HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: B-25s and B-52s
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:42:53 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1993Jan22.172449.23919@walter.bellcore.com>
jem3@pyuxf.uucp (25312-mc killop) writes:

> The mod was made by Major Pappy 
> Gunn, a legendary figure.

I read some specific stuff about his modifications; it made the
aircraft VERY nose heavy and consequently so difficult to fly that he
never let anyone else fly the original for a while.  Legend had it, his
wife or girlfriend who was a nurse, was captured on Corrigidor and
Pappy waged what amounted to a personal war against the Japanese. 
Modifying the B-25 was just his way of being more effective.  Kenney
was innovative enough to allow lots of experimenting and pioneered
things like "parafrags"  which were bombs slowed by parachutes to allow
the attacking and very low level bombers a chance to get out of blast
range.  They also pioneered "skip" bombing which literally skipped a
bomb across the water surface until it hit the side of the ship.  This
attack method was VERY effective and the terror of the Japanese who had
no effective defense.  Captain Hara who commanded a destroyer in the
Solomons meantioned this dreaded attack often.

Corky Scott
From: chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: F/A-18 - afterburner in take off?
Date: 22 Jan 1993 22:42:01 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu

In article <1jc0tfINN93p@cc.tut.fi> l115130@lehtori.cc.tut.fi (Lehtonen Tero) writes:
>
>Yeah. At least F-14D is capable of doing that. Don't know about F-14B (former
>A+ -model). But, according to some rumours, the Russians are taking off from
>their new carriers with modified SU-27s without A CATAPULT! That's something, 
>I'd say. By the way, does anybody have any information about that? Or about
>Russian carriers and their aircraft in general?
>
>                            Tero Lehtonen, l115130@cc.tut.fi

If I'm not mistaken, the Varyag class (formerly the Kremlin class) carriers are
small, being around 800 ft in length (compared to 1100 or so for the Nimitz 
class) and around 60,000 tons displacement (Compared to around 90,000).  They 
were designed to carry 30 fixed wing aircraft, plus a number of helicopters 
(Compared to 90+ for the Nimitz).  The FW aircraft would launch from a ski-jump
on the front end, thus deleting the need for heavy, complicated, expensive 
catapult gear.  The aircraft tested during sea trials were the Su-27 Flanker, 
the MiG-29 Fulcrum, and the Su-25 Frogfoot.  Another possibility is the 
forthcoming Yak-141 Freestyle, a supersonic replacement for the Yak-38 Forger 
STOVL shipboard fighter.  

While the Varyag class represented the first real Soviet venture into true 
blue-water operations, they compare poorly to the Nimitz and other US 
supercarriers, and are instead in the class of the French Charles de Gaule 
class.  The class was originally planned at three, but only the first was sea-
worthy when the Soviet Union broke up.  Work is continuing on the second of the
class, possibly for foreign sale.  The third of the class has been deleted to make room for other large ships to be built. 

Chad Wemyss
From: ahgrabow@apgea.army.mil (Alexander H. Grabowski <ahgrabow>)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: TEST
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:51:35 GMT
Organization: APG-Edgewood

Yes, this is only a test
From: exudnw@exu.ericsson.se (Dave Williams)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Air Force One
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:14:58 GMT
Reply-To: exudnw@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              Any opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article 63574@mimsy.umd.edu, hoel@umiacs.umd.edu (Erik Hoel) writes:
>The inauguration coverage today showed Bush departing from Andrews AFB.
>While the camera followed Air Force One taxing out to the runway, a couple
>of old Air Force Ones (707s) came into view. I noticed that on each of the
>707's engine pylons, there was a strange device (rearward pointing) that
>had a flat circular surface (approximately half the diameter of the engine
>exhaust nozzles). 
>
>My question is - what are those things - some sort of anti-infrared missle 
>device? 

That's my (somewhat educated) guess. Those "pods" use an IR flash to blind 
IR guided missles as they are headed for the engine exhaust(s) - that's why 
they face rearward.

Think how much energy these must expend to do this and you will know why they
are as big as they are 8)

>
>A broader and more interesting question is what sort of security devices 
>does Air Force One carry?

Good question - though I doubt you will get any real answers.

---
= exudnw@exu.ericsson.se                                                =
= David Williams              "You can't win, you can't break even,     =
= Ericsson Network Systems     and you can't quit"                      =
= Richardson, TX 75081                                  my opinions...  =
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: B-25s and B-52s
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:07:27 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1993Jan22.172449.23919@walter.bellcore.com>, jem3@pyuxf.uucp (25312-mc killop) writes:|>

|> As far as the B-52 is concerned, I believe some models had four
|> 20mm cannons in the tail.

