HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sandyr@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (@Sandy Reutter)
Subject: Re: Lazy 8's
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:23:06 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8.1]

My thanks to everyone who responded (both on the net and Email).

I tried both reducing my MP and also really 'milking' the Mooney around
the eights and guess what--both methods provided satisfactory results.
I should have just one more ride with my instructor, a sign-off, and  finally
the check-ride.  It's been almost two years since ground school and the
the written--due to time and $ constraints.  Someone wasn't kidding when
they said that money is what makes airplanes fly.


Sandy Reutter
sandyr@hpgrla.gr.hp.com
303-350-4102

"No one is totally worthless,
they can always be used as a bad example."
From: lorne@peche2.ensta.fr (Ivan Lorne)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: FRENCH STUDENT going to fly in USA.
Date: 26 Jan 1993 17:42:21 GMT
Organization: ENSTA (French University)
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: peche2.ensta.fr
Keywords: learning

I'd like to get my "FLYING LICENCE".

I 'll be in South Carolina from march to July for networks training period.
In France, flying licence are very expensive, i was said it wasn't in the US.
Could you help me in answering few questions :


- WHAT IS the average PRICE of :

	- a complete licence.
	- an hour of fly.


- WHERE Will it  be possible to fly ?

- HOW long will it takes me ?

- WHO should i call ?

- Is it possible to have REDUCTIONS ?

Thanks a lot for answering !
	
	Space Rabbit.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: VFR pilot flying in c
Date: 20 Jan 93 23:10:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

E> .                                   If I'm out on the trip and I don't
 > .like the weather -- I sit on the ground too! My instrument instructor
 > .hammered into me that an instrument pilot, if he is any good, knows
 > .when to stay on the ground.

This is a point that's often not emphasized enough in Instrument
training.  An IFR rating gives the pilot a lot more leeway in the
conditions in which flight is possible.  And makes the decisions a LOT
harder.  It's easy to decide whether VFR flight is feasible or possible.
After you've decided that VFR's not feasible, you've still got lots of
factors to consider before you decide that IFR is feasible.

In one classic case, on my IFR long XC weather conditions deteriorated
much faster than the forecasts indicated.  We were stuck in a situation
where IFR _WASN'T_ feasible, but VFR was!!  First time it ever happened
to my 3500+ hour instructor, and I don't think he's stopped talking
about it after all these years.

        D/
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-3345 . Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
From: mparker@adobe.com (Mike Parker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: Help landing, please
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:40:26 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated, Mountain View

In article <1k2ilqINNffm@uwm.edu> bnk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Bob N Keenan) writes:

>  pull the power, let the plane slow up to 70, and try to *keep the
>  plane from landing* with very slight, quick control movments, and
>  let the plane settle it self on to the mains.  Way easer typed than

This is what did it for me.  Think about keeping the plane in the air rather
than thinking about landing it.  Just rty to fly along at 6" AGL as long
as you can, with the throttle at idle it won't be for long.

mike
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: maierj@edmund.cs.andrews.edu (Joey Maier)
Subject: Re: A-10 replacement
Organization: Andrews University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:30:53 GMT

In article <m0nFLBX-000R0DC@aton.abo.fi> skronkvi@aton.abo.fi (Stefan Kronkvist INF) writes:
>
> I read in an aviation-magazine about one year ago that there are plans to
> replace the A-10 with a spesial version of the F-16. Is this accurate? 

I don't know if it still is, but there used to be some plans along those
lines.  The press gave the plane (I think it was the F-16c) a bad rap,
saying that  the necessary modifications would  make it too heavy to
perform well.

If they really wanted to replace it, the Air Force should have gone with
Rutan's prototype, IMHO.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: sents@dixie.com (Jeff Sents)
Subject: Re: F-22 nickname (real, not official)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 12:28:53 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
Distribution: usa

wardml@rtsg.mot.com (Matthew L. Ward) writes:
>on any side.  It's sad to see the F-22 "Flying Porkbarrel" handed such a proud
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Methinks me smells sour grapes! ;)

>**********************************************************************************
>*Matthew Ward, formerly McDonnell Douglas F-15E program                          *
>*            , formerly General Dynamics F-16A/B program                         *
>**********************************************************************************


***************************************************************************
* Jeff R. Sents                           *                               *
* Marietta, Georgia, USA                  *    Never Trust Programmers    *
* home: sents@dixie.com                   *    Who Carry Screwdrivers!    * 
* work: ge03429@loads1.lasc.lockheed.com  *                               *
***************************************************************************
#include <stdsclmr.h>
<This message contains only the opinions & beliefs of its author, 
which in no way represent those of anyone else.>

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: mppd5@syma.sussex.ac.uk (John Coley)
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Organization: University of Sussex, five miles away from Brighton
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 09:48:58 GMT

Steven Vincent (steven@unipalm.co.uk) wrote: 

: I know that the GAU-8 is a very powerfull gun but I am not sure that
: its the most   powerful (Single) Gun. The German Hs-129 mounted a long
: barreled 75mm AT Gun which  would stall the Aircraft on the second  or
: third shot! I know that the B-25H also  mounted a 75mm Howitzer
: (converted but basically low pressure) in the nose with   equally
: detrimental affects to air speed. I know of rumorse that the AC-130s
: mount  a 105mm weapon but this is side firing.     I will concede that
: the GAU-8 is the most powerfull gun in terms of KE on target  in 10
: seconds (what is the maximum burst from an A-10 anyway). But single
: shot no way.

