HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bishopjl@infonode.ingr.com (John L Bishop)
Subject: Re: Info on NAVY jet called "Cutlass"
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:04:39 GMT

In article <lit325INN30t@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM writes:
>
>
>davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil () writes:
>
>>True, the Cutlass was underpowered, but this was not really why the nose strut
>>was extended.  Most delta wing or tailless airplanes need (and can get to) a
>>higher AOA to generate a given amount of lift. 
>
>I know that's true of delta-winged airplanes, but why would it be true of a
>talless airplane with conventional wings, like the Cutlass?  Why would the

The Cutlass DID have a delta wing, and no horizontal stabilizers.

>I wasn't aware that non- Royal Navy F-4s had an extendable nose strut.  One
>fighter with an interesting approach to this problem was the Vought F-8, with 
>its variable-incidence wing that was raised prior to takeoff.

Let's not forget the Concorde!  They had to design a droop snoot just to get
the nose out of the way so the pilots could see where they were going!

>>In the event of a mishap if the canopy were closed and the frame bent, it 
>>might not be possible to open the canopy to get out.  Hence, land with the 
>>canopy open.  Other (possible more reliable) airplanes did it as well.  
>>Up until they retired a year or two ago, A-3's still did it for every 
>>takeoff and landing.
>
>
>What?  I thought the A-3 had a sealed cockpit -- not really a conventional
>canopy, more of a glazed roof --  with a crew entrance hatch/escape slide on
>the bottom of the fuselage.  I've seen a lot of photographs of Whales, but 
>never one of an A-3 with an open canopy.

The A-3D's nickname in the fleet was "All Three Dead" because of the 
difficulty of crew egress in the event of a "cold cat shot" or landing
mishap.  The primary entrance/exit is as you describe.  It may be that A-3's
have a side window that could be opened.  Does anybody know?

							John
-- 
Standard Disclaimer:  These are my comments, and not necessarily my employer's.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!
John L. Bishop, Tech. Manager, Intergraph Corp.     bishop@jlb911.b17a.ingr.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Fake planes (WAS Re: PEARL HARBOR)
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
	<1992Dec17.203848.5811@julian.uwo.ca>
	<BzGuv6.Jvo@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:21:43 GMT

How many of you noticed that one plane launches and another crashes on
the Six-Million Dollar Man?  It's the HL-20 coming off the hooks and
the M2-F2 sliding across the lakebed bellyup.

Or the F-104 that turns into a Sabre and does the Sabre dance (tail
walks) into a ball of fire in Rocket Ship X-15?  (With an extremely
_young_ Mary Tyler Moore as a test pilot's wife.)

Or the F-14 that turns into a F9F (I think) Panther in a ramp strike
in Hunt for Red October?  The crew survived that one, essentially
unharmed, by the way.

I rather liked the black F-5s in Topgun.  At least they weren't in
standard smog-on-smog low-vis livery.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: steven@unipalm.co.uk (Steven Vincent)
Subject: Re: The A-10
Organization: Unipalm Ltd., 216 Cambridge Science Park, Cambridge CB4 4WA, UK
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 08:49:17 GMT

daveb@Ingres.COM (Dave Brower, DBMS hack, [510] 748-3418) writes:

>Someone please correct me if I am wrong.  I'm an A-10 "fan", but even
>so the time for the plane may be over.  I thought I'd heard that
>many/most/all of the A-10 airframes were approaching the end of their
>service life because of metal fatigue.  With the plant and tooling
>long long gone, there isn't really much chance of rebuilding them at a
>reasonable expense.  So, while they might be useful for a while, it's
>really time to look at what is going to have to replace them.

If that is true the why whould Turkey be looking at buying a supposedly
large bunch of them (Air Force Monthly Dec 92) if they can get export
approval from Congress?

Maybe the USAF wants to get rid of them because the idea that a low
slow CAS aircraft should be able to 100% identify its targets was 
proved wrong in the Gulf. (The A-10s scored more own goals than any
other aircraft used in the Air to Ground war).

