HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pscotto@MtHolyoke.edu (Peter J. Scotto)
Subject: Info needed on Pzl 24
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:12:53 GMT


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.

--Peter Scotto
From: gopal@cirrus.com (Gopal Ramachandran)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Bay area warbirds
Date: 12 Dec 92 02:11:28 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.

In article <216@newave.newave.mn.org> john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes:
>
>Just south of Moffet is Onazuka Air Force Base, which consists of nothing
>more than a building and a bunch of satellite dishes.  Rumor has it that
>this is one of the most secure air force installations despite being in

It's popularly known as the "Blue Cube". They control most (all?) of
the US's spy satellites according to published reports. I believe
there is another alternate control center (Colorado? maybe). 

>>OAKLAND AIRPORT - I hear there was an air museum starting here.

There is also a DC-3 based there used for "nostalgia" flights around
SF Bay. The nose art reads "Sentimental Journey".

>>HAYWARD AIRPORT - A guy named Mike Coutches has some warbirds
>>     here, including a P-51H.  Are these usually visible on a

He has several warbirds. He still has the P51H, and I believe he has
another P51D up for sale. When the hangar door is open, they are
easily seen. He had a jet trainer a few years ago, which he wiped out
after landing it on Hesperian Blvd parallel to the airport. He flies
his Mustangs to local airshows.

>>WAGONS TO WINGS MUSEUM, MORGAN HILL - This museum has some
>>     interesting airplanes listed.  Anyone been there?  Are the
>>     airplanes well restored and displayed?  Can you get a good
>>     look at or photo of the ones displayed in the restaurant?

I havent been there, but I've been to the "Flying Lady" restaurant
years ago. It has many full-size airplanes hanging from the ceiling.
It's in Morgan Hill.

>There is a small airport on highway 101 on the next exit below the
>exit for Morgan Hill.  There is a sign on the south end of the airport
>that says something like "future home of California Antique Aircraft

This is South County Airport.

In the Bay Area, there are several other airports with interesting old
birds. Livermore has many, many warbirds, as does Hollister and Half
Moon Bay. There are some to be seen at San Jose, Palo Alto, and 
Reid Hillview, as well. There are plenty of other airports around
here, too.

Gopal
-- 

Gopal Ramachandran <gopal@cirrus.com>
UUCP:  uunet!cirrus.com!gopal
Cirrus Logic Inc, Fremont CA  PH: (510)-226-2138 FAX: (510)-226-2160
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: ahng@ee.ualberta.ca (Allan Hong-Kay Ng)
Subject: Re: Flames ect...
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 10:04:12 GMT

johnm@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com.mcm.hp.com (John Mosbarger) writes:

>Dr. Strangelove (zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu) wrote:
>: Stop Please! This is usually(I stress this) good news group.
>: I love planes, and I'm a novice. I don't care if they are "ugly",
>: whether they are preformance is poor, or if the pilot sucks(unless I'm on
>: his plane.) This is to discuss military aircraft, not flaming (of people).
>: 
>: SO BACK TO AIRCRAFT, take the flames to alt.flames
>: 
>: To all those why write articles to this newsgroup, "thanks".
>: 
>: KEN
>: 
>: -- 
>:  Dr. Strangelove      "You just can't let nature run wild." -Gov. of Alaska
>:  U.Wisconsin Milwaukee    
>:  Major: Political Science  track." 
>:  Why that Alias? From the Movie Dr. Strangelove.

>     I strongly concur.  People, remember that the participants in the news-
>group are of varying levels of expertise.  With me it's just a hobby, so I
>appreciate the "words of wisdom" that appear here on a (thankfully) regular
>basis, and post when I feel I can contribute to a discussion.  So lighten
>up and have fun!

>John
>--
>*****************************************************************************
>| John Mosbarger          |    You know why many people commit suicide      |
>|                         |    during the holidays?  It's because they're   |
>| HP McMinnville, OR      |    forced to spend time with their relatives.   |
>|                         | 	                  --John Belushi            |
>| johnm@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com |                     	                    |
>|***************************************************************************|
>|                     Opinions are mine and mine alone.                     |
>*****************************************************************************

Hi
  Well I have to say I think this is all bunk let's fight!

