HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: THE A-10
Date: 6 Jan 93 08:01:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 

-> life.  In addition to the factors mentioned aabove, capital
-> improvement to existing facilities (lengthing runways, for example)
-> should not be forgotten.

I doubt we'd have to lengthen many runways for P-47s. <grin>

                                        Rocky
                                                                                                                 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.owning
From: aboyd@quantum.qnx.com (Andrew Boyd)
Subject: Re: In search of information about MiG ownership
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 21:06:13 GMT
Organization: Quantum Software Systems, Ltd.

In article <1993Jan8.085415.12203@netcom.com> rosso@netcom.com 
>I am investigating the purchase of a Russian MiG jet with
>the possibility of operating it as an airshow act.  I would
>appreciate hearing from anyone who has experience with MiGs

When I rented some P-51 time in florida last spring, the same
outfit also had a (single-seat) chinese MIG-17 that they had
acquired & overhauled, and were flying in air shows (sound familiar?)
A mig-17 is somewhat similar to an F-86 sabre (roughly-subsonic
50's vintage).

They claimed that the turbine in the MIG-17 was cheaper and
simpler to overhaul than the V-12 in the P-51, which needed
a US$100,000 overhaul every 450 hours.  I suspect that your
kerosene burn with the mig would be enormous - those are
old, inefficient engines.  Depending on your power settings,
you would probably burn thousands of dollars of fuel/hr.

Dunno how hard it is to get MIG-17 engine parts.  I believe
at least some of the russian migs cloned western engines.

Specifically, during the cold war, the british incomprehensibly
handed over state-of-the-art plans and engines to the russians,
which seems unbelievable (refs avail), but might work to your 
favour.

I presume you are an ex-military pilot with jet fighter experience,
in which case flying the mig-17 is no big deal.  If you are just 
another civilian joe pilot, you may find it difficult to even get 
life insurance.  A two-seater jet would be essential so you could 
get dual instruction from an ex-military type.

There was a terrible accident in california about 10 years ago, 
where some civilian jerk with more money than brains tried to teach
himself how to fly an F-86.  I saw the footage - he tried to force
it off the ground before he had adequate airspeed, increased his
induced drag, never got off the ground, and crashed into an ice
cream parlour, killing himself & everybody else that got too close
to him.

Just the kinda PR GA needs.

On a more positive note, ex-military pilot richard bach used to
privately fly a T-33 ... and the EAA now has a bunch of post WWII
western jet fighters, courtesy of jim robinson, of texas ... give
the EAA a call, I'm sure they'd be a wealth of information.

Are you a multi-millionaire, btw?

----
#include <std.disclaimer>
From: zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Losses in air combat (was Re: Best fighterpilot ?!?!)
Date: 13 Jan 93 01:39:00 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group

As Al Bowers comments, the total losses in air combat (during WW2) were
staggering.  In my rather well-thumbed paperback copy of Paul Brickhill's (sp?)
book about 617 squadron there is a listing of the crews that departed on
the Dams raid.  I've marked which of them "got the chop" on that raid
and in subsequent raids.  I'll have to check, but only two or three survived
the war (Gibson survived but his crew was later killed flying with another pilot).
This, I understand, was typical for Bomber Command.  With a 5% loss rate
and a tour of 25 missions the statistics had to catch up with you eventually...
especially after two or three tours.  The USAAC losses during the months
of unescorted day bombing missions into Germany were even worse.

In the back of Tolliver & Constable's book on Erich Hartmann is a listing of
his squadron's losses.  It goes on for several pages.

While the aircraft and crews who fly them hold our deep fascination, and
the tactics and drama of air combat excite the imagination, we must never
forget that war, in the air and elsewhere, is a horrible, bloody thing.

I thought that "Piece of Cake" captured that quite well.  It showed us the
beauty of Spits shaking into formation, taking off of the grass of a
French country estate, but also how an enemy's bullets cutting into a fighter
rip apart the human being inside.

