HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: American kill...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:17:56 GMT

In article <C032x3.ABC@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>In article <65510003@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates) writes:
>>The nightly news reported the downed aircraft as MiG 23 (flogger) type.
>>
>>But then, the news screws up everything a lot of the time.
>
>   Yes, it was a MIG Su-27 Foxbat equipped with twelve SS-20
>air-to-air missiles.  The Iraqi aircraft was shot down by a Navy F-16
>possibly flown from the USS Kitty Hawk, which fired an AMRAAM
>heat-seeking missile from a range of 20 miles.
>
>   Well, maybe they aren't _that_ bad.

   This post was intended as a satire (exaggerated) on the ignorance
of some of the news media.  Judging by some of the responses I've seen
on this, I'd say that my satire was lost on some people.   Here are
the clues which should have tipped people off:

>   Yes, it was a MIG Su-27 Foxbat equipped with twelve SS-20
                  ^^^^^^^^^
   A MiG cannot be an Su, as they designate two different Soviet
aircraft manufacturers.  Also, I said "yes" in agreement with the
previous poster (the agreement was with how the media get things
wrong), then promptly contradicted what he had said as to what type of
aircraft it was.

>   Yes, it was a MIG Su-27 Foxbat equipped with twelve SS-20
                            ^^^^^^
   The Foxbat is designated MiG-25.

>   Yes, it was a MIG Su-27 Foxbat equipped with twelve SS-20
                                                 ^^^^^^
   That's probably more missiles than just about any fighter is
capable of carrying.

> SS-20 air-to-air missiles.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   Any SS-n missile is a surface-to-surface missile, not an air-to-air
missile.

>air-to-air missiles.  The Iraqi aircraft was shot down by a Navy F-16
                                                             ^^^^^^^^^
   The USN does not have any regular F-16 units, as that is primarily
a USAF plane.

>possibly flown from the USS Kitty Hawk, which fired an AMRAAM
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   Kitty Hawk was not even on its way to the area until after the
incident.
   
> which fired an AMRAAM heat-seeking missile from a range of 20 miles.
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   AMRAAM is, I believe, a radar-guided missile, and anyway, 20 miles
is quite a shot for a heat-seeking missile.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: boebert@sctc.com (Earl Boebert)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Best book on the B36?
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:47:27 GMT
Organization: SCTC

What's your nomination for the best book about the B36?

Earl
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: wjc@dss1.austin.ibm.com
Subject: Re: CAS: Fixed vs Rotary (was: The A-10)
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 16:46:36 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: wjc@dss1.austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

In <5y57VB1w164w@n5abi.hou.tx.us> gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy) writes:
>In even the most modern environment, the coodrination 
>between the ground troops and the air support is critical, and for 
>the closest type of support the helicopter, that lives with the 
>troops, and has the same commanders at lower level, is, IMHO still 
>the way to go.
Exactly. I may be branded as a "traitor to the cause" for saying this,
but why not turn over CAS assests and tasking to Army units, allowing
USAF to concentrate on what it does best anyway: air superiority, 
strategic/theater bombing, penetration bombing/recce, and space 
exploitation. This conecpt makes even more sense when the "VTOL Barrier"
is finaly broken (AV8B notwithstanding), freeing CAS units from the 
traditional basing schemes. Now, all we have to do is replace those 
100 knot flying vibrators (;->) with some supersonic VTOL's, and we 
no longer have a difference of opinion.

Thank you for a stimulating & thought provoking discussion. I will be 
"AW(ith)OL" until mid January. A "Happy Non-Denominational Winter
Festival" to all!

-----------
Bill Collum
wjc@dss1.austin.ibm.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin)
Subject: Re: P-51D and Dora-9: Which was faster?
Keywords: comparisons
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 05:07:28 GMT

>between the Fw 190D-9 and the P-51D.  They were quite similar in 
>overall capability.  In any combat between the two aircraft, the 
>outcome would depend to a great extent on the relative skill and 
>experience of the opposing pilots.  