  Just kidding!

  I have to join the chorus of good will.  This is X-mas after all
  let's stop fighting amongst ourselves and talk about ACM or
  carpet bombing (ironic humour?)

					Ho Ho Ho

					A. Ng
From: rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Air Force Career Types (Was Re: The A-10)
Date: 18 Dec 92 13:58:28 GMT

In article <BzFpz9.L9L@plato.ds.boeing.com> prang@plato.ds.boeing.com (Ron  
Wanttaja) writes:

:Take Frank Luke... he was awaiting court martial when he broke arrest and
:took off on his last mission.  Maybe Pappy Boyington (another Medal of 
:Honor winner with poor promotability) put it best:  "Show me a hero, and 
:I'll show you a bum."
:
:As Boyington's history should indicate, the Air Force doesn't have a 
:monopoly on heroes with poor promotability.  Dan Gallery planned and
:executed the operation that captured the first enemy warship on the high
:seas since the War of 1812, and he was brushed aside in the postwar period.

One minor correction.  Colonel Boyington was a Marine aviator, not Air Force.

Doug Botimer
formerly SSgt. USMC
From: shafer@spdcc.com (Mary Shafer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: B-1 Desert Storm
Date: 17 Dec 92 22:26:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Dec17.222635.29657
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <9212171610.AA04428@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil> davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil writes:

>Anyway, I sort of agree that _maybe_ the F-117 was the only choice, but I
>can't help but think that politics had a lot to do with using the -117 in
>combat for the first time.

I was under the impression that they'd sortied two F-117s during the
invasion of Panama.  As I recall, the first plane didn't drop/launch
anything (bad ordnance? bad guidance?) and the second launched
something that missed by a quarter of a mile.  I don't remember the
loads being particularly smart, by the way.

Maybe there was even more political pressure to produce good results
from the F-117 after such a bad start to such an expensive plane.

--
Mary Shafer
shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: good@pixar.com (100% natural and hypo-allergenic.)
Subject: FW-190 (was Re: Bf 109)
Organization: Pixar - Pt. Richmond, CA USA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 07:09:15 GMT

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). 

When I took the tour of the Paul Garber Facility, our guide paused in front of
the FW-190 (E, I think) and asked if there were any WWII vets in the crowd.
When the response was negative, he explained that he had to be careful in front
of whom he made the following statement: "This, in my opinion, is the best
fighter aircraft of World War II".  He went on to explain about automatic
systems which were manual in Allied planes even at the end of the war, the
performance, weapons systems, etc.

I must confess that, as big a fan of the Mustang, Lightning and Corsair as
I am, if my fairy godmother granted me one chance at stick time in a warbird
I think I'd have her fuel up a 190.  It looked so business like and, well,
*right* that it has me quite intrigued.  I'd be interested in hearing more
about this plane.

(Interesting note: as I recall, the guide explained that the Allied plane
with the best kill rate against the 190 was -- tada! -- the P-47 "Jug"!)

		--Craig
-- 
	good@pixar.com
	Make Welfare as hard to get as Bulding Permits
From: bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SAAB J 21 (was Re: Ejection seats/capsules (was Re: B-1B))
Date: 16 Dec 92 07:02:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: giraffe.bakc.242.724489323
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa

>From: nyo@dcs.exeter.ac.uk (Neil Youngman)
>Date: 15 Dec 92 09:12:52 GMT
>In article <29437@castle.ed.ac.uk> ajpotts@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Potts) writes:

	{Combat history  of SAAB's Flying Beer Barrel omitted for reasons
         of brevity}

>Jet Provost and was exported to many countries as the Strikemaster.
>I don't know whether the piston engined version ever carried
>weapons, but I believe the Strikemaster saw action in the middle east.
>Sorry SAAB!