There was one service that suffered greater losses (by %) than any of the air
arms, however.  I do not have the figures with me, but I believe that over
75% of the German submarine crews were lost in WW2.  The USN submariners
also had a staggeringly poor life expectancy over several cruises, although
not quite that bad (I have to dig up the pamphlet that has the numbers,
which I got aboard the USS Pampanito, a fleet sub preserved in San Francisco).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Andrew.Brooks@launchpad.unc.edu (Andrew Brooks)
Subject: Re: F-15E Performance
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 12:36:14 GMT

In article <BOWERS.93Jan8115353@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov> bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) writes:
>racks (assymmetric loads are not fun in a real shooting environment).
>This actually happens with some regularity, read John Trotti's
>"Phantom Over Vietnam" or Fred Blesse's "Check Six".

Could you give me some info on "Check Six", please?  I have read Trotti's
book and thoroughly enjoyed it.  Thanks,
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: nahst6+@pitt.edu (Nathan A Horstman)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: energy and tactics (was: Finnish Defense)
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:18:27 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <9301061604.AA22877@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil> davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil writes:
>Down like a rock trying to get enough airspeed to turn tighter than
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>your opponent. 
[snip] 

I don't agree with this.  I think you turn TIGHTER when your airspeed is 
slower, not faster.  You MIGHT turn faster if airspeed is faster, but you
won't turn tighter corners.

Just my .02

Nathan

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<-->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       G  O       H  O  U  S  T  O  N 
<<      Nathan A. Horstman      >>  OOOO  IIIIII LL     EEEEEE RRRRR   SSSS  ||
<<   University of Pittsburgh   >> OO  OO   II   LL     EE     RR  RR SS     ||
<< in%"nahst6@vms.cis.pitt.edu" >> OO  OO   II   LL     EEEE   RRRRR   SSSS  ||
<<      nahst6+@pitt.edu        >> OO  OO   II   LL     EE     RR RR      SS ||
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<-->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  OOOO  IIIIII LLLLLL EEEEEE RR  RR  SSSS  oo
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: sjs@torque.bae.bellcore.com (Stephen Szymanski)
Subject: Re: The A-10
Reply-To: ricks@berkeley.edu
Organization: Bell Communications Research
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 14:04:06 GMT

In article <SCOTT.93Jan3201212@fraud.Berkeley.EDU>, scott@fraud.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) writes:
|> 
|> The A-10 is about as sweet a CAS aircraft as you're going to come up with.
|> Of course, the Su-25 isn't bad either.
|> 
|> Scott


As usual, I missed the show on ESPN, but yesterday, they were showing
the 1991 Gunsmoke competition.

First place:  A10
Second Place:  F16

Now what's this about high tech bombing sights?  :^)
(Just kidding!!)

Seriously though, does anyone know much about the Gunsmoke comp?
It looked really interesting.  They showed a A10 making a bomb
run (dive bomb) and followed the bomb down.  This was at the
end.

Thanks!

Steve

-- 
******************************************************************************

Disclaimer:

The opinions expressed herein are solely my own and are not shared by Bellcore
nor any of its owner companies.

******************************************************************************

Steve Szymanski 
Bellcore 				RRC-1E222
444 Hoes Lane				(908)699-5026
Piscataway, NJ  08854			sjs@bae.bellcore.com
From: strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Analog Kid)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: THE A-10
Date: 6 Jan 1993 05:07:59 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.u.washington.edu

> But on the other hand, you could probably build a couple
> of squadrons of P-47s or comparable types for the cost
> of one A-10. "Quantity has a Quality all it's own." and
> a weapon droped from a P-47 destroys a target just as
> effectively as one launched from an A-10.
> 
> Besides think of the civilian market potential if the
> venerable P-47 went back into production. <g>

They already tried this with the P-51, a.k.a. "Piper Enforcer" in the early
1980's.  It was a magnificent flop.  Not nearly the combat survivability of 
the Hawg, nor the weapons platform stability.  It had an excellent loiter time
over target,{and looked like a real badass camuflaged, turboprop Mustang, but
that was about all it had going for it.

Randall Haskin
strega@u.washington.edu
From: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Was RADARs' impact on the Battle of Britain overstated? 
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 07:54:40 GMT
Organization: Me? Organized?