I'm not a fighter pilot, but I don't play one on TV.

In addition to speed, climb rate and armament, there are several other 
factors which contribute to aircraft abilities as a fighter.  For example,
turning radius is very important as well as it's stall speed at times.
Reliability is important as is general design issues.  Do the guns have
a tendency to jam, and can the aircraft survive being upside down for any
period of time?  Also, it's ability to absorb damage can be important.
Many other things could, on occasion, be a factor - dive characteristics,
G forces survivable by airframe, visibility from the cockpit, exhaust
signature at night, etc.

Speed and climb rate are important, but not always the deciding factor in
a combat situation - sometimes all it provides is the ability to escape
(which, of course, I fully expect to have as an option... :-)

-- 
// Robert J. Granvin                                         rjg@stat.umn.edu
// School of Statistics - University of Minnesota        System Administrator
// ``One of the `right' people.''
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: frank@rover.uchicago.edu (Frank - Hardware Hacker - Borger)
Subject: Re: P-51D and Dora-9: Which was faster?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: comparisons
Reply-To: frank@rover.uchicago.edu
Organization: Joint Center for Radiation Therapy
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 21:42:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.050728.23586@news2.cis.umn.edu>, rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin) writes...
.. lots deleted
>Reliability is important as is general design issues.  Do the guns have
>a tendency to jam, and can the aircraft survive being upside down for any
>period of time?  Also, it's ability to absorb damage can be important.

	Also depends on where you are flying, (and if opposing pilots would
	jump on an obviously disabled enemy, - probably different in the
	european campaign versus the pacific.)

	Remeber reading/hearing that the Navy wanted air-cooled radials
	because they could take a couple of engine hits, lose a couple of
	cylinders, but keep flying, while a hit on a water cooled engine
	would quickly kill it. Big difference was over land, you can probably
	put down or bail out, over water, you better try to nurse it back to
	the carrier no matter what.

	Strangely enough, the Air Force finally came around to the Navy point
	of view, and the last non-jet fighters made were all radials.

   Frank R. Borger - Physicist    __       Internet:  Frank@rover.uchicago.edu
Michael Reese - Univ. of Chicago |___      Phone : 312-791-8075 fax : 567-7455
  Center for Radiation Therapy   | |_) _   Your picture tube is ok, but your
                                   | \|_)  cabinet has Dutch elm disease. -
    "Birthplace of Softball"          |_)  TV repairman to Ziggy
From: dsnyder@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: B-1 Desert Storm
Date: 17 Dec 92 14:57:22 EST
Organization: USAF AL/CFH, WPAFB, Dayton, OH

In article <9212151340.AA01862@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil>, davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil writes:
> 
> Still stirring things up :)
> 
> In <227@newave.newave.mn.org> "John A. Weeks III" <john@newave.newave.mn.org>
> writes:
> 
>>> They would not want to waste a good limited quantity aircraft on a small
>>> conflict.
> 
>>Exactly--why risk an expensive plane when the nearly obsolete B-52 could
>>safely do the same job.
> 
> Oh, like F-117's? (Geez, what's this gonna start?) :)
> I doubt that was a tactical consideration.
> 
  The F-117's job could not have been done by any other "known operational"
aircraft in the world.  That's why it was chosen to be used.  The B1 was not
used because we already have a way to deliver tons of conventional bombs and
don't have to worry about losing our nuc. capability if we lose the B-52.  Why
risk our limited number of front line bomber aircraft on a job done just as
well with the B-52.  My point is to use the correct aircraft for the job.  Keep
an ace in your pocket in case you really need it.  The B1.-- 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
David B. Snyder                     Logicon Technical Services Inc.
dsnyder@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil   Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
513-255-7557                        Dayton, Ohio USA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It is said that GOD doesn't subtract from ones' time on earth, those
hours spent flying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1946 Cessna 140 N76234 "The lady in waiting" Owner/Operator
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are my own and not those of Logicon or the USAF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Focke-Wulf 190 Dora
Date: 22 Dec 92 15:44:19 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