	Yep, the Provost with the fan in front was weapon-capable.  I don't 
know about RAF Provosts but, in the early 1950's a sizable number were sent 
out to Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia).  In the hands of the RRhAF they were 
initially equipped with a single wing-mounted 303 Browning and light bomb 
racks for weapons training.  
	In 1959 some Provosts were deployed to the now Malawi to counter 
civil unrest.  On at least one occasion Provosts dropped tear-gasbombs on 
rioting mobs.	
	Some 12 years later in Rhodesia at the start of the "Bush War", 
Provosts were fully engaged in COIN ops.  Weaponry was now four 303 wing-
mounted Brownings (suggesting that the a/c was designed for this right from 
the word go) plus racks for AP bombs (4 x 30 pounders, I think).	
	The old "Provvie" was a fine a/c: easy to fly, fully aerobatic, 
easyto maintain, reliable, etc. etc..   Its greatest contributions in peace 
time in the Zimbabwe of some 20-plus years ago was ab initio pilot training 
and search and rescue.  BTW: here in SA the air force historical flight has 
gotone of these down from Zimbabwe and is in the process of fully restoring 
it....here's to seeing her in the air one day!!
Cheers,
Keith Coman

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Condemning a research report on the basis of :  Dept of Management
 invalid and unreliable methodology is the    :  Rhodes University
 cheapest shot in the book."                  :  Grahamstown, 6140
                                              :  Rep of South Africa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin)
Subject: Re: Air Force Career Types
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:57:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.172835.7953@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> conan@northeastern.edu writes:
>I flamed Toby H. cause arrogant SOBs bring a bad name to service
>and to good people who are professionals. I have yet to meet a good
>professional that was as arrogant and loved to put people down.
>Never saw a good man who had to prove himself by hurting others.
>Lot of jerks around that feel secure by putting others down.
>I dont think we need any John Waynes in the services cause they are
>the ones who get friendlies killed, mess up things for the good guys,
>and live to brag.

Hmmm.... From my current level of knowledge re: Mr. Hughes, which I admit is
extremely limited, my current comfort level would be high knowing that Toby
was flying the close-air support I needed.  I can't say that about some others
I know.

I also usually find that my opinions and comfort levels don't radically
change the more I find out.

Methinks this personalizing of threads and concepts is beyond what we
should be doing.  When it comes down to it, Toby was one pilot who did
a good job.  There were a lot of others, too; and a lot of people on the
ground and back at home.  Nearly all did an excellent job.  Few could
pull 200 missions and talk about it.  Certainly that was nearly impossible
in WWII.

-- 
// 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: zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin)
Subject: Re: Aircraft beauty contest  (specifically: N1K1-J Shiden)
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:32:08 GMT

Re: Joseph Baugher's article about the N1K1-J Shiden (GEORGE)

Thanks, Joe, for an informative article!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: rmt@pioneer.net.com (Richard Tweedie)
Subject: Re: The A-10
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:34:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.092203.15085@unipalm.co.uk> steven@unipalm.co.uk (Steven Vincent) writes:
>viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
>>thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) writes:
>
>>> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
> *** deleted ***
>The P-47 had a much better capacity to absorb battle damage than the P-38,
>which had very little duplication of systems. I had heard that the P-38s
>single engine performance was hopless and that either electric or hydraulic 
>power would be lost when an engine went down. Still this may of only applied
>to the early models.  
>

Tony Levier used to fly whole aerobatic routines in a P-38 with one 
engine feathered--including rolls **into** the dead engine.

Rich Tweedie


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: prang@plato.ds.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja)
Subject: Re: Movie Jets (was Re: PEARL HARBOR)
Organization: Boeing Defense & Space Group
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 08:18:16 GMT

In article <4190@eastman.UUCP> luh700@gosset.kodak.com (Jeffrey D. Morris) writes:
>MEMPHIS BELLE accurate???  Please explain what you mean.  Certainly not
>the accuracy of the story of the final flight.

