra.cv.hp.com (Randy Stockberger)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:54:02 GMT
Subject: Re: Speed Record
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Corvallis, OR, USA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

/ hpcvra:rec.aviation.military / bm511@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronald G. Martin) /  7:30 am  Nov 23, 1992 /

What a/c holds the record for a prop-driven plane? I need to settle a bet!
	Thanks,
	  Ron
P.S. I say the record is held by the P3 Orion.
----------
I don't know (and by the netequette rules probably shouldn't respond)
but since you asked about prop driven airplanes I would expect the
answer to be a twin turboprop of some sort.
--
  Randy Stockberger
  randys@cv.hp.com
--
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: mtissand@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael D Tissandier)
Subject: Re: speed record
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:11:08 GMT

  Not to change the subject (well, maybe), how 'bout telling us just how
you got whacked by a claymore of all things.....

 Waiting in eager anticipation...

  --Mike

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  It is significant that despite the claims of air enthusiasts
  no battleship has yet been sunk by bombs.

        ---Army-Navy football program, November 29, 1941
             Caption to a photo of the USS ARIZONA

                  mtissand@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jem3@pyuxf.uucp (25312-mc killop)
Subject: Re: RF-4 Phantom
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 13:07:14 GMT

In article <rick.721817895@chronos> rick@imp.phys.ethz.ch (Riccardo Sibilia) writes:
>Does somebody know for which missions is the RF-4 Phantom thought?
>
>Is it still flying these days? Or is it a museum piece?
>
>Thanks
>
>Rick
>

The last time I looked, there was only one regular USAF squadron
flying the RF-4C based at Bergstrom AFB, Texas.  The base is
closing and this unit either has been or will be deactivating
shortly.

The only other USAF organizations that flew the RF-4C were three
(?) Air National Guard units, one in Alabama, one in Idaho and I
believe one in Nevada.  I know most, if not all, are converting to
F-4Gs or other aircraft.

The USMC used to fly RF-4Bs but I think they are all gone.

Hope this helps.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: colangel@zeul.JSC.NASA.GOV (Michael Colangelo/MDSSC)
Subject: Re: Back to the future? [ILyushin IL-102]
Organization: IGOAL
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:06:50 GMT

Sounds like a modern derivative of the tough & ugly Il-2 "Sturmovik" that the
Soviets flew in WWII.  This was a highly successful single-engined close-air 
support plane that had a rear-gunner for defensive purposes.  It gave the German 
armored divisions major headaches.

But why a rear gunner (?) on this new one?  I wonder what his job really job is.

- Mike
From: dwhall@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Dean W Hall)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Advanced Tactical Fighter
Date: 19 Nov 1992 20:42:48 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu
Summary: What happened to the ATF program?
Keywords: ATF advanced YF-22 YF-23 grey ghost lightning fighter

  As the story goes, there were to contenders: The YF-22 and the YF-23.  Each
were made by a conglomeration of aviation companies and were built to be the
absolute best fighters ever flown.  Having stealth characteristics, vectored 
thrust, super-cruising, and the best computer systems around.
  The AirForce chose the YF-22 (a much uglier plane) and then. . .
I haven't heard much lately, just budget problems.  Does anyone know if the
f-22 is scheduled for production yet?  Also, any GIF files?
-Dean Hall
__________________________________________________________________
|*			       					*|
|			Admiral Dean Hall	 		 |
|						        	 |
|	Creator of an entirely different way of sneezing	 |
|*								*|
==================================================================

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: dkm@col.hp.com (Dave K. Martin)
Subject: Re: SR-71 question
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 19:29:52 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

This may be way off base but I seem to have read somewhere that the average 
cost of a SR-71 mission was over a million dollars per flight hour.  This 
takes into account the pre-flight, post-flight maintenance, support aircraft
(2 KC-135Q's in the air before the SR-71 took off), planning, fuel and all of 
the thousand other details.

Two or three flights per week of a few hours each, even the U.S. government 
will start to feel the financial pinch.

I'll see if I can find the article, it may be in one of my _WORLD AIR POWER
JOURNALs_ (A great quarterly BTW).

(Lets see, $1,000,000 / 60 * my_paycheck = 37 nanoseconds of flight time :)

Dave Martin - dkm@col.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Re: Museums
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 05:31:16 GMT


One of the best unknown museums is in Santa Teresa, New Mexico, just across
the state line from El Paso, Texas.  They have two MiG-15's there, a two-
seat P-51, a Corsair, a couple of T-Birds, and some others.  The thing that
makes this museum unique is that most of the birds there are in flyable
condition, and are flown regularly to keep them so.

TH
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SR-71 question
Date: 22 Nov 1992 18:06:28 GMT
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
NNTP-Posting-Host: obsidian.wpi.edu

In article <By142C.Gwp@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb) writes:
> know this has probably been gone over several times, but has there
> been any OFFICIAL release from the US government as to why the SR-71
> is no longer needed (or wanted). I'd also love to hear your personal
> reasons. Thanks in advance.

The official word is that recon satellites can do the same job cheaper...