I found the quote from the Book "JG 26 Top Guns of the Luftwaffe" by
Donald Caldwell.  Having re-read it carefully I'd like to offer the
following disclaimer: The paragraph written about the "Dora" model is
not a direct quote from a German officer it is apparently a compendium
of information gleaned by the author during his research for the book. 
Obviously there will be those who would disagree with the author and
this would include former German pilots who flew the type.  That being
said, here is the paragraph:

After making their last practice flights from Reimsehlen, the pilots of
II/JG 26 headed back to the combat zone, their numbers bolstered by
twenty brand new pilots.  The men landed their FW 190D-9's at Nordhorn
on 18 December (1944), just before the weather closed in.  They were
unable to fly their first combat mission in their new mounts for
several days.  The pilots' opinions of the "long nosed Dora," or Dora-9
as it was variously nicknamed, were mixed.  The new model was intended
to correct the FW 190's most glaring weakness, its poor high-altitude
performance.  What came out of Kurt Tank's shop was a compromise.  Tank
did not like the liquid cooled Jumo 213 engine, but it was the best
choice available. The long in-line engine had to be balanced by a
lengthened rear fuselage to maintain the proper center of gravity,
making the FW 190D four feet longer than the FW 190A.  (Here's the
quote) THE NEW AIRPLANE LACKED THE HIGH TURN RATE AND INCREDIBLE RATE
OF ROLL OF ITS CLOSE-COUPLED RADIAL ENGINED PREDECESSOR.  It was a bit
faster, however, with a maximum speed of 426 mph at 21,650 feet.  Its
1750 horsepower, which methanol/water injection boosted to 2240, gave
it excellent acceleration in combat situations.  It also climbed and
dove more rapidly than the FW 190A, SO PROVED WELL SUITED TO THE
DIVE-AND-ZOOM AMBUSH TACTICS FAVORED BY THE SCHLAGETER PILOTS.  End of
quote.

I wanted to emphasise this last sentence because it hints at the
tactics used by the Germans during the war which tended to keep the
pilots alive as opposed to constantly dogfighting which keeps you in
the area giving others, perhaps those you don't see, a chance to shoot
at you.  It's a possible answer to a question one netter asked about
how so many German pilots could have lived through the war.

Finally, having read through the relevant passage, I found no reference
to my allegation that the Dora was not as fast as the Mustangs or
Thunderbolts.  I did come across a quote from one pilot who was flying
a 190A who noted that at 30,000 feet, his aircraft was substantially
slower than the Mustangs he had to deal with and felt lucky to escape
with his life.  It just preceded the information about the Dora so I
must have melded it together.  My apologies.

Corky Scott
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: THE A-10
Date: 22 Dec 92 07:49:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 

-> I think I'd take a Marine Corps Harrier, at least I am sure that
-> somebody will have spent time teaching him to tell freind from foe on
-> the ground. Sure his life expectancy might be less but then rather
-> his ass than mine! (The British Army suffered more casualties at the
-> hands of the USAF than the entire Iraqi armed forces during the Gulf
-> war, the Marines also suffered from the attentions of USAF A-10's
-> hence there long standing policy of Marines being supported by Marine
-> Air first, second and Navy third.)

I used to watch Air Force and Marines pilots practicing CAS on a bombing
range years ago. I could always tell which was which. The AF jets went
over fairly low and Fast and dropped their loads. The Marines pilots
went down, down, down until they disappeared below the tops of the
trees. Then there would be an explosion over there and a second later a
jet would come zooming up from below those trees. The Air Force jocks
always told me it was becase the Marines had to get low enough to read
the name tags on the guys on the ground before dropping because they had
trouble reading the maps. The Marine pilots said it was so they could
open the cockpit and talk to the guys on the ground to ask them where
they wanted the load placed.
                                        Rocky
                                                                                           
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: Boyles Law, P Suits, and a 'True tale'
Summary: Gas Expands and seeks it way out.
Keywords: gas, champange, rb-57s, italy, emergency landings
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 23:49:03 GMT

This is a true story told in my presents by the gentleman involve
lo these many years ago, and it illustrates some of the problems
of high altitude flying.

