HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: DC1/3
Date: 10 Jan 93 21:03:00 GMT
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins)
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016

-> What relationship (if any) is there between the DC1 & DC3 aircraft? I
-> read/hear at one time that the DC1 was the prototype to the DC3, and
-> that few were built NONE are still flying. Is this true?

The DC-1 was the first of the DC series of transport/passenger planes
that Douglas produced. It was not a prototype in that sense, but was a
production run aircraft. The later DC-3 was similar in outward
appearance but structurally was a good bit different (the wing sparring
for example). Since they were based on the same technology and we're
basically from the same design team, they did share a lot of basic
similarities in wing shape and so on.

-> Also, I've seen photos of WWII era Dakota aircraft being used to
-> spread chemica dispersants over the Shetland Island oilspill, and the
-> planes look (to me) to b identical to a DC3. Are the DC3 & Dakota
-> "related"?

DC-3/Dakota/C-47, all the same aircraft. Take a DC-3 and paint it green
and you have a C-47/Dakota. There were some minor differences like the
door arrangement on the side of the C-47 but the differences were really
only cosmetic. The basic aircraft is the same. There are still a lot of
those suckers flying too. A friend of mine had on in Alaska (and still
does). On weeldays he'd fly to Seattle and load up on fresh vegatables
to sell at the airport in Fairbanks, on weekends we used it as the club
skydiving bus or else took it to Anchorage for King Crab and parties.

In fact I saw one land here at Birmingham a week or so ago and pick up a
load of freight.
                                        Rocky
                                                                         
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: frank@rover.uchicago.edu (Frank - Hardware Hacker - Borger)
Subject: Re: DC1/3
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: frank@rover.uchicago.edu
Organization: Joint Center for Radiation Therapy
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:59:00 GMT

In article <1ij59cINN2nl@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23) writes...
>This was quickly followed by the DC-2, which was the real production model.
>This was mainly a sleeper, and again 14 people. Douglas realise that they
>could expand the fuselage and add another row of seats, making 21 total. This
>and a few other modifications to the basic design were made. This design was
>the most successful transport of all time, the DC-3. 12,00 - 13,000 being
>built worldwide, including license production in Japan and Russia.

	My vote for the most beautiful plane. Some other trivia

	DC2-1/2. During WWII in the south pacific, in need of some kind of
	transport aircraft, and having two broken up DC's (courtesy of the
	Japanese air force,) they actually attached a DC2 wing inplace of the
	blasted wing of a DC3 and flew it.

	DC3. Only transport credited with a kill. Japanese zero pilot, frus-
	trated after blowing all his ammo and the #$%^& is still flying,
	tried to crash his plane into the DC3. Took off part of the tail,
	and bought the farm doing it, but the DC3 managed to get to base.

	Any air frame that can log 50 years and 1 million air hours gets
	my vote.

   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   | |_) _   
                                   | \|_)  Show me a sane man and I will cure
    "Birthplace of Softball"          |_)  him for you. - C. G. Jung
From: v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SR-71 engines
Date: 9 Jan 93 07:22:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


In article <725928533snx@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz> mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell) writes:
>I was chatting to a chap the other day about possible engines for 
>"Aurora", being variable cycle and all that stuff, when he told me 
>that the SR-71 engines were/are variable cycle.  Apparently the 
>turbojet shuts down at high speed and theengine functions as a ramjet 
>thereafter.
>
>This was all news to me, as the sketchy info I have on this engine 
>(J58 (JT11D-20B)) simply calls it a low-bypass ratio turbofan with 
>afterburner.
>
>Anyone know any details?
>
>

Well yes and no. Once the SR-71 is positioned downwind and her pilot lights
the burners, they never are shut down. As the aircraft accelerates through
Mach 2.5 or so, the engine bypass louvers open up and duct air directly from
the inlet to the afterburner.
	The turbine is NEVER shut down, or idled. If It was idled, it would
actually drag on its mounts, and if it were shut down, it would tear off
its mounting lugs. 
	While the turbine is for the most part bypassed, the engine is still
not a true ramjet. The turbine provides some 17 percent of total engine
thurst while the afterburner provides about 26 percent. It is the INLET 
which provides ABOUT 63 PERCENT of the total thrust! A ramjet, by 
definition derives its thrust from the combustion of fuel, whereas the SR-71
get her thrust hrom her air intakes. When the SR-71 begins the reentry
profile of the flight, the burner is decreased and eventually extinguished,
but the engine becomes very fuel thirsty and inefficient. 
	Hope this sheds some light. BTW, this from the SR-71's Pilots Manual.
Direct flames there. Regards,

Peter Vasilion
From: prince@fund.omsk.su (Rustam Kh. Yusupov)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Best fighterpilot ?!?!
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 11:39:20 +0500
Distribution: world
Organization: Omsk Property Fund
Reply-To: prince@fund.omsk.su