My opinion is that the AF has the U-2R (exTR-1A), E-8 J-STARS, TR-3A (U-3A?), 
and one or more Aurora aircraft PLUS the satelites...

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: johnm@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com.mcm.hp.com (John Mosbarger)
Subject: Re: Name of B-52
Organization: HP Cardiology Business Unit - McMinnville, OR
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:15:13 GMT

Steve Bridges (steve@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM) wrote:
: chena@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Cheng) writes:
: 
: >Can anyone name any famous B-52 bomber?
: 
: Sure -- Stratofortress
: 
: And now for the trivia minded -- try to supply the name of the following
: Boeing military airplanes -- they are pretty easy, some are a bit harder.

     Well, I'll give it a try:
: 
: 	B-17      --  Flying Fortress
: 	B-29      --  Superfortress
: 	B-47      --  Stratojet
: 	KC-135    --  Stratotanker
: 	E-3A      --  AWACS (Airborne Warning And Control System

: -- 
: 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

--
*****************************************************************************
| John Mosbarger          |                                                 |
|                         |     "One thing the world needs is popular       |
| HP McMinnville, OR      |      government at popular prices."             |
|                         | 	                     --George Barker        |
| johnm@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com |                     	                    |
|***************************************************************************|
|                     Opinions are mine and mine alone.                     |
*****************************************************************************
From: GRANTH@brownvm.brown.edu (Grant Hogarth)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Toasty Radar (was Re: SR-71 / MIG-25)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:09:13 EST
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

In article <Bxu99w.4KK@plato.ds.boeing.com>, prang@ssc-bee (Ron Wanttaja) said:
>Toasty Radar (was Re: SR-71 / MIG-25)
>
>Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
>
>At school, they told them of a case where a man was killed by walking into
>an active beam.  Not a fast nor a painless way to go....

I seem to recall seeing some "anti-radiation" coveralls in a military-surplus
shop some years ago.  They were some sort of open-weave fabric designed to
be worn over regular clothes (or not, if you are Madonna, I suppose :-) when
servicing large-dish radars.
From: bm511@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronald G. Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Speed Record
Date: 23 Nov 1992 15:30:52 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


What a/c holds the record for a prop-driven plane? I need to settle a bet!
	Thanks,
	  Ron
P.S. I say the record is held by the P3 Orion.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (Randy Haskin)
Subject: FAST Bearcat (was:Re: Speed Record)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:27:44 GMT


> I think the record is held by 'Rare Bear' which is a highly
> modified Grumman F8F Bearcat.  It's about 500mph.  I
> could be wrong though....   

The official record is 528.329.

Another aircraft, "Tsunami", a custom-built unlimited air racer, attempted to
break this record, but crashed in the process.  The aircraft was destroyed in
an unrelated crash about a year ago.  The Rare Bear is still around and racing,
however it pulled out in the final at this year's Reno races because of a
blown engine.

> I say the record is held by the P3 Orion.

Funny you should say that.  The Rare Bear runs a prop consisting of a Lockheed
1049 Constellation hub and 3 cut-down P-3 blades.  Very wicked looking.

Randall Haskin
strega@u.washington.edu

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin)
Subject: Re: SR-71 question
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:56:05 GMT

For Blackbird afficionados:

I noticed in an aviation book catalogue I recently got
that a book including the "complete pilot's manual" for
the SR-71 is for sale.  It's not cheap - I'll have to check
but I believe it was around $99 (!).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (Randy Haskin)
Subject: ATF crash report
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:15:54 GMT

Because of the overwhelming response, here's the USAF crash report, as printed
in the 10-28-92 Boeing Defense and Space Group's Defence Division Newsletter;

AIR FORCE RELEASES YF-22 CRASH REPORT

--- (a bunch of Boeing ATF rhetoric deleted) --

	After accompishing the flight test mission that day, Lockheed pilot
Tom Morganfield made an uneventful low approach over the Edwards air field.  He
requested and was given approval from the Edwards control tower to fly a closed
pattern for a second low approach.  It was similar to the first, except for a 
shallower angle.
	Morganfield initiated a go-around, selected afterburners, and raised 
the landing gear.  At this point, the YF-22 experienced a series of pitch 
oscillations at approximately 40 feet above the runway.  After four to five 
pitch oscillations, the aircraft hit the runway slightly nose up and slid
approximately 8,000 feet down the runway.  Morganfield jettisoned the canopy
and safely egressed the aircraft.
	A detailed post-crash analysis of the crash site, aircraft components,
and test information was conducted by Air Force technical experts.  In addition
contractor and Air Force experts analyzed the complex, integrated computer
systems of the the YF-22 including the digital flight control system.
	Experts determined that the aircraft and flight control systems
operated as designed.  There was no indication of any system failure or
malfunction.  They did find the pitch-control system is prone to pilot-
induced oscillation under certain conditions, specifically, when the landing
gear handle is raised with full forward control stick and the thrust reverser
in the "on" position.