It seems that the Officer involved (who'se name I cannot recall)
did partake of the bubbly (lots of the bubbly) figureing that
they were not flying tomorrow, no problem.  Well, Murphy heard
them and talked to Ops who rescheduled them to fly the next day.

And flew they did, non the worse for wear, except for Boyles Law.
Gases (even in your GI Tract surrounded by you PSuit) expand.
And sought a way out the lower tract, filling his Psuit with a 
noxious brown semi fluid.  After this happened enough times
he had visions of the AIr Force telegraphing his wife that
'they regret to inform you, but your husband drowned in shit at
50,000 ft'.  He declared an emergency and brought the beast down
at Anon AFB Italia, where he was met by the base commander.  Well
as soon as he popped the visor of his suit, they all knew why
he had declared an emergency and took him straight way to the
facilities.  In his words he had no trouble with most of the
suit, 'but there was no way that special thermal shirt was
going to be pulled overmy head.'  He cut t off.

Oh yes - the 'problem' had resolved itself as soon as he had
descended to a lower altitude.

chus
pyotr

-- 
Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
Next Months Panel Topic: Graft - boon or blessing?
EOF
-- 
Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
Next Months Panel Topic: Graft - boon or blessing?
EOF
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Aurora spy-plane
From: byrnes@cbr.hhcs.gov.au
Date: 22 Dec 92 09:50:00 +1000
Distribution: world
Organization: Aust. Dept. Health, Housing and Community Services
Keywords: aurora spy-plane skunkworks sr71

I wondered if some of the more technical readers of this forum could give me
some thoughts on several aspects of the Aurora skunkworks spy-plane.

In particular, I was wondering about several things:

. from a pilot's perspective, what's it like to fly something that fast? How do
  you control a Mach 8+ airbird, and what strains on a pilot would such a high
  altitude, high speed (and high heat, from travelling at that velocity but
  from possible propulsion systems that may involve external combustion of some
  sort) place. Additionally, what must it feel like when you step on the pedal
  and go to Mach 8? Do Aurora pilots need better g suits that SR71 pilots? And
  what sort of ejection seat/ survival system couyld bring you down safely from
  such high airspeeds.

. where did the Aurora get it's name from: presumably from the trail of
ionisation it must leave behind it when operating at altitude. Must make it
easy to see in the night sky!

Any answers, discussion of the above most welcome.

  
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: johnwl@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: Mosquito: fast, tough, recyclable ...
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 21:33:50 GMT

Seasons cheer !

  I would post my vote for the DH Mosquito.  Fast, maneuverable, tough to
destroy and, 50 years ahead of its time, it was environmentally friendly !
(i.e., made of recyclable wood products  ;-)  ;-)
  I wonder how it could have flown if they had put the new jet engines on
this airframe instead of the Gloster Meteor ?

                                           regards,  Jack
                                                 johnwl@kean.ucs.mun.ca
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Looking for old USAF silk
Date: 1 Jan 93 14:36:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

MD> .As a child, I remember buying at a surplus store several beautiful silk
  > .USAF maps that portrayed different parts of the world, all dating from the
  > .50's.  The maps folded into a wallet sized packet, and apparently were
  > .used by USAF personnel.

MD> .I'd like to know if anyone knows where I can get more of these types of
  > .maps today - does anyone know of any surplus stores or catalog houses
  > .selling such maps?

They're pretty scarce now, and tend to be very expensive.  I recently
saw some at either Kaufman's or The Aviator (both in NYC) but the prices
were far beyond what I'd go for, and I'm a chart collector/fanatic...

        D/
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-3345 . Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                   
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin)
Subject: Re: American kill...
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 05:46:17 GMT

In article <65510003@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates) writes:
>The nightly news reported the downed aircraft as MiG 23 (flogger) type.
>
>But then, the news screws up everything a lot of the time.