In article <1993Jan4.191812.25928@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> acura@cbnewsi.cb.att.com writes:

  > 
  > A friend was telling me about a book he read that described the exploits of the  > British code-breakers during WW2. One of the things he said was that this 
  > group had broken most of the German codes including the first generation
  > ENIGMA by the end of the battle for France (a substantial amout of help came

I think the Poles actually captured a code/decode machine without the 
Germans realising it.  They shipped it to Britain just before their 
surrender.  Don't ask me where I got the info, it just popped into my 
brain :-).

  > from anti-nazi German military personnel). This was such a closely guarded
  > secret that the British went to great lengths to conceal it from the Germans.

Well wouldn't you?

  > Apparently once the Battle of Britain began the British were intercepting the
  > very attack plans that the German bomber crews were getting, including
  > evasion and diversion tactics. This was what allowed the British fighter
  > groups to attack so efficiently. The quality of the RADAR at that time did
  > not provide anywhere near the definition required for the precise defence
  > tactics that the British used. However the RADAR network was given exclusive
  > credit as a cover to the real source of information. This is one reason why
  > the German attempts to confuse the British to the targets selected usually
  > met with failure.

I have heard stories that the Brits allowed some raids to go 
unmolested, as if they had intercepted those particular raids the 
Germans would surely have known that their code was compromised.

Radar was useful, and played a real part in the Air Defence of Great 
Britain, and also was a convenient "scapegoat" for any other info 
which came the Brits way.


  > Has anyone else heard of this? I always thought that it was the British RADAR
  > network that saved them but it always seemed a little strange that the Germans
  > were unable to counter this as the British and later the Americans were able
  > to do.

At the start of the war German Radar was not all that advanced, so one 
could hardly expect their countermeasures to be better.


Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney)
Subject: Re: Finnish Defense
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 12:19:16 GMT

True, it is a marginal advantage, but that doesn't mean it isn't any advantage. 
Yes, it may be cheaper to build a faster missile, but hey, any aircraft can carry
this new weapon, putting us back to square one with aircraft speeds.  In any
case, there are still instances when you want to make an intercept that Vmax is
vital, and I believe that they will become increasingly common for the US with
the use of AWACS.  Manuverability just didn't matter in the majority of Kuwait
War shootdowns by the Coalition.  Fighters were vectored in, they shot beyond
visual range, and the Iraqis blew up.  In such a case, a high Vmax allows your
interceptors to cover larger areas and have a higher probability of kill.

					E
From: wbj@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com (William Jones)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Flying Wing Stability
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:18:08 GMT
Reply-To: wbj@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Distribution: world
Organization: Teradata/NCR

A coworker recently visited the facility here in Southern Cal where one of the
prototypes of the Northrup Flying Wing Aircraft is being restored. His tour guide
remarked that the Flying Wing was a very easy aircraft to fly, and that it was
very stable.

This doesn't jive with what I've read about the Flying Wing. I've read that the
thing was highly unstable and difficult to fly. In fact it was this instability
that lead to the death of the Colonel Edwards who's the namesake of Edwards AFB,
and eventually contributed to the cancellation of the program. The same article
mentioned that a flying wing design is more feasable today, given modern computer
based flight control systems - such as those that make the B2 flyable.

What's the real story on the Flying Wing's airworthyness?



Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Subject: B-52s on Guam (was: Re: A FEW GOOD MEN AND F14'S)
Summary: Ain't none, at least not permanently. 
Keywords: Andersen AFB, START, Dr. Strangelove
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:58:46 GMT

In article <1ihj10INNi9d@uwm.edu> zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Dr. Strangelove) writes:
> Guam is still an American territory, and still has
>a large military base, does it still have B-52's?  

Not permanently.  Quoting from the START treaty (which, at the current rate,
I will eventually wind up posting to rec.aviation.military in its entirety 
sooner or later ... :-) ):
	"The Parties agree that, as of the date of signature of the
	Treaty [7/31/91 -- MWJ], there are no heavy bombers permanently
	based at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, and that it therefore has not
	been specified as an air base for heavy bombers in the Memorandum of
	Understanding. ..."
The treaty goes on to note that certain things will happen if the U.S. ever
does decide to base bombers there again.