	Also the De Haviland Mosquito FB XVIII, carried a 6pdr (57mm)
gun in operational service (1 or 2 squadrons, I can find the refs if
anyones interested). 1 or 2 of these aircraft were modified to carry a
32pdr (98mm) gun, they were completed and test flown (including gun
firing) after the war and then scrapped (they worked fine but there was
no operational requirement anymore).
	I believe the germans had some aircraft (Do217 maybe)
experimentally fitted with a HUGE recoiless gun for anti-shipping use.
As I recall this was lowered from the bombay in flight to fire. I'll
have to look it up but seem to remember the cal. as 305mm (!!!!). Single
shot only, and the backblast must have played hell with the a/c
structure, but it probably takes the prize for "Largest gun on an
aircraft".
	John Coley

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: geoffm@netcom.com (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: USE OF B-52 TAIL GUNS
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 07:09:10 GMT



In article <1k1qgcINNead@bigboote.WPI.EDU> megazone@realsoon.WPI.EDU (MegaZone) writes:

>IF this happened it could only be on a G or H model. Those are the only models 
>with the remote gun system and the tail mounted radar and tele-optical system.


But were there any Gs or Hs in Vietnam?  It was my impression that the
majority of the B-52s used there were Ds, plus a few F-models.  All
tall-tailed versions, in any case.



Geoff

-- 
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +                Mountain View 
geoffm@netcom.com               + + + + + + + +                California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
From: rbs@sawtooth.idaho.amdahl.com (Bob Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Date: 21 Jan 93 20:33:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corp., Rexburg, ID

In article <C17tCn.4HA@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v111qheg@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (P. VASILION) writes:
> 
> 	B-52 with a 75mm howitzer? Never heard of this. What is your reference?

(BTW, I'm not the original author).  That was a B-25, not a B-52.  You
know, the twin engined WWII medium bomber.  I saw this on a Wings episode
where the canon is mounted in the nose and extends back between the pilot
and copilot.  It was used in an anti-shipping roll.  I think they said they
used the side mounted machine guns to line up the target, then when the
machine gun bullets were hitting, fired the canon.  The co-pilot or radio 
operator (or somebody) had to re-load the thing by hand.

Bob

-- 
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Bob Smith       Amdahl Corporation    143 N. 2 E., Rexburg, Idaho 83440
 UUCP:{ames,decwrl,sun,uunet}!amdahl!tetons!rbs           (208) 356-8915
 INTERNET: rbs@idaho.amdahl.com
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: A/F-X to replace A-6, F-18, and F-14
Date: 28 Jan 93 23:26:50 GMT
Organization: Chevron


 The last I heard, the A-X was to be the replacement for the cancelled A-12.
 According to biased rumor:

   "It would have HALF the A-12's capability at TWICE the price."


 Now I read in the AFA's AIR FORCE magazine, Jan '93, pg 10-13, that:

 "Last summer, while putting the finishing touches on FROM THE SEA [the
  Navy's white paper on its new maritime strategy for the post-cold war 
  world], the Navy switched signals on the A-X.  Senior Navy officials
  announced that the plane would be designed as a multirole fighter-bomber,
  not exclusively as a bomber, to replace not only the A-6E but also 
  ultimately the F-14 long-range interceptor and the F/A-18 strike fighter
  well into the next century.  They began calling it the A/F-X."

 The Air Force is also considering the A/F-X to replace the F-111 and
 F-15E but then they were considering the A-12 for that also.


 Elsewhere in the issue, pg 16, it states:

 "The [A/F-X] is expected to have current-generation stealth, internal
  carriage of weapons, long range, night and all-weather capabilities,
  and avionics and sensors similar to those found in the Air Force F-22.
  It is also likely to have substanitial air-to-air capability rivaling
  that of the best air-superiority fighters."


 At first, it's hard to imagine one aircraft excelling in both the A-G 
 and A-A arenas but then again, with an IOC of 2007 and nearly 20 years
 of development, it's possible.  After all, aren't our 1970's multirole
 aircraft (F-16,F-18) better at just about everything than any of our 
 1950's aircraft?