Sorry, I meant accurate in equipment.  Gawd knows the plot was awful.

It's a good indication on how bankrupt in ideas and deadly conservative
Hollywood is today.  If the producers had approached the studios and said,
"We want to do an expensive movie about a bomber in World War 2" they would
have been quickly shown the door.

HOWEVER, all they had to say is, "We're remaking an academy-award-winning
film" and the backing was found.

Heck, everyone KNOWS the plane makes it back.  And most reviews mentioned
that the original plane's crew all toured the US after the completion of
the 25th mission.  So any sense of suspense was gone. 

I read an article or two on the making of the movie, and got even more
impressed with the film as a logistical accomplishment.  They had some big
problems; most notably the shortage of flyable B-17s.  They didn't do TOO
bad multiplying the five or six they turned up.  But writing a new plot
unassociated with the original film could have allowed them to work around
such problems even more.

My favorite memory of the movie:  Watching the guy slip on the bombbay
catwalk, and the bombbay doors popping open.  When I first saw the film, I
said to myself, "Typical Hollywood enhancement."

Then I read one article.  The original script didn't call for the doors to
open... but when the technical advisor watched the filming, he said "Hey!
If someone actually slipped like that, they'd hit the cables that trigger the
emergency door lock release!" 

Yeah, for the most part the plot stunk.  But the technical details were
apparently accurate.

                                          Ron Wanttaja
					  prang@plato.ds.boeing.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: "Fake" MiGs (was Re: PEARL HARBOR)
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
	<RATINOX.92Dec14115306@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
	<1girhjINN7pj@bigboote.WPI.EDU>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:14:50 GMT

In article <1girhjINN7pj@bigboote.WPI.EDU> megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23) writes:

>In article <RATINOX.92Dec14115306@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu writes:

>>the US as a MiG simulator and as NASA space shuttle chase planes. It's

>MiG-20 simulator I believe... But the NASA birds are T-38s....

MiG-21 to be precise.  They tend to look like the MiG in an ACM
environment, and they also act like them, above 300 knots).  below 300
knots the MiG tends to bleed energy in turns faster than the F-5.

Also, NASA does have _one_ F-5, but it has never been used to chase
the Shuttle.  Yes, all the Shuttle chases are T-38s...

--
Al Bowers                       bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle, Lead Aero
NASA, Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, California
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Soviet/Russian designations (Was: Re: NATO Code Names for Soviet Aircraft)
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 06:13:58 GMT


Which is the correct designation for Soviet ICBM'S?  I've seen both
'SS' and 'RS' used, and 'SS' seems to make sense (SS=surface to surface).

Space boosters are listed as 'SL-(number)', SL= space launcher??, which
seems to fall in line with the designations for missiles.

Simon
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: The A-10
Date: 17 Dec 1992 10:30:25 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


"Toby . Hughes" <thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu>wrote:

>In all this talk about armor vs speed, etc, the focus is on the survivability
>of the airplane and crew.  Important, especially if you are the crew, but NOT
>the primary consideration in CAS.
...
>Speed is life for the pilot, but it detracts from accuracy, and inaccurate
>CAS is worse than no CAS at all.

survivability of the airplane and crew is _always_ important.  If you get your
bombs on target but get hosed on the way back, your CO will be less one
airplane to fly the next CAS mission.

In the Desert Storm environment I'm sure the A-10 was one of the best
solutions.  In a really coordinated battle area with sophisticated weapons and
trained crews using them I'm not so sure.  Is the F-16 the answer?  Probably
not.  Single engine airplanes probably aren't the best CAS airplanes (look at
the Harrier losses in DS).  What, then?  I dunno.  I admit that much.  I do
know that an airplane designed to survive primarily through armor plating (not
speed or some combination of the two) is not the ultimate solution.

BTW:  I'm smiling.  I've been smiling.  I haven't gotten angry yet.  Everybody
take a deep breath and count to 10.

Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions,
go and get your own."