********************
Opinion time:  The "unofficial" interpretation which I heard from people who
had analyzed all the test data is that the crash was entirely pilot-error.
The apparent opinion is that when Morganfield reached forward with his
throttle hand to lower the gear, that he released some back pressure on the 
stick, thus causing the nose to fall.  This would not have been a severe
problem in ots own, however, the F-22 programming has a built in split second
control delay.  They feel that the delay was sufficient to cause the pilot to
get behind the pitch oscillations, up to the point where he was 180 degrees 
behind the oscillations by the time he hit the runway.  This programming 
function was apparently explained and understood by all the test pilots before
the initiation of the flight test program.  It seems that Morganfield was
merely reacting as a test pilot to the situation, and his reaction did not 
work in conjunction with the control delay.....

Randall Haskin
strega@u.washington.edu



Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: hagood@sabre.den.mmc.com (Dave Hagood)
Subject: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25
Keywords: SR-71 bomber (was SR-71/MiG-25)
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:33:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.193136.19288@athena.mit.edu>, mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney) writes:
|> My original source is, I believe, a late 60's National Geographic on the Air
|> Force, although I could be mistaken.  I am quite sure the Air Force deployed
|> stream-lined bomb-pods for the SR-71 with 1MT hydrogen warheads.  I have seen
|> this in more than one pace.  Will check around if I get the chance.

	I have *never* (well, other than this thread) read or heard anyone
mention that production SR-71 aircraft were armed with anything.  This is
in itself kind of interesting, because it would have been an extremely
effective bomber.  Hell, other than the bomb load, it's a little B-70...

	I do recall reading somewhere that the hypersonic drone attached to
the (A-12? YF-12?) could have carried armament instead of reconnaisence (sp)
gear.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
									|
David M. Hagood			Martin Marietta Astronautics Group	|
									|
Voice:  (303) 977-9657		When in danger, or in doubt,		|
E-mail: hagood@den.mmc.com	Run in circles, scream and shout.	|
Fax: (303) 977-1530							|
									|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
     static char *disclaimer = "My opinions, not Martin Marietta's."    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: vadim@mgexbld.ingr.com (Vadim Baranov)
Subject: Re: Back to the future? [ILyushin IL-102]
Reply-To: vadim@mgexbld.ingr.com (Vadim Baranov)
Organization: Intergraph corp.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:59:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.200650.5750@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>,
colangel@zeul.JSC.NASA.GOV (Michael Colangelo/MDSSC) writes:
>Sounds like a modern derivative of the tough & ugly Il-2 "Sturmovik"
>that the
>Soviets flew in WWII.  This was a highly successful single-engined
>close-air 
>support plane that had a rear-gunner for defensive purposes.  It gave
>the German 
>armored divisions major headaches.
>
>But why a rear gunner (?) on this new one?  I wonder what his job
>really job is.
>
>- Mike
>

May be to shoot down the 'colleague' oppenent helicpoters?
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Re: speed record
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:42:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.231108.22585@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mtissand@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael D Tissandier) writes:
>  Not to change the subject (well, maybe), how 'bout telling us just how
>you got whacked by a claymore of all things.....
>
> Waiting in eager anticipation...
>
>  --Mike


Quite simple.  Charley gets his hands on one and sets it with the charge
side pointing up, cause he knows you're coming.  Wait for the dummy to
get a little too low on a low angle delivery and pop it off.  Whammo, old
Tobe recovers at home base with about 50 little holes in the bottom of the
airplane.  No major system damage, fortunately.  Don't know why not, unless
the energy level was just to low to penetrate anything but the outer skin.
The Wing D.O. was all set to have my butt for flying through my own frag
pattern, until I told him that the ordnance I was carrying (n*p*lm) didn't
frag.  Final intel consensus was a claymore, a CBU bomblet, or a pile of
rocks placed in a pit over an HE charge.

TH
From: john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: WWII Warbirds ...
Date: 22 Nov 92 01:23:41 GMT
Organization: Newave Communications, Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN

In article <1992Nov20.231521.5753@news2.cis.umn.edu> pdills@staff.tc.umn.edu (Peter in Amiland) writes:
> I was wondering if anyone in this group might know of any Newsgroup dedicated
> to discussions on or concerning WWII Warbirds, exclusivly.

There is not such a group at this time, but rec.aviation.military is a good
place to discuss warbirds.  So far, the discussions here have been almost
exclusively about retired aircraft rather than current planes.  Besides,
most everyone that is interested in warbirds probably hang out here already.

> If no one knows of such a group, is there anyone interested enough to
> vote/start a subgroup on WWII Military Aircraft?

If rec.aviation.military will suit your needs, there probably isn't a reason
to create another group.  If there are any subgroups needed, I vote for
rec.aviation.military.sr71. 8-)

> I know this may sound rather specific, so please NO flames. I'm just tweaking
> the public for possible interest. I can't be the 'only' WWII Warbird fanatic
> out here,... Or am I?

Not by a long shot.  Fire out a few postings and get the discussion going!

BTW, if you live in the Twin Cities area, you should take a trip out to
Hangar #3 at Flemming Field in South St. Paul.

-john-

-- 
==============================================================================
John A. Weeks III		(612) 942-6969		    john@newave.mn.org
Newave Communications, Ltd.			    ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military