 Make that four .50 cal mg or one 20mm M61.
From: hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: CIWS vs Artillery
Date: 24 Jan 93 00:26:47 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1jptjlINNmu9@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan18.100412@usho72.hou281.chevron.com> hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
|>>
|>> Someone posted awhile back about Close In Weapon Systems being 
|>> incapable to hit incoming shells.
|>>
|>> But, according to the WINGS program on the Discovery channel,
|>> the British CIWS SEA WOLF missile system "outperforms any other
|>> CIWS in the world".  It is capable of shooting down aircraft,
|>> missiles, and "even shells from 5.4 inch guns".
|> 
|> Under ideal conditions, in a smooth sea state, yes, it has been done.
|> However, in combat, on a typical North Atlantic day, it will be nearly 
|> impossible to do.

 No kidding!  While in the Marines, I got to go on NATO exercises in 
 Norway, and we went through the North Atlantic at the beginning of 
 winter.  The USS Austin, an LPD, looked awful big at dock, with the
 lowest deck level being 32 ft above sea-level, but in the midst of 
 30 ft waves that ship got awfully small.  We sure pitied those guys
 in that flat-bottom LST that accompanied us!  Needless to say, most
 of the Marines on board stayed in their bunks for the next three days.

 I couldn't image how ships could operate there in the middle of winter
 let alone participate in combat.

 TRAVIS
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: hmlizam@erenj.com (hector )
Subject: south american AF's
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Organization: Exxon Research & Engineering, Co.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:33:13 GMT

Question: Does anyone know the capabilities and roles of the Chilean ENAER
A36 Halcon attack jet or the A36M naval strike jet?

Hector Lizama
hmlizam@erenj.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Media mistakes (was Re: Iraq attacks
From: David_Martin@kcbbs.gen.nz (David Martin)
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:07:22 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

The New Zealand Herald recently showed a picture of the B-2 Stealth 
FIGHTER...that seems to be a common mistake, surely due to it's size 
though the media would think twice about labeling the B-2 a fight....wouldn't 
they?

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: rblack@netcon.smc.edu (Russ Black)
Subject: Memphis Bell & the Movie
Organization: Santa Monica College, Santa Monica, CA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:57:47 GMT

   I just reread a book I have on B-17's and especially on the Memphis Bell.

   I noticed that the nose art that I saw and remember building a model, that
the art work in the movie is noway related to the photographs.  

   The stylelized writing in the movie is not the block text on the actual 
bomber.  In the movie had the tail section blown away.  The actual plane had
patches  of hits, but no blown away tail.  The crew was also able to survive
with out a scratch.  

   It is really intresting that people will believe movies as fact.  When I
saw the movie I almost believed it.   But, I guess making a movie about what
really happened on the last mission would've been really boring on the screen.


Russ Black
rblack@netcon.smc.edu


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 11:51:33 GMT

>From: smccoy@dw3g.ess.harris.com (Scott McCoy)
>The British also mounted a large (75mm?) cannon on Hurricanes
>during WWII for desert operations against Rommel's tanks in
>North Africa.

	Correct up to a point.  The gun in question was a purpose-designed
*40mm* gun.  The Hurricanes modified for this role carried 2 such guns in 
self-contained "pods", one under each wing.   Specifics of specifications 
and effectiveness, I don't know.   Definitely a North African theatre "funny"
(at least first used there in 1942/1943)  -- subsequent deployment history, 
I don't know.
Cheers,
Keith Coman
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If we pay dogfood salespeople more than we   :  Dept of Management
 do teachers, we should not be surprised if   :  Rhodes University
 our dogs eat like kids, and our kids end     :  Grahamstown, 6140
 up reading like dogs."                       :  Rep of South Africa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: gt8303a@prism.gatech.EDU (The Great and Mighty Confused)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Date: 22 Jan 93 05:09:01 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <1jmuvsINNn66@bigboote.WPI.EDU> megazone@yoyodyne.WPI.EDU (MegaZone) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.082449.29908@unipalm.co.uk> steven@unipalm.co.uk (Steven Vincent) writes:
>>would stall the Aircraft on the second  or third shot! I know that the B-25H a
>>mounted a 75mm Howitzer (converted but basically low pressure) in the nose wit
>
>WHAT?!?! When did the B-52H Stratofortress EVER carry any gun other than the

I am quite surprised at your mis-reading of the original post.  If I remember
correctly the B-25 was a WWII bomber...twin props, etc.  As opposed to the
B-52, a more modern heavy bomber.  No one ever said that the -52 had a 75mm
howitzer in its nose, they said the B-25 did.  C'mon, use your eyes, read!

No offense meant, just a little correcting.

Andy Entrekin
gt8303a@prism.gatech.edu
From: gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: The Gattling Gun
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 17:32:03 CST
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.

megazone@realsoon.WPI.EDU (MegaZone) writes:

(Much good stuff deleted).