Patch after TOPGUN release:  "Fighter guys make movies, attack guys make
history."

Patch after FLIGHT OF THE INTRUDER release:  "Fighter guys make movies, attack
guys make bad movies."
Organisation: European Space Operation Centre (E.S.O.C)
Date: Friday, 18 Dec 1992 18:12:18 CET
From: <PHAMER@ESOC.BITNET>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: A-10 --->Modern CAS a/c
Distribution: World

Interest points raised here, and yes I think that a single prop CAS a/c is
indeed sought after by the smaller nations of the World, take the Argentine
Pucara, from all accounts quite capable in its role. Paul.
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: BIG A/C ON CARRIERS
Date: 17 Dec 92 06:53:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 

-> Just as impressive, if not more so, were the 16 B-25 Mitchells that
-> flew off of the Hornet to bomb Tokyo back in 1942.  Even though they
-> faced into the 30-knot wind, Doolittle's lead plane had only about
-> half the deck length (400 feet?) to work with.... and they were
-> probably quite loaded even with all gun turrets removed.  They also
-> timed their takeoff runs to coincide the upswing of the pitching deck
-> with liftoff.

There was a movie made in the 50s about the training for that mission. I
don't remember the name, but it has a LOT of B-25 footage including
shots of the "training" for the takeoff with B-25 pulling up so hard
that their tails were bouncing off the runway. I don't even remember who
was in the film, but I do remember the excellant footage of the B-25s.
                                        Rocky
From: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Bf 109 questions 
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 05:46:54 GMT
Organization: Me? Organized?


In article <1992Dec15.131403.17976@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu writes:

  > 
  > In article <1992Dec15.015848.18995@den.mmc.com>
  > zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin) writes:
  > 
  > > I expect that some of the reasons for the 109's longevity were political
  > > and due to the large established manufacturing base.
  > 
  > Possibly, but the 109 was a better high altitude fighter than the 190.

More likely it was extremely cheap and easy to build, and converting 
the lines to 190's would have taken them out for too long.

  > Also, when the Ta 152 came out, it's true that it was a faster fighter
  > than the 190, but many pilots flying it were unhappy with it because
  > it's rate of roll was slower than the old 190's.  Since the 152 wasn't
  > actually faster than the Mustangs and Thunderbolts, maneuverability was
  > the only defense and in this, it wasn't as effective as the 190.  This
  > information comes from JG 26 a book about that fighter wing.

The definitive Ta-152H certainly had no problems outrunning any allied 
fighters at virtually any altitude - it was equipped with Water- 
Methanol as well as GM-1 injection for power boost, giving max speeds 
of 465mph @ 30,000 ft, & 472 mph at altitudes in excess of 41,000 
ft!!!.  In fact the FW-190D, which was redesignated the Ta-152 had a 
maximum speed, with water-meth injection, of 440 mph @ 37,000 ft (D-9, 
the first operational version).

All from Janes "Fighting Aircraft of WWII".

  > In the end though as has been said many times before, it isn't the
  > aircraft but the trainingand skill of the pilots.  In a skilled pilots
  > hands, almost any fighter becomes an effective weapon.

Yup


Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Re: Aerobatic maunevers - 12/7
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:01:17 GMT

In article <MTANNER.92Dec18134744@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> mtanner@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Michael C. Tanner) writes:
>   From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
>
>   CUBAN 8:       Immelmann taken a bit further.  Procedure is like a loop until
>                  reaching 45 degrees nose down on the back side. Then opposite
>                  rudder and roll to finish on reciprocal heading.
>
>In my limited, and civilian, experience, this would be called a "Half-Cuban
>8".  A full Cuban puts two of these back-to-back so the aircraft flies through
>a vertical figure-8 on it's side.
>
>-- mike

Mike,

Your limited civilian experience is absolutely correct.  I tagged the descrip
of the cloverleaf with the fact that it took four to make a complete maneuver,
but left that off on the Cuban 8.  Thanks for the correction.

TH