I'm half expecting to see them show the downing of the Iraqi jet (probably
portrayed by an F-4) at the hands of Dauntlesses (supposedly) diving on
Pearl Harbor.

(Unless I provide the press release to the media, and they even get THAT
wrong a good 25% of the time, I question the fine details until I see the
data plate...)

-- 
// Robert J. Granvin                                         rjg@stat.umn.edu
// School of Statistics - University of Minnesota        System Administrator
// ``One of the `right' people.''
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: Aurora
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:32:47 GMT

In article <BzoHFs.95v@acsu.buffalo.edu> v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes:

>Recently put up for discussion: the aurora spyplane.

>Q: What kind of ejection seat / survival system would be needed  to get the
>pilot down from mach 8+?

>A: One, the pilot must wear a an astronauts space suit to prevent his blood
>from evaporating and his skin from flaking off. Two, no seat / spacesuit
>could survive the "windblast" at altitude and speed. Therefore, either the
>AF doesn't expect pilots to survive a break up at cruise and havn't put a 
>survival system in, or they would have to have an escape capsule, perhaps
>like the F-111 series or the B-58's and XB-70's personal ejection capsule.

First of all, the dynamic pressure of flying at Mach 8 can be large or
small.  Depends on altitude (note that Shuttle astronauts at 500,000+
feet altitude and `Mach' 27.2 can walk around outside with no problem
at all).  Also note that aircraft structures tend to turn to putty at
high speeds (SR-71 limited to 2.5 Gs below M=2.0, limited to 2.0 Gs
below M=2.6 and limited to 1.5 Gs to M=3.2).  Flying high and fast
tends to be boring, except when you look at a map (nap of the earth is
still the highest speed _sensation_ one perceives).

Okay, the Russian K-36 ejection seat is rated to 100,000 feet and Mach
4.  The seat in the SR-71 is rated to the limits of the flight
envelope (Mach=3.3, Hp=85,000 ft msl).  And the ejection seat for the
X-15 was rated to Mach 4 at 120,000 feet msl (note that the Russian
seat has been tested at Mach = 4 and 100,000 feet by use of
instrumented dummy and a missle launch, the X-15 seat was never tested
to the limits of its envelope).

Now, we are assuming that this Mach 8 airplane uses airbreathing
engines.  this means its Mach/Altitude corridor is very narrow.  Note
the SR-71 has only 16,000 vertical feet to work in at Mach 3.2.  Our
Mach 8 airplane, assume it has a similar dynamic pressure range, would
have only about 12,000 vertical feet to work in (probably less),
between 122,000 feet and 144,000 feet (these are rough numbers).

Note also that in the case of the X-15 (Mach 6.72 maximum, at these
typical altitudes), the official feeling was that the pilot was best
off staying with the aircraft until it slowed to acceptable parameters
(M<4, Hp<120,000 feet).  If such an airplane existed, I assume this
would also be acceptable.

A final note, Gemini and early Shuttle missions also used ejection
seats.  I don't know what the maximum parameters were for those seats.

--
Al Bowers                       bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle, Lead Aero
NASA, Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, California
From: steve@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges)
Subject: Re: American kill...
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 04:12:41 GMT

creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:

>In article <65510003@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates) writes:
>>The nightly news reported the downed aircraft as MiG 23 (flogger) type.
>>
>>But then, the news screws up everything a lot of the time.

>   Yes, it was a MIG Su-27 Foxbat equipped with twelve SS-20
>air-to-air missiles.  The Iraqi aircraft was shot down by a Navy F-16
>possibly flown from the USS Kitty Hawk, which fired an AMRAAM
>heat-seeking missile from a range of 20 miles.

>   Well, maybe they aren't _that_ bad.

I appreciate the tongue-in-cheek of Steve's posting, but from all I've
read, it was an F-16 and it was an AIM-120 AMRAAM which did the deed.  I've
not heard what type of Iraqi aircraft it was.   CNN also mentioned that
this was the first kill in an actual ACM engagement by an AIM-120.  I
wasn't even aware that the AIM-120 had been deployed in squadron service.

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.products