HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: B-25's on carriers was (BIG A/C ON CARRIERS)
Date: 18 Dec 92 15:44:50 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1265.417.uupcb@the-matrix.com>
rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins)  writes:

> 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.

This sounds like the film "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo" with Van Johnson
in the starring role and Spencer Tracy playing Jimmy Doolittle.  Seemed
to be relatively factual up until the point of the dropping of the
bombs.  Then things get pretty Hollywood as a lot more explosions
occurred than what would have been occurring considering what was being
dropped (mostly incendiaries).  Interestingly, during the filming, the
B-25's took advantage of an oil fire in the Southern California area to
fly through the smoke for the cameras for dramatic pictures.

Corky Scott
From: daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: New russian STOVL
Date: 14 Dec 92 14:16:56 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

> It is the Yak-141 'Freestyle'. It was designed as a super-sonic VSTOL fighter
> building on experience with the Yak-36/38 naval aircraft. It has a single 
> 'main' engine terminating in a 'Lobster Tail' which uses rotating couplings to
> bend through the arc from horizontal to vertical. You can observe the same 
> principle with round pipe heating duct elbows. (I've worked in the field...)
> The forward lift is provided by two verticaly mounted turbojets. These jets are
> dead weight while in forward flight, only being useful for the VSTOL portions
> of a mission.
> 
> There is some doubt surrounding production of the aircraft due to the 
> restructuring of the FUSSR's military. Last I heard foreign partners were 
> being courted...
> 
> Personally I like the aircraft, VSTOL is very attractive. But the two lift 
> engines are a penalty. Some of the US designs with a single turbofan with two
> forward nozzles using Plenum chamber burning and a lobster tail seem more 
> attractive. What ever happened to the research on the 'Super Harrier'?
> 

There is only one Yak-141 in existence. Unless foreign partners come into the
project, it looks doomed.

A lot of the US "Super Harrier" (AV-16) research money was channelled into the
AV-8B. The UK money was lost in the defence cuts in around 1974. Somewhat ironic
that the UK later buys the AV-8B...

Dave
-- 

David Hastings                      | "Imposition of order=escalation of chaos"
VAX Systems Programmer              |                     
Oxford University Computing Services| "Just when you think you've won the 
daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk              |        rat race, along come faster rats"
               
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter)
Subject: Re: Air Force Career Types (Was Re: The A-10)
Organization: Bull HN Informations Systems Inc.
Date: 18 Dec 92 14:40:56 GMT

rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer) writes:

>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.

Which is exactly what Ron means when he says that Boyington's history shows
that other branches of the service have a conflict between warriors and
paper pushers.  Had Boyington been Air Force, Ron's statement wouldn't 
make sense.
-- 
Roger Ritter N1FZZ (R.Ritter@ma30.bull.com) PP-ASEL, AGI
1946 Luscombe 8A N71983 "Rocky"
Sheep do not so much fly as plummet!        NH CAP: Profile 49

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: lhawkins@annie.wellesley.edu (R. Lee Hawkins)
Subject: Re: "Fake" MiGs (was Re: PEARL HARBOR)
Organization: Wellesley College
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:17:16 GMT

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

Err... NO.  All the NASA birds are T-38's.

Cheers,
--Lee

>
>--Rat
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: s5umws@fnma.COM (Michael Stalnaker)
Subject: Re: The A-10
Reply-To: s5umws@fnma.COM
Organization: Fannie Mae
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:37:00 GMT

In article AA14705@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil, davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil () writes:
>
>wjc@dss1.austin.ibm.com writes:
>
>>While a hit on the pilot of a fixed wing aircraft will
>>probably take the aircraft out of the fight, hitting the pilot of
>>a helicopter will almost certainly result in something spectacular,
>>right NOW, especially if the aircraft is operating low-level. Helicopters
>>are so sensitive to pilot input that there often just isn't enough time to
>>hand off control to another crewmember before "making a real-estate
>>transaction".
>
>If a hit on a helo takes the pilot out, at least you have the option or
>illusion of being able to transfer control.  Take the pilot of an A-10 out and
>I guarantee a "real-estate transaction".
>
>And there's probably more time to handoff in a helo at 50-150 knots than a
>(2-seat :)  ) tac jet at 300-500 knots low level.
>
>Dave Hyde
>davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
>So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions,
>go and get your own."
>

A couple of points: The A-10 puts the driver in a titanium bathtub for the
very reason of he's the most fragile part. As far as A/C fragility, the 
Apache is desinged to take multiple hits on the rotors from 23mm cannon
fire. (Soviet standard AAA calibre, as used on the ZSU-23). And the engines
have been fed a shell equivilent to a 23mm, and continued to run. Gang, 
these things aren't built like Cessnas.. or F-(14-18)'s for that matter.
Because of the environment they're desinged for, they're pretty darn tough.
Now Hueys and blackhawks are a little bit different matter.. they're not 
as tough, though the blackhawk does have some armor.