>   Ivan Kozuhedub          62             WWII                USSR
>   Aleksandr Pokryshkin    59  (P-39)     WWII                USSR
    Nikolay Gulaev          57  (P-39)
    Grigory Rechkalov       56  (P-39)
    Georgy Golubev          53  (P-39)
    Dmitry Glinka           50  (P-39)
>   Alelyukin               40             WWII                USSR
>   Vladmir Lavrinenkov     35             WWII                USSR
>   Aleksandr Klubov        31             WWII                USSR
>   Boris F. Safnov         22             WWII                USSR
>   Stepan Suprun           15             WWII                USSR
>   Lily Litvak              7             WWII                USSR
>   Katya Budanova           6             WWII                USSR
                                           ^^^^
                                         not WWII, but
                                         GPW (Great Patriotic War,
                                         for 22.07.41 to 9.05.45)
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: American kill...
Date: 4 Jan 93 16:55:59 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1992Dec31.193729.9858@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>, fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca (Fengxi Zhou) writes:
|> Wow, there have been a lot of strong responses to my "curious situation". But 
|> most of them miss the point: i said "near the no-fly zone" no into. I don't 
|> think Saddam would be that stupid the send his birds just for being shot down.
|> Let me make the "curious situation" clearer:
|> 
|> Once every a few days, he would send a bird or two up, rushing to the no-fly 
|> zone but make a u-turn just outside it. So the "navy F-16s" must respond.
|> But since the Iraqi jets didn't actually enter the NFZ, the good guys can't
|> shoot their "IR AMRAAMs". Let this happen day and night. So the American 
|> flyboys have to maintain some a/c constantly in the air, not a very pleasant
|> vacation spot.
|> 
|> This might not work as one posting pointed out: in the air iraqis can not
|> pull any surprise on Americans. Just keep an AWACS constantly on station and
|> vector in fighters when detecting the bandits. Still some hassle.

 To make the "curious situation clearer", you should learn more about air
 operations, especially in that area.

 The AWACS have been flying out of Saudi Arabia constantly, 24 hrs a day,
 since the Saudi's first bought them over 10 years ago.  The US has been 
 flying constant air patrol's every day, 24 hrs a day since Desert Storm.

 But, as I said in my earlier post, these constant patrols are just routine.
 They're done all over the world - Japan, Alaska, Europe.  There are always
 AWACS planes in the air, figther patrols out cruising, and interceptors
 on alert 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.  No big deal.

 When CNN talked to the pilots many weeks ago, they said it was real 
 boring to fly for hours over endless sands.  The "probes" by the Iraqi's
 probably breaks up the boredom at the least, provides good training for
 the US pilots, and, at the most, removes one more piece of hardware from
 SoDamnInsane's arsenal.

 TRAVIS
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: frank@rover.uchicago.edu (Frank - Hardware Hacker - Borger)
Subject: Re: Focke-Wulf Ta 152
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: frank@rover.uchicago.edu
Organization: Joint Center for Radiation Therapy
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:33:00 GMT

In article <BOWERS.92Dec29092050@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov>, bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) writes...
>The fascinating piece of technology with this aircraft was its
>engines.  They were Junkers Jumo 207 diesl engines.  But not in a
>conventional sense, there were two crank shafts geared together.  And
>two pistons ran in a single cylinder (six cylinders, but twelve
>pistons).  Both pistons would come to top-dead-center simultaneously
>(very high compression) in a `boxer' fashion (unlike a horizontally
>opposed 180 degree `vee' engine).

	Not the only diesel engines to use this idea, but the only aircraft
	ones I know of. Logic is that (1) you don't have to design in
	heads, (which weigh, but don't contribute power,) and (2) opposed
	pistions provide much less vibration.

	Tradeoff is of course, much more maintenance required, (seems to be
	a common thread of most German war machinery, whereas Allied equipment
	was designed for the least common denominator of repair people.)

   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   | |_) _   When My Love Comes Back From The
                                   | \|_)  Ladies' Room, Will I Be Too Old To
    "Birthplace of Softball"          |_)  Care? - song by Lewis Grizzard
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Air Combat Lingo questions
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:30:43 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <C0MKIC.GEK@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan9.232904.5551@tcsi.com>, jrk@nittany.tcs.com (John Koper) writes...
|> >I saw the cockpit-footage of the F-16 shooting down the Iraqi MIG
|> >and had a few questions about the lingo used by the pilot:
|> > 
|> >2) "Got Tone"
|> >	- The newscaster said that this indicated that the missile had
|> >	  been launched but I thought it was that the missile had locked
|> >	  onto the target.  If it is "locking on", is it the plane or
|> >	  the missile that locks on?  Can the missile pick up the target
|> >	  while still attached to the plane or does the plane dump the
|> >	  missile guidance info just before being launched?
|> > 
|> Got tone means that the radar guided missile has locked on to the
|> target and the pilot is about to fire. The AIM-120 will track a target
|> isstlf while on the airplane, but the AIM-7 had to link with the fire
|> control computer to track targets prior to launch. 