-- 
Bill Johnson				| My suggestion for an Official
Los Alamos National Laboratory		| Usenet Motto: "If you have nothing
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA		| to say, then come on in, this is the
!cmcl2!lanl!mwj (mwj@lanl.gov)		| place for you, tell us all about it!"
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: A Few Good Men F14  (& Fidel)
Date: 11 Jan 1993 08:47:10 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


Previous posts:

>> California. There are no F14's based at NAS Guantanamo Bay ("Gitmo"), just
>> TA-4J's used for fleet training exercises.


>This is contrary to a few earlier posts, that claimed f14's did occassionally
>put into Gitmo when their carriers were in port, for example.

>BTW: I suspected it all along that it was unlikely that F14's would be on the
>tarmac at Gitmo. Why waste the firepower?

"On the field" does not necessarily mean "based".  If a carrier is in port,
the A/C may be flown ashore, even off of US soil.  (but technically the base
at Gitmo is US soil, oh nevermind).  The planes aren't based there, just
visiting.

Just keep saying to yourself, "Its only a movie, its only a movie."

Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions,
go and get your own."
From: nikke.gaby@compart.fi (Nikke Gaby) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: PILOTE TRAINING SCHOOL
Date: 5 Jan 93 22:16:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: ComPart BBS, Helsinki-Finland, +358 0 506 3329 (14 lines V.32bis)
Reply-To: nikke.gaby@compart.fi (Nikke Gaby) 

        Hi !

        I'd like to introduce myself : I'm a 25 years old student at the
        Helsinki University of Technology. (Finland)

        I got me Private Pilote Licence last summer in France where I
        was instructed on Robin DR-400, DR-300 and ATL by a former Navy
        Fouga-Magister instructor. Anyway, my interest on flying is
        growing everyday and I will graduate in the next future from the
        University.

        So, I'm looking for me and my brother Patrick a high caliber
        pilote training in a professional environment. We're searching
        full-time training and high quality education. We're certified
        physically fit and drug-free. We both have the Private Pilote
        Licence.

        What we want is that the institute, or academy is an FAA
        approved Part 141 Flight School and provides Certificates of
        Eligibility for Nonimmigrant (M-1 & I-20) Student Status or
        equivalent.

        If you know such a school that will provide us a Professional
        Multi-Engine Turbine Instrument Flight Degree, please live a
        message or send your proposition to the following address :

                                        Nicolas Gabriel-Robez
                                        Alalinnake 1 E 47
                                        02160 ESPOO
                                        Finland
                                        fax : (358-0) 425 940

        Thank you !
---
 . SLMR 2.1a . Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
                                                                                                                             
----
+--------------------------------------------------+
| ComPart BBS    +358-0-506-3329 (ZyXEL V.32bis)   |
| Helsinki, Finland  -  Number 1 BBS in Finland    |
+--------------------------------------------------+
From: nahst6+@pitt.edu (Nathan A Horstman)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: *** AF F15 Eagle/Strike Eagle vs. Navy F14 Tomcat ***
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:58:05 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

Which one is better?  I KNOW the F15 is supposed to be better, but I have a
Jet Combat Simulation Game (very realistic) that would make the Navy F14
Tomcat a little better.  Any facts/opinions?

Question:  according to Rand McNally Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft (or
something like that) the F15A (Eagle) has a ceiling of 100,000 feet while
the Strike Eagle it lists it as 60k something.  Is one figure or the other
wrong?  

Also according to the same source, the two engines of the F15 Eagle produce
considerably more thrust than the F14, and the F14 weighs in heavier, but
there is very little max speed difference.  What's the deal?

How about radar?  The game I mentioned gives the F14 a considerably higher
rating for radar than the F15...is it really more advanced?  How do they
differ?  

Also, possibly due to size difference, the F14 has better armament options,
WRT what missiles it can carry and what mix.  Specifically, the F15 can't
carry long range active missiles, just medium range ones.  Is this true?