--Mike Stalnaker


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: urf@icl.se (Urban F)
Subject: SAAB J 21 (R) and J 29 "Flying Barrel"
Organization: None. On USENET I speak only for myself.
X-Alt.reply-Address: n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 14:55:37 GMT

ajpotts@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Potts) writes:

[J 21 (R)]
>But it was (and still is) the only military aircraft to see full service
>in both a piston powered and jet form, which makes it kind of special,
>and a fact of which SAAB are rather proud. OK, it may have had the range
>of a milk float but it was very pretty - especially compared to SAAB's
>next jet effort which looked like a flying beer barrel...

But the J 29 was a _good_ aircraft, which not only took some speed
records for 500 and 1000 km closed circuits: It is also one of the
very few Swedish-designed aircraft to be used in combat, both in
fighter-ground attack and reconnaissance versions.

(Besides, I like the look of it!)
--
 Urban Fredriksson  urf@icl.se
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: The A-10
Date: 15 Dec 1992 07:39:08 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


Just seeing what I can stir up...

In <1992Dec15.010534.20195@watson.ibm.com> wjc@dss1.austin.ibm.com
writes:

>Armor is nice, but airspeed = altitude = options.

>Bill "Speed is Life" Collum

Exactly.  So, I can I assume this is another vote for the F-16 over the A-10
for CAS?  [:)]

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: ahng@ee.ualberta.ca (Allan Hong-Kay Ng)
Subject: Re: Helo kills of Fixed wing
Keywords: helo kill fixed wing
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 09:53:01 GMT

Hi
  A kind person from the Redstone Arsenal sent me mail about a
  test shot during Desert Shield at White Sands.  An OH-58 shot down a
  QF-100 using (A)IM-92A Stinger.

						FYI
						A. Ng

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: urf@icl.se (Urban F)
Subject: Re: big a/c on carriers 
Organization: None. On USENET I speak only for myself.
X-Alt.reply-Address: n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 18:32:06 GMT

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.
--
 Urban Fredriksson  urf@icl.se  
 A weapon is a device for making your enemy change his mind.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Aircraft beauty .. P38 
From: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 21:52:17 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Me? Organized?

In article <BzEqwq.LJz@dcs.ed.ac.uk> awrc@dcs.ed.ac.uk writes:

  > 
  > And lo, mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell) 
    spake unto the masses  >  saying:

   Cute :-)!

  > >
  > > 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!
  > 
  > Wasn't the Yak-11 a 2-seat trainer (as if single seat trainers were
  > commonplace) based on a Yak-9 airframe with a radial engine? I was sure the
  > "take a Yak-9 and bung in a Jumo" was the Yak-15.

Found it - yes the Yak-11 was as you suggest.  I x MG for armament.
  > 
  > Which ties this thread rather nicely into the "planes that served in both
  > jet and propellor powered forms" one - surely the Yak-9 and Yak-15 count
  > here? For that matter, so does the Yak-17, which was basically a Yak-15
  > with a tricycle undercarriage. Don't think I can include the Yak-23 in here
  > though - although it was another pod-and-boom design it was similar but
  > unrelated to both of the earlier designs.

   Proved wrong again!  I should give this up :-)!

   I got my numbers muddled - the Yak-15 was what I meant.  the 
info comes from "Russian civil and military aircraft, 1884 - 1969".  
This states that the airframe was the Yak-3, however, not the Yak-9.  
The taildragger configuration meant the tail wheel got cooked by the 
engine exhaust, so it was replaced by an all steel unit!

The Yak-17 was indeed a modified Yak-15 - the nose leg couldn't 
retract fully into the fuselage because of the position of the engine, 
thus still showing it's piston-engined ancestry.

This book also states that the Yak-23 was a "direct development of the earlier 
Yak-15 and -17", but was a virtual redesign of the -17.


Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin)
Subject: RE: BIG A/C ON CARRIERS
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:23:38 GMT

In article <1265.417.uupcb@the-matrix.com>, rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins)  writes:
|> -> 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.

Anyone who was at Oshkosh last year might have watched the Doolittle
"re-enactments" using the 9 B-25s which were at the show.

Ron Wanttaja I know was there, and commented that the crowd seemed to be
getting a bit disappointed because the 25s were using all that nice
available runway.

Well, at least until Miss Mitchell chose to do a short-field take off.
I don't know the run before it got airborne, but the video I have from
the EAA of the take-off run (counting runway lights) gave us an estimate
of 500-700 feet.

This was done in a brand new restoration, by the way.  The aircraft had
just completed a 12 year restoration and was flying on one proven engine
and one unproven engine without fully seated rings.  

The co-pilot also mentioned that he was reading off airspeeds until he
felt the aircraft hop and go airborne, at which point he was _yelling_
out airspeeds and wondering if he had brought a change of underwear with
him.  :-)  [At the end of that flight, he made his first-ever B-25 landing.
In front of 30,000 people - needless to say, he's still grinning from ear
to ear - we've been trying to shoot down his ego ever since... :-)]

-- 
// 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: pettypi@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Carl Pettypiece)
Subject: Re: Bf 109 (was Ejection seats/capsules)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:30:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.205057.13831@den.mmc.com> zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin) writes:
>When I visited the former Messerschmidt plant in Augsburg (then part of
>MBB) in '84 I heard that they were restoring a Bf 109G (presumably
>with the DB engine).  I subsequently recall hearing that it got pranged
>during a taxi test or a landing.  These recollections are, however, a tad
>hazy - can anyone confirm them?  (At the time the Augsburg plant was
>engaged in titanium parts fabrication for the Tornado and Airbus and
>was an impressive, very modern computer-integrated manufacturing facility.)

I read in Aircraft Illustrated many years ago that this very 109
did get airborne, for awhile at least.  This was before the one
in the UK, and was at the time the only DB 109 flying.  I don't
think it's flying now, though, I think they wanted to keep it
from danger and put it in a museum.  I'll have to look it up.

>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   ========================
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Pettypiece (pettypi@gaul.csd.uwo.ca)        Disclaimer:  Hell, I don't
Department of Computer Science                   even know if these are MY
University of Western Ontario                    opinions!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: frank@rover.uchicago.edu (Frank - Hardware Hacker - Borger)
Subject: RE: AIRCRAFT BEAUTY.. P38
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: frank@rover.uchicago.edu
Organization: Joint Center for Radiation Therapy
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 18:21:00 GMT

In article <1113.417.uupcb@the-matrix.com>, rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) writes...
>-> attack types.  The later LaGG aircraft (-5FN, -7, -9) could
>-> outmanouvre all common German fighters, and the Yaks were no slouches
>-> either.
> 
>Exactly. The Later aircraft. In the early parts of the Russian campaign,
>most of the Russian aircraft were older models and were NOT up to
>"current" standards. In the latter years a large portion of the Russian
>aircraft were ground attack aircraft and no matter how well armored are
>still poor opponents for a conventional fighter. Look 

	Every summer I try to hit a war-bird flyin that Lake Lawn Lodge has.
	(They get all the war-bird flyers to fly in for a couple of hours and
	you really get to see the birds. This year one guy brought in a YAK-11.

	Spec's were 300mph top speed, armament ONE 12.7mm machine gun. I would
	definitely not like going up against A Me geing outgunned 4 to 1.


   Frank R. Borger - Physicist    __       Internet:  Frank@rover.uchicago.edu
Michael Reese - Univ. of Chicago |___      Phone : 312-791-8075 fax : 567-7455
  Center for Radiation Therapy   | |_) _   
                                   | \|_)  Sex is good, but not as good as fresh
    "Birthplace of Softball"          |_)  sweet corn. - Garrison Keeler
From: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: The A-10 
Distribution: world
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 06:13:38 GMT
Organization: Me? Organized?


In article <1992Dec16.084917.6397@unipalm.co.uk> steven@unipalm.co.uk writes:

  > 
  > 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).

Weren't the Hog units flying higher than usual in order to avoid the 
Iraqi AAA?  A recent documentary here on some Brits killed by A-10 
fire had the Hogs @ 8,000 feet vertical altitude - way too far up to 
accurately identify vehicles, even with dayglo orange all over them!



Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz
From: colangel@rebecca.JSC.NASA.GOV (Michael Colangelo/MDSSC)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Prop-Driven CAS
Date: 20 Dec 92 20:30:28 GMT
Organization: IGOAL

>During the early
>'eighties Piper built a turboprop version of the P-51 and called it the PA-48
>Enforcer.  It had good speed, range, load, and loiter time.  It was tested by
>the USAF but no one ever bought it. 

Ironically, two months ago I was reading a back issue (1986, I think) of Air Combat
magazine.  In the issue they profiled the PA-48 "Enforcer".  The article 
reported that the USAF didn't want the plane because it's a taildragger, needed 
a healthy amount of reengineering (I don't know all the details), and basically
 already had a good CAS aircraft (A-10).  I do recall that the magazine article 
said that Piper (or Cavalier Aircraft in Florida) and USAF test pilots test flew it, 
and that the USAF pilots came to the conclusion that the plane was "dangerous" to fly.  
(I don't recall the reasons why.)  Anyways, after a number of flights, the testing 
program was cancelled.  Also, I think one of the two PA-48s built crashed but I 
forget the reason why.

- Mike
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: wardml@rtsg.mot.com (Matthew L. Ward)
Subject: A-10 Replacement
Summary: Wasn't there a plane a few years back?
Keywords: A-10, Mustang
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: global
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 12:50:00 GMT

On the subject of an A-10 replacement.

A few years ago [ <5 ] a read an article in that great aviation magazine "Popular
Mechanics" (sarcasm)  that described a company building an updated P-51 airframe
coupled with a modern engine for the CAS role.  The plane was touted as being only
1 million per plane while the A-10 was 10 million per plane.

Anybody know what happened to that plane ?


P.S. A few months ago, when I was still working for GD (when GDFW existed)
the opinion among the employees was the F-16 was just too expensive for the USAF
to throw away in the CAS role.  I personally think the durn plane is just too fast
for such a role, but you all know the USAF: If it can't dogfight or do mach 1, it
just ain't good enough for our boys in USAF.

***********************************************************************************
Matt Ward *  There is no such thing as "Friendly Fire" when it zips past your head
***********          - David Drake
***********************************************************************************
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: The A-10
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Date: 16 Dec 1992 02:09:33 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com


daveb@Ingres.COM (Dave Brower) 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.


Why is there so much talk of the A-10 fleet being "old" and nearing 
the end of its service life?  These planes were only built when, 
during the mid-to-late Seventies?  Are the stresses and strains of
training flights that severe?


Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller			+ + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM	+ + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: erik@tera.com (Erik Hedberg)
Subject: Re: U-2 Gifs?
Organization: Tera Computer Company, Seattle, WA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:37:16 GMT

In article <ByyAAq.Dpw@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> jac@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (John Clear) writes:
>In article <1992Dec8.063211.23264@athena.mit.edu> cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo) writes:
>>
>>Anyone have any gifs of a U-2 they would be willing to uuencode 
>>and send me?  Id really appreciate it.  Id be willing to offer an of my 
>>gifs in exchange even...Sr71,Fb111,Wild Weasels (TH?), both ATF's, F15's,
>>etc, let me know.  Also anyone itnerested in doing any other types of Gif
>>exchanges let me know.  (BTW I have a neat one of a Mig 29c doing a nose
>>dive into farmland.  Pilot ejected)  Perhaps we could use a newsgroup for
>>this eh?  huh?  whdda ya say?  nah?  guess not.
>>Let me know!
>
>	How about posting them to alt.pictures.binaries.misc, so we can all
>get a look at them?

I can't get alt.pictures.*, how about the skunk-works archive at
harbor.ecn.purdue.edu (/pub/skunk-works/pic).  They already have some
nice SR-71, F-117, and F-107 GIFs there.

Erik
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: uh311ae@sunmanager.LRZ-Muenchen.DE (Henrik Klagges)
Subject: Re: FW-190 (was Re: Bf 109)
Organization: Leibniz-Rechenzentrum, Muenchen (Germany)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:55:30 GMT

good@pixar.com (100% natural and hypo-allergenic.) writes:

>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). 

As far as I remember, the late H-model (stretched body) did 760km/h ...
Cheers, Henrik

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military