 TRAVIS
 hhtra@hou281.chevron.com
From: ajpotts@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Potts)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Date: 25 Jan 93 15:14:51 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin) writes:


>I believe that the Hurricanes carried a pair of 40mm antitank guns
>in pods under the wings, not a 75mm cannon.  They were quite effective.
>Stukas were also used with 40mm guns by the Luftwaffe, mostly on
>the Eastern front.

Wasn't there a Me262 varient with an enormous gun mounted on the nose -
I think it was a 40mm cannon. The thing looked ridiculous - its gun
projected straight out about 4m from the nose. But I don't have the
details - anyone care to elaborate?



AJP



PS Sometimes when I post to this group I get my mail rejected on the
grounds that 'text greater than new text' or something. So if I want to
reply to a long question with just a line or two, I can't! Is this a
feature of this particular newsgroup... or is their a censor in my
machine :+) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: edhresko@hresko.eos.ncsu.edu (ERIC DAVID HRESKO)
Subject: Re: Trivia
Originator: edhresko@c00552-1403br.eos.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: edhresko@eos.ncsu.edu
Organization: Techno-Geeks Inc.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:57:38 GMT



	I forgot to qualify the fact.  It was the first aircraft to make an
arrestor hook landing after the pilot had punched out.
-- 


Eric

******************************************************************************
Eric Hresko		* Mail:  edhresko@eos.ncsu.edu                        
Kanki House of Steaks   * Voice: (why would you want to call?) 1-919-821-5168
Dishwasher 2nd Class    * HK Rules!!! (But a FAL will do in a pinch)         
DISCLAIMER:  I don't wear sandals, eat granola, or tiptoe thru the Tulips    
                                                                             
At what temp will a frog become a superconductor?                             
				-Me at 3 a.m.                                
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: urf@icl.se (Urban F)
Subject: Re: type differences
Organization: None. On USENET I speak only for myself.
X-Alt.reply-Address: n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 07:05:51 GMT

megazone@granite.WPI.EDU (MegaZone) writes:

>In article <1993Jan21.175401@usho72.hou281.chevron.com> hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:

>>|> F-16D - two-seat trainer version of the F-16C
>>                    ^^^^^^^
>> JUST A TWO-SEAT VERSION, NOT JUST A TRAINER

> They are trainers. They do retain
>the combat capability, although they may suffer from less fuel, etc, due to
>the second cockpit. But that is why they existed in the first place.

Maybe so, but what determines it is what the customer wants them
for. The Israeli F-16D's obviously have a combat role as evidenced
by the large box on their spines. The Israelis also have a reputation
for always including a two-seater in attack formations, for the
leader and the most experienced navigator. Recall that Lavi was
designed as a two-seater, with the option to build a one seat
variant.

The French have reconsidered following Operation Daguet. The air
force planned for 200 single-seaters and 25 two-seaters of Rafale
to start with, but after that, they decided to get only two-seaters,
but with identical cockpits to allow them to fly missions with
only one pilot when appropriate. Now they want 180 two-seaters and
the rest single seat.

If _I_ ran a small air force, and only could afford a dozen or
two fighters, I'd try to persuade those who were going to pay
to only buy two-seaters -- but this does of course not reflect
the thinking of the USAF.
--
 Urban Fredriksson  urf@icl.se  
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jem3@pyuxf.uucp (25312-mc killop)
Subject: Re: WAS GLIDE BOMBING
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 13:20:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.190948.20362@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> acura@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (james.r.feeney) writes:
>If I remember correctly, in the book "Incredible Victory" about the battle
>of Midway, the Vindictors of Torpedo Squadron 8 (from the carrier Hornet I
>think) were all shot down in their attack on the Japanese carriers.

You are mixing two different aircraft here.  The Vindicator was a
scout bomber, the Vought SB2U, that was operated by a Marine Scout
Bomber Unit (VMSB) based on Midway.  The torpedo aircraft was the
Douglas TBD Devastator; all carrier based torpedo squadrons (VTs) 
at that time operated the TBD.  There were six(?) Grumman TBF 
Avengers operting from Midway by a detachment of one of the Torpedo
Squadrons (VTs) but I don't think they contributed much to the
battle.  This was the first combat mission for the TBF/TBM aircraft
that were designed to replace the TBDs.
From: john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: B-1B
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:19:05 GMT
Organization: Newave Communications, Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN

In article <1993Jan23.191859.9140@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman) writes:
> excure me for not knowing, but what is the status of the B-1b??
> All I can recall is that it took a bunch of birds and they grounded it 
> a few years ago... what is its status now?

About 97 B-1B are currently in service, and have been for a number of
years.  The B-1B is the backbone of our airborne nuclear strategic defense,
and has recently been certified to carry conventional weapons.  Despite
a bunch of teething problems, the B-1B is performing very well, and has
proven more economical to operate than the planes that it replaces.