 Missiles "growl" to indicate that they "see" the target and different
 missiles sound different too.  Next time you see combat video, listen
 for that kinda buzzing sound - that's the weapon talking.  The tone 
 will change pitch when it goes from "I looking" to "I see it".

 Virtually, all smart weapons acquire their targets while still attached.
 Laser guided stuff usually doesn't or is not necessary.

 Several guided weapons "trackers/sensors" are more capable than the gear
 on board the aircraft.  HARM is sometimes used as an extra radar warining
 device due to its more specialized sensors and interface.

 "Dumping" missile guidance info is just part of the launch process.  Some
 weapons are fed update info until the umbilical breaks.


 TRAVIS
From: l115130@cc.tut.fi (Lehtonen Tero)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Questions about AMRAAM, AAAM and F-14
Date: 5 Jan 1993 23:51:35 +0200
Organization: Tampere University of Technology, Computing Centre
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cc.tut.fi
Keywords: AMRAAAM, AAAM, F-14


	Now, when the AMRAAM was for the first time used in combat to bring
down that Iraqi mig, a couple of questions entered my mind. First of all, does
anybody have any idea about the actual status of AMRAAM? I mean, is it already
in full scale production and/or service? The latest information I've seen is
already a couple of years old and says that AMRAAM-program is in severe
trouble (delays, rocketing costs, lacking the required performance etc),but
what's the current situation? Also, many sources have claimed the AMRAAM to
have a range of mere 50 klicks against the 100 klick range of AIM-7F. Is this
correct or not?
	And does anybody know anything about the AAAM (Advanced Air to Air
Missile) program? The latest information I've got talks about a Sparrow-
sized weapon equipped with ramjet and both IIR and active radar homing. 
	Finally, I'd like to see some discussion about the new roles and models
of the F-14. A couple of weeks ago I read about so-called Bombcat - Tomcat
equipped with iron bombs - which would be used in strike roles. I think F-14
would do pretty fine in low penetration missions due to its variable geometry
wings, but it lacks any sophisticated ground attack sensors. So what do you 
think, how well would this Bombcat actually perform? And what about the "ATF-
Tomcat" which is claimed (by Grumman!) to have 90% of ATF capability at 50%
of the cost? 

			Tero Lehtonen, l115130@cc.tut.fi
			Tampere University of Technology, Finland

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Questions about AMRAAM, AAAM and F-14
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: Tampere University of Technology, Computing Centre
Keywords: 

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jhan@debra.dgbt.doc.ca (Jerry Han)
Subject: F-22 Questions...
Keywords: F-22, Fighter
Organization: Communications Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:57:12 GMT

A couple of questions about the F-22 here:

1)  What is the F-22's projected IOC?

2)  Can anybody post a compiled set of statistics for the F-22?  All I
have are a bunch of magazine articles while the tests were still going on.

Thanks a lot!




-- 
Jerry Han-CRC-DOC-Dept. of Behavioural Research-"jhan@debra.dgbt.doc.ca"
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// 
/   The opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect the opinions /
/         of the DOC or any branch of the Federal Government. 	      /
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: yukyuk@beta.lanl.gov (Craig B. Huffnagle)
Subject: Re: A FEW GOOD MEN AND F14'S
Keywords: F14 CUBA US NAVY
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:09:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.115017.1@cbr.hhcs.gov.au> byrnes@cbr.hhcs.gov.au writes:
>I saw the movie "A Few Good Men" the other evening, and noticed in some of the
>scenes of the airstrip a few F14's deployed. Is it common for F14's to be based
>on ground bases like Guantanamo?
>

When the carrier is in port, the Air Wing usually detaches and heads for a 
ground base.  Such would be the case if the carrier crew is undergoing
REFTRA (Refresher Training) at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

>BTW: what is the background to the Navy base at Guantanamo? I find it kind of
>weird that the US has a military presence on Cuba. How long has the base been
>there - was it put there under some old Cuban/ US treaty or what?

We've had Guantanamo since the Spanish-American War.  We took it.  That is
why the Cubans hate us there.  That's why there is so much tension on the
perimeter between the American base and the Cuban forces that is referred to
many times in the movie.