Steven Vincent
		steven@unipalm.co.uk
From: gopal@cirrus.com (Gopal Ramachandran)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: If you are impressed by the SU-29..
Date: 12 Dec 92 03:14:53 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.

In article <1992Dec9.233016.14736@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> douglas@apache.ctr.columbia.edu (Paul Douglas) writes:
>
>The M version is one of the best acrobatic airplanes in the world and 
>can perform some maneuvers that no other aircraft in the world can..
>ex the horizontal tail slide and the torque roll (I think one other
>aircraft can torque roll)....

Actually, Charlie Hillard won the 1972 World Aerobatic Contest (in
France?), and the maneuver that won him the Unlimited freestyle
program was the torque roll. He originated this figure, and it's quite
commonly done now by Unlimited category competition aircraft. Hillard
did it in a Pitts, and I've seen torque rolls done by Christen Eagles,
Extras, Sukhois, Lasers, Stephens Akros, CAP230s, Ultimates, etc

>..........  The torque roll was pretty impressive too... the plane 
>traveled slower and slower vertically until it's vertical motion stopped 
>and it just turned about its roll axis .. the roll being driven by only
>the torque of the engine.

To help the roll, in my Pitts, I also use opposite aileron. In other
words, the airplane rolls left (prop is turning CW as seen from the
cockpit), and I use R. aileron as the airplane slides (note that the
ailerons are now acting as leading edge devices, and down aileron on
the L. side will cause the airplane to roll left).

Gopal
-- 

Gopal Ramachandran <gopal@cirrus.com>
UUCP:  uunet!cirrus.com!gopal
Cirrus Logic Inc, Fremont CA  PH: (510)-226-2138 FAX: (510)-226-2160
From: scott@sting.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Aircraft beauty contest  (Was Re: Advanced Tactical Fighter)
Date: 14 Dec 92 13:18:47
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF)
Distribution: world
	<SCOTT.92Dec6213559@sting.Berkeley.EDU>
	<1992Dec11.044235.9746@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sting.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jfb200@cbnewsd.cb.att.com's message of Fri, 11 Dec 1992 04:42:35 GMT


Thank you for your informative posting about the George, Joe.

Sounds like a dangerous airplane.  It's amazing that the Japanese
were able to develop aircraft like that on their tiny island despite the
heavy beating they were taking from allied bombing!

I wonder if the George had any vulnerability improvements over the Zero
like an armored cockpit (seat) or self-sealing tanks ... anyone know for
sure?

The Air Force museum in Dayton OH used to have a George on display.  I
don't know if it's still there though.  Anyone know if they've picked 
up any other Japanese aircraft over the last 20 years or so?

Scott
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: The A-10
From: David_Martin@kcbbs.gen.nz (David Martin)
Date: 12 Dec 92 17:24:48 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

>As both a fixed and rotary wing driver, I can attest to the 
>fact that, in both cases, the most fragile component on the aircraft
>is the pilot.

Another factor is that the pilot of the A-10 has his titanium "bathtub" 
to sit in which affords him more protection.  
As pure speculation could it be possible that the skin of a Helicopter, 
even the armoured Apache be thinner than the armour on an A-10? This 
is just a guess (had to add that so I wouldn't be flamed to death) mainly 
centered around the fact that helicopters can't take the load o a normal 
aircraft and also are heavly affected by temperature and air densiity/moisture

As far as I'm concerned there is a place for both the helicopter and 
the fixed wing aircraft in the CAS area.  The helicopter makes a great 
scout and has the ability to hang around with the troops alot better 
than an A-10.  But nothing beats the A-10's ability to provide the close 
air support with as much power.

Just my views.