With airshow season starting in a few weeks, I should also mention that
the B-1B is an excellent airshow performer.  It is hard to believe that
a plane as large as the B-1 can be so agile.  If you hear of a B-1 putting
on a demonstration at an airshow, make sure that you don't miss it.

-john-

-- 
==============================================================================
John A. Weeks III		(612) 942-6969		    john@newave.mn.org
Newave Communications, Ltd.			    ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 08:11:09 GMT

chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss) writes:

>Pay attention!!!!! :-)

	Damn strait!

>Just as a point of interest, several models of the B-52 (jet powered heavy 
>bomber, vintage 1050's to God knows when) had a quad 0.50 in the tail instead 
                 ^^^^^
>of the 20mm M61.

	Geesh!  And my ancestors were beating each other up with spears,
axes, and swords then!

	Sorry, I couldn't resist.

	Can we all hereby assume that what may be a typo is most likely a
typo and let it go at that?  I merely pick on Chad because he provided a
perfect opportunity, not becuase of any paticular malice.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: What forces still in Gulf?
Date: 25 Jan 93 20:31:21 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

A net acquaintence asked me if I knew what forces are still deployed in
the Gulf.  I didn't know, can anyone answer him?  Specifically, what
are the ground forces, air forces.  I know there are several carriers
there.

Many thanks, Corky Scott
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Re: "Our Century" on A&E
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 07:54:17 GMT

In article <8RgPXB9w165w@major.panix.com> dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:
>Have caught this show on the A&E cable network a few times - they've
>had features on several military aircraft, including the A-10, F-16,
>Harrier, and several others. More technical detail than you'd expect
>from a TV show, and interviews with pilots who describe some of their
>interesting flying experiences and techniques.



Yep...  The particular series that airing now is called "Frontline Pilots".
Wednesday was part two of three.  They put together quite a bit of good
footage from the war, although I remember seeing most of it during all
the press pool feeds back then.
From: john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Trivia
Date: 26 Jan 93 04:57:14 GMT
Organization: Newave Communications, Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN

In <1k0vslINN9gf@bigboote.WPI.EDU> chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss):
> In <1993Jan21.150040.29754@ncsu.edu> edhresko@eos.ncsu.edu:
> > I should comment that the Crusader has the honor of being the first
> > aircraft to land by itself

> Years ago, I took a tour of Griffis Air Force Base.  They were still flying 
> static display, but it didn't have a canopy.  The story, as I remember it,
> was that the pilot punched out in a nasty spin/stall, and the force of the
> seat leaving the aircraft was just right to kick the plane into level
> flight.  It flew around for a while before settling in for a wheels-up
> landing in a field.

My favorite display at the USAF museum is the F-106.  There is a photo
of an F-106 in the center of a large snow-covered field, along with the
following description:

"The aircraft on display was involved in an unusual accident.  During a
training mission from Malmstrom AFB on Feb 2, 1970, it suddenly entered
an uncontrollable flat spin forcing the pilot to eject.  Unpiloted, the
aircraft recovered on its own, apparently due to the balance and 
configuration changes caused by the ejection, and miraculously made a
gentle belly landing in a snow-covered field near Big Sandy, Mont.
After minor repairs, the aircraft was returned to service.  It last
served with the 49th Fighter Interceptor Squadron before being brought
to the Museum in Aug 1986."

The plane was in service for 16 years after the "crash".  The fate of
the pilot was not mentioned.  I hope he was OK--and it would be interesting
if he had a chance to again fly the plane that he once ejected from.

BTW, the tail number of the F-106 is 80787.

-john-

-- 
==============================================================================
John A. Weeks III		(612) 942-6969		    john@newave.mn.org
Newave Communications, Ltd.			    ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: The Tomahawk Case
Date: 21 Jan 93 21:18:10 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Chevron

In article <HUOPIO.93Jan21205941@boa.cc.lut.fi>, huopio@lut.fi (Kauto Huopio) writes:
|>
|> It is very interesting to note how many people argued that the thing
|> that hit the hotel in Baghdad couldn't be a cruise missile. I believed
|> the story form the point where one newsman told that there was many
|> "shwoosh"-like sounds noticed near the hotel. The cruise missiles used
|> the route near the hotel even during the war two years ago, so why not
|> now..

 It is very interesting to note that you waited so long to state facts 
 in support of the obvious.

 In the interest of discussion, I gave and asked for opinions before all
 the facts were in.  I don't recall seeing yours.

 Several other news "military experts" had similar AAA/SAM opinions. 
 These other explanations were equally plausible, just not true.

 We now all have the advantage of 20/20 hindsight and we know it
 to be "a shot-down Tomahawk whose warhead did not explode".

 Or was it?  ;)


 TRAVIS
 hhtra@chevron.com
 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military