- Craig

-- 
Craig Huffnagle				      	      yukyuk@yuck.lanl.gov
"My mom always said that rain was God crying,
	She also said it was because of something I did."      Jack Handey
------------------- Think of a disclaimer, it applies. -------------------
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: THE A-10
Date: 4 Jan 93 06:32:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 

-> Well, even though the old WWII aircraft had tremendously powerful
-> engines, they had nowhere near the payload that an A-10 does... I
-> think a P-47 was able to get off the ground with 2 500lb bombs, a
-> small drop tank and a few rockets.  That is about a ton or two of
-> ordinance at best, but an A-10 has

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>
                                        Rocky
From: skronkvi@aton.abo.fi (Stefan Kronkvist INF)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Does South-Africa operate Mirage Fighters?
Date: 11 Jan 1993 03:25:15 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


Hi!

Question: Does South-Africa operate Mirage fighters?

skronkvi@aton.abo.fi


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: Best fighterpilot ?!?!
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
	<carlos.726803042@morgan>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:19:18 GMT

In article <carlos.726803042@morgan> carlos@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Miguel Borges) writes:

>Does anybody have the TOTAL air losses for the various nations in WWII,
>for example?  If you count the victories of the >100 kill-aces of the
>Luftwaffe in a previous post, you get more than 7800 kills.

>7800 Kills?  Wow.  This wouldn't even include kills by pilots with
>less than 100 kills.

Yes, it is a staggering number.  I have a total sortie and loss (not
broken out by nationality though) number for WWII at home.  The
numbers are _astounding_.  I'll try to remember to bring it in
tomorrow and post the numbers.  Remember that there were 35,000 -109s
made during the war.  Most were destroyed on the ground, but say that
one-third were not.  There are 10,000+ kills right there.  And at the
end of the war, the odds were very high against the Luftwaffe, odss of
10:1 or 20:1 or worse were not unheard of.

For instance, 18 March, 1945.  A bombing raid on Berlin, there were
1,221 American heavy bombers escorted by 632 escort fighters (can you
imagine a formation of 1,853 planes?!?).  The Luftwaffe put up 29
sorties against this armada.  In the end, there were two Luftwaffe
losses on this occassion with eight bombers shot down (Luftwaffe
claims were for 12 bombers and one fighter).  The following day there
were 45 sorties, six bombers lost for two Luftwaffe losses.  The 20th
of March, 29 sorties, nine bombers shot down, four Luftwaffe losses.

Can you imagine 632 Mustangs/Thunderbolts/Lightnings chasing after 29
Messerschimitts?  And only getting two of them?

>Is this accurate?

I'll bring in some numbers tomorrow.  The losses are unbelieveable.
The numbers are so staggeringly high, they are beyond comprehension.

--
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: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Max/Military Power  (Was Finnish Defense)
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:20:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.122441.25342@athena.mit.edu> mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney) writes:
>So Dave, I know of two other supersonic-at-max-military-power jets:  English
>Electric (later BAC) Lightning, and the F-4 (only when brand-new, less than half
>fuel, and perfectly clean -- not even pylons.

Well, I can't locate Dave's posting that triggered this, so I don't know what
led to this response;  perhaps my question is unnecessary.

Looking at the context of the statement, I assume you mean aircraft that can
attain supersonic speeds without using the afterburner.  The confusion is that
in referring to the power settings, you used both "max" and "military."  These
are two different settings.  Max power means afterburner, Military power is full
RPM without afterburner.  These terms, of course, are as used by U.S. military
aviation;  other countries probably have different terms to describe these.

TH


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: petri@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (HOWARD PETRI)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.owning
Subject: Re: In search of information about MiG ownership
Date: 10 Jan 93 15:53:09 GMT
Reply-To: petri@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: INDIANA U. CYCLOTRON FACILITY, BLOOMINGTON, IN
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <1993Jan8.085415.12203@netcom.com>, rosso@netcom.com (Ross Oliver) writes...
> 
>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
>specifically, or warbirds in general, such as:
> ------Rest Deleted 
>Ross Oliver
>rosso@netcom.com

     The people you want to talk to are Lee Lauderback or Doug Schultz
of the Stallion 51 Corporation at Kissimmee FL. They sell time in
a dual control P-51 but also own a MIG 17 that they use on the airshow
circuit. I talked to Lauderback last year at the warbird airshow during
the Christmas holidays and he seemed to be more than willing to provide
detailed info on operating costs for the P-51.

For instance: Pull the Merlin 1/yr (every 400 hrs), send it to CA for
a rebuild--$100,000

Bend the prop and a new prob is $40,000.

Is there any profit in the business? Well they meet all their expenses.

In any case they should have all the info you want on costs for the
MIG.

Their Phone: 407-846-4400
FAX          407-846-0414

I just returned from FL last week and saw the MIG and P-51 so I guess
they are still in business.

Howard Petri
Pegasus N599JH