David Martin
David_Martin@kcbbs.gen.nz
New Zealand.
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Bf 109 questions
Date: 15 Dec 92 13:14:03 GMT
 <1992Dec11.205057.13831@den.mmc.com> 
 <1992Dec14.183048.3198@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>  
 <1992Dec15.015848.18995@den.mmc.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

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.
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.

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.

Corky Scott
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: maierj@edmund.cs.andrews.edu (Joey Maier)
Subject: Re: PEARL HARBOR
Organization: Andrews University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:15:51 GMT

In article <1gir8eINN7c3@bigboote.WPI.EDU> megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.192017.1561@news2.cis.umn.edu> rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin) writes:
>>In article <1gi1vrINN9il@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23) writes:
>>[...]
>>|> Ok, so it REALLY sucked.... Iron Eagle was bad, and Iron Eagle III: Aces ha                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Wasn't that Burt Rutan's prototype tank killer that they used for the
bad boy's plane?  What did the movie say it was?  Didn't it give it some
phony military designation?

I wish that the government had given the thing a chance.  From what I
heard, it never even got a fair shot; i.e. it wasn't even tested by the
military.  Damn shame.  If it lived up to what Rutan claimed, it would
have been quite a plane.  It isn't often that you can fork over the
money for a buisness/commuter plane and come away from the deal with a
top of the line A-# series aircraft.

joey
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: prang@plato.ds.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja)
Subject: Re: big a/c on carriers 
Organization: Boeing Defense & Space Group
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 08:32:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.225908.635@den.mmc.com> hagood@sabre.den.mmc.com (Dave Hagood) writes:
>In article <urf.724012326@sw2001>, urf@icl.se (Urban F) writes:
>|> I'm reading an article on the Vickers Valiant in Air International,
>|> where it is claimed the USA showed some slight interest in it, to
>|> be used on carriers. Nothing came of that, but Curtis LeMay was
>|> influenced by it enough to recommend side-by-side seating for the
>|> B-52, as opposed to tandem, which it probably would have had otherwise.
>|> --
>
>	Interesting.  The XB-52 [and YB-52] had tandem seating, a la B-47, 
>but I had never heard any reason for the change.

According to Tex Johnston (Boeing test pilot of the XB-52 and YB-52) the
production versions went to side-by-side because of... Curtis LeMay.  LeMay
came to Boeing to try out the YB-52 (which, in fact, flew BEFORE the XB-52
did).  After landing, he said:  "Great plane... change it to side-by-side
seating and I'll buy it."

Johnston (in _Jet Age Test Pilot_) doesn't say *why* LeMay wanted
side-by-side, but says he himself was for it all the way due to improved 
crew coordination.  It may be that the B-47 had proved the tandem
arrangement too awkward, and LeMay didn't want to continue the trend.  

                                          Ron Wanttaja
					  prang@plato.ds.boeing.com
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Info on NAVY jet called "Cutlass"
Date: 15 Dec 1992 07:39:46 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


 Bjorn Hell Larsen <m05751@foxtrot.data.st.statoil.no> writes:

> As mentioned, the Cutlass was severely underpowered. As a result,
> the nose strut was gradually made higher and higher, to get more lift
> as the plane cleared the carrier.

True, the Cutlass was underpowered, but this was not really why the nose strut
was extended.  Most delta wing or tailless airplanes need (and can get to) a
higher AOA to generate a given amount of lift.  With low control power due to
low airspeed, the way to get this on a catapult stroke is to extend the nose
strut.  Look at F-4's on the cat.  Look at Entendards.

>Still, the pilots considered the
> Cutlass to be so unreliable that they routinely performed their
> takeoffs with the canopy open.

Again, true, but wrong reasoning.  Ejection seats at the time weren't capable
of getting the pilot out safely at low speed/low altitude.  In the event of a
mishap if the canopy were closed and the frame bent, it might not be possible
to open the canopy to get out.  Hence, land with the canopy open.  Other
(possible more reliable) airplanes did it as well.  Up until they retired a
year or two ago, A-3's still did it for every takeoff and landing.


Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions,
go and get your own."
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: stote@tomcat.den.mmc.com (M. Stote)
Subject: Re: Aurora - fast new toy from skunkworks
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:19:19 GMT

In article <Bz5oJs.Lqx@news.cs.andrews.edu>, maierj@edmund.cs.andrews.edu (Joey Maier) writes:
|> Earlier, somebody posted that CNN had said  something about a fast (Mach
|> 8?) new aircraft, and someone else posted that this may be the result of
|> project Aurora at Lockheed.
|> 	What kind of propulsion would something like this be likely to
|> use?  Ramjets?  Recently, I've heard some aviation buffs talking about
|> *external* combustion engines.  The rumor goes that they would function
|> by dumbing fuel on the exterior of the fuselage, where it would ignite
|> from the heat of friction.  The walls of the combustion chamber would be
|> the fuselage and the shock wave of air comming off the nose.
|> 
|> Is this for real?  I don't think so.  It seems to me that the pressure
|> of the propulsive expansion of the ignited fuel-air mix would have more
|> pressure than the shock wave.  It would disrupt the shock wave.  Net
|> result:  the plane doesn't move forward.
|> 
|> Could someone out there with a little more knowledge on the subject tell
|> me if I'm crazy.  I just don't think this sounds real possible.
|> 
|> Joey                 maierj@andrews.edu

I have no idea if Aurora uses this type of propulsion, but this is exactly what
National AeroSpace Plane (NASP) was proposing last August.  I saw a plenary
session at the 1992 AIAA Guidance Navigation & Control Conference which I believe
was presented by the NASP program manager.  For hypersonic flight the combustion
chamber was the shaped bottom of the fuselage.  I don't remember what it used
to get up to hypersonic flight.

--
Fare Well
Mike Stoughton
stote@den.mmc.com
From: prince@fund.omsk.su (Rustam Kh. Yusupov)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re:Aircraft beaty ...( La @ other...)
Date: 18 Dec 92 04:58:07 GMT
Reply-To: prince@fund.omsk.su
Organization: Omsk Property Fund

>Interestingly - the "West" only found out about the ultimate La-series
>piston engined fighter, the La-11, AFTER it had ceased production -
>when a young Soviet pilot got confused and landed one in Sweden in
>1949.

To my mind La-11 is last serial LA-fighter. But we has more experimental
La-aircraft, for example La-160 ( jet-bird ). After Lavotchkin death in
aircrash his buro was closed.

>Someone mentioned in another thread about early Soviet jets, with the
>engines podded under the front fuselage, and how some may have been
>taildraggers - the Yak-11 fits this bill - it was essentially a Jumo-
>004 put in a Yak-3 airframe!

The one of the first serial Soviet jets Yak-15 has shorten then Yak-3 wings
and Yak-3 airframe with Jumo-engine. What reason to make new engine if we has
many trophy engines ?

>Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
>mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz

Rustam "Prince" Yusupov
Property fund of Omsk               prince@fund.omsk.su
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: ahng@ee.ualberta.ca (Allan Hong-Kay Ng)
Subject: Re: "Fake" MiGs (was Re: PEARL HARBOR)
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:21:00 GMT

ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri) writes:

>of it's design concepts was similarity to the T-38. The F-5 is used in
>the US as a MiG simulator and as NASA space shuttle chase planes. It's
>also one of the most highly exported military aircraft.

Hi
  Correct me if I am wrong but aren't T-38's used as NASA chase a/c.
From: john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: B-1s in Desert Storm - Why not? (Engine Story)
Date: 12 Dec 92 21:34:10 GMT
Organization: Newave Communications, Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN

In article <723754927snx@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz> mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell) writes:
> In article <Te3DVB1w164w@n5abi.hou.tx.us> gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us writes:
> > stanford@leland.Stanford.EDU (Scott Stanford) writes:
> > > Why weren't B-1s used in Desert Storm?  USAF used F-117s and B-52s -

> > The stated reason was that the B-1B did not yet have a 
> > conventional bombing capability.