How about countermeasures?  Does the F15 have better or worse countermeasures
to use to avoid missiles and the like?  

More sophisticated avionics?  More maneuverability?  Better weapons control
systems?  

I guess I'm just wondering why the F14 would APPEAR better, when, from
everything I hear, the F15 is the better of the two.

Nathan

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<-->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       G  O       H  O  U  S  T  O  N 
<<      Nathan A. Horstman      >>  OOOO  IIIIII LL     EEEEEE RRRRR   SSSS  ||
<<   University of Pittsburgh   >> OO  OO   II   LL     EE     RR  RR SS     ||
<< in%"nahst6@vms.cis.pitt.edu" >> OO  OO   II   LL     EEEE   RRRRR   SSSS  ||
<<      nahst6+@pitt.edu        >> OO  OO   II   LL     EE     RR RR      SS ||
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<-->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  OOOO  IIIIII LLLLLL EEEEEE RR  RR  SSSS  oo
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: A FEW GOOD MEN AND F14'S
Keywords: F14 CUBA US NAVY
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:28:07 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1993Jan7.182831.3449@cunews.carleton.ca>, wcsswag@alfred.carleton.ca (The Charlatan) writes:
|> [History of base deleted]
|> 
|>  According to my book "The guide to US Navy". The rent was originally
|> in 1903 was $2,000 in gold. Now the cost is $4,085 a year. I don't if
|> Cuba used the Cash. BTW that works out $90 per Sq mile.
|>  Not a bad deal.

  I've also heard that the area outside the fence around the base
  is also the most heavily mined area in the world with both US
  and Cuba mines galore.

  Or have the Iraqi mine fields in Kuwait topped it?

 Travis
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Subject: Re: P51s are Shiny Metal
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  7 JAN 93 09:08:23    

In article <viking.726387726@vincent1.iastate.edu>, viking@iastate.edu (Dan
Sorenson) writes, in part:

>Alexandre Fortin <T726@music.mus.polymtl.ca> writes:
> 
>>Most of the USAAF fighters were left with there shiny metal finish
>>because this lowered drag and gave speeds 20 to 30 mph higher than
>>a camouflaged plane.
> 
>	Car buffs <ahem!> may recall that racing autos are often waxed
>to reduce turbulence and improve airflow over the body.

	First time i went to Oshkosh fly in was during the aftermath of the
	fuel crisis.  Lotsa people selling waxes, with numbers proposing that
	they would decrease fuel consumption/increase range/increase speed.
	Anybody know what the Round_the_World flight did?

>	Then there's Mach 2+ flight, where the wax would certainly melt
>and run off the skin due to friction forces heating it up.
> 
>	What is SOP today for Mach 1.5+ aircraft?  For that matter, were
>aircraft maintainence crews given tubs of Turtle Wax to coat the planes
>with back in World War II?

	Interesting question.  One I have pondered since visiting Offut and
	Dayton and looking at the SR71s.  They have exposed (tho flush)
	"Phillips" head fasteners, notably on the leading edge, to fasten the
	RAM wedges.  The also have numerous "patches"  (apparently repairs),
	simply rivetted on.  with protruding rivets and the material of the
	patch about 0.125" thick.  Seems curious, but there it is.

	Discounting "disinformation", I _speculate_ that at those speeds, the
	skin of the a/c becomes irrelavant.  Whats really doing the flying is
	the boundary layer, so the roughnesses are hidden inside a "stalled" 
	layer. 

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
40 Old Bolton Rd		|I am the NRA.
Stow, Mass, USA	
01775				pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: dconk@wyvern.twuug.com (Don Conklin)
Subject: A Few Good Men F14
Organization: Wyvern Technologies
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 15:36:35 GMT


The F14's seen in the movie "A Few Good Men" were filmed at NAS Fallon
Nevada. The tail codes indicated they were based at NAS Point Mugu
California. There are no F14's based at NAS Guantanamo Bay ("Gitmo"), just
TA-4J's used for fleet training exercises.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military