That is correct--at the time, the B-1B was a nuclear only bomber, and the
DOD did not plan to use nukes in Iraq.  The USAF now has certified the B-1
for conventional bombing, but the loading equipment is still in short supply.

I have heard speculation that even if the B-1B were available for conventional
bombing, it might not have been used because the B-52 was perfectly able to
do the job, so there was no need to risk an extremely expensive plane when
the nearly obsolete B-52 was available.

> Weren't they also having engine troubles at that time?  I seem to 
> remember that the whole B-1B fleet was grounded for a while 'cos some 
> rotating part or other kept letting go.

I toured the jet engine shop at McConnel AFB just after Desert Storm.
According to the shop supervisor, McConnel is the primary center for repairing
the B-1 bomber engines.  They told me that all jet engines occasionally
have fan blades break or otherwise come lose.  The problem on the B-1 is
that the engine case was slightly too thin, and the fan blades would exit
the side of the engine.  The B-1 has two engines mounted next to each other,
so the fan blades would sometimes exit one engine, then enter the adjacent
engine causing very expensive damage.  Once this problem was isolated, the
USAF stopped non-essential flights of the B-1 (but they were still available
for alert status).  They did not want to lose an aircrew or an expensive
aircraft for a stupid reason.  A temporary fix was developed in about 45
days, which allowed the B-1's to return to flight.  A long term fix is
being installed on all B-1's.  While they would not tell me what these
fixes are, they did tell me that the solution was to make the engine shrouds
a few thousandth's of an inch thicker.

The technicians at McConnel had just become fully qualified to repair the
engines on the KC-135R.  These planes have the new high-bypass GE engines.
One technician told me that they had yet to have one of the KC-135R engines
break, and the engines had no set maintenance interval.  Since they did
not have broken engines to work on, the were keeping in practice by working
on a new engine.  Everyone at McConnel was really impressed with this engine--
it was the one engine where GE really did everything right.

-john-

-- 
==============================================================================
John A. Weeks III		(612) 942-6969		    john@newave.mn.org
Newave Communications, Ltd.			    ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john
From: john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: B-1 Desert Storm
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:21:39 GMT
Organization: Newave Communications, Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN

In <1gh01qINNrbu@lester.appstate.edu> JESTER@vax1.elon.edu (John Jester):
> I read in a previous article tht the B-1 did not have conventional bombing
> ability.  I went and checked a couple of my books and they both say that
> it can carry a good load of conventional bombs.

The B-1 was designed to haul a variety of implements of destruction, but
only some of these capabilities were fully developed when the plane went
into service.  Since SAC needed a strategic nuclear bomber to counter the
Soviet threat, the nuclear bombing mission was high prioroty.

The USAF did not spend the money to fully develop the B-1 as a conventional
bomber.  There were B-52 and FB-111 available to haul iron bombs, and the
B-1 was needed in the strategic role.

After the B-1 was in service, they began working on developing the tools
and procedures needed to add the conventional bombing role to the B-1
program.  In the process, they discovered that there was a problem with
bombs tumbling and colliding as they were dropped from the B-1.  It took
a non-trivial amount of research and testing to solve this problem.  But
since the iron bombing mission was low priority, the work was strung out
over a number of years.

In the past two years, considering the fall of the Soviet empire and the
stand down from nuclear alert, the B-1 iron bombing mission was made a higher 
priority.  The USAF worked out the remaining bugs and certified the B-1
for conventional bombing missions.  The equipment to support conventional
bombing is now being manufactured and deployed--but it will take at least
another two years before all B-1's are ready to fly a conventional bombing
mission.

> I was later backed up by a TV program"Wings" or "Brute Frorce" that said
> and showed the same thing.

This was probably a difference between the "demo version" and the "shipping
version".

> 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.

-john-

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