> 
> There are other gatling types, a 3 barrel weapon I THINK the M197 mounted on
> the chin turret of AH-1 Cobras. The AV-8B Harrier carries a 25mm gatling in
> US service.
> 
> If you need specs I can try and dig out my books.
> 
 Good review of the "gatling" type guns, but you missed one. There 
was a modification of the M-61 called the XM-195 that was part of 
the M-35 system installed on some AH-1G Cobras. It was a six 
barrell, 20mm cannon, but the barrel length was a bit shorter than 
the standard M-61, and the rate of fire was reduced to about 570 
rounds per minute. It was mounted on the left inboard hard 
point and was a "fixed" mount. An interesting point is that the 
skin panels along the side of the Cobra next to the muzzle were 
re-enforced heavily to withstand the muzzle blast of the weapon. I 
might also note that it was sometimes difficult holding the 
aircraft on target for the first few rounds because of the recoil. 
Unlike some of the 20mm mounted in the chin turrets of later 
Cobras, this weapon had NO burst limiter on it. You could keep 
firing until the entire 550 rounds were expended.

 One other note. Your correct in saying the the fact that these 
weapons were motor driven prevented jams due to "dud" rounds, but 
both the M-195 and the M-135 "minigun" sometimes had problems with 
"mis-feeds" where a round didn't feed into the gun properly. In
this case, the motor drive made things worse since the round would 
be literally ripped apart and bits of metal jammed up just about 
everything! A jam of this type was often VERY difficult to clear, 
and I even saw cases where our weapons "techs" had to "rebuild" a 
M-135 after such a jam. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - 
                      gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: A-10 replacement
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:44:31 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1jpkq3INN3o5@uwm.edu>, zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Dr. Strangelove) writes:
|> In article <m0nFLBX-000R0DC@aton.abo.fi> skronkvi@aton.abo.fi (Stefan Kronkvist INF) writes:
|> >
|> >Hello
|> >
|> >-Is the A-10 operated by any other country than the USA.
|> 
|> Yes, South Korea has some. I don't know how many. I'll look it up.

 There may be some STATIONED there but they're USAF not ROKAF.

 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: sosc1106@wc05.writer.yorku.ca (Wong)
Subject: re: F/a-18 -afterburner take off?
Organization: York University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:38:18 GMT

The Russian carriers have a ski ramp just like the ones on the British  
H.M.S. Invincible.  Thus they are able to take-off without the assistance  
of a catapault. 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: steven@unipalm.co.uk (Steven Vincent)
Subject: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Organization: Unipalm Ltd., 216 Cambridge Science Park, Cambridge CB4 4WA, UK
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 08:24:49 GMT

ebstokes@uncc.edu (Edward B Stokes) writes:




>	The A-10 carries the GAU-8 Avenger rotary cannon.  It is as long and as heavy 
>  as a luxury auto, and the fuselage had to be designed around the gun. It fires 30mm 
>  AP projectiles at up to 4500 Rpm. Unlike other USAF rotary cannon, this gun carries 
>  7 barrels instead of 6. The GAU-8 is the most powerful gun ever mounted on an attack
>  aircraft. The recoil from the gun at full rate of fire is so great, that it can stall 
>  the aircraft if fired for too long.

I know that the GAU-8 is a very powerfull gun but I am not sure that its the most
powerful (Single) Gun. The German Hs-129 mounted a long barreled 75mm AT Gun which
would stall the Aircraft on the second  or third shot! I know that the B-25H also
mounted a 75mm Howitzer (converted but basically low pressure) in the nose with 
equally detrimental affects to air speed. I know of rumorse that the AC-130s mount
a 105mm weapon but this is side firing. 

I will concede that the GAU-8 is the most powerfull gun in terms of KE on target
in 10 seconds (what is the maximum burst from an A-10 anyway). But single shot no way.


>	This came off the top of my head, I hope it helps.

================================================
Steven Vincent,             steven@unipalm.co.uk
Unipalm Ltd.                (44) 0223-420002
Cambridge,
England.
================================================
From: 6329P%NAVPGS.BITNET@CORNELLC.cit.cornell.edu (Dan Knaus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Media Mistakes (was Re. Iraq attacks U.S. Navy Planes)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 01:58:16 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

<Much stuff deleted>
<My fave (from the Toronto Star):AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control _Ship_)

Actually, that's not too far from the truth, at least if you've spent
any time in the mighty E-2C Hawkeye War Hummer, a real aviator's AEW
platform (and about the same interior room as a C-152 :-)  )
  Do the same job (better, of course) with 25% of the crew, no lavatory,
no convection oven, no bunks, and no 12,000 foot runways.

That is, in my humble strongly biased opinion.

Dan

You want my opinion?  Ask my girlfriend, she'll tell you.
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Memphis Bell & the Movie
Date: 28 Jan 93 16:48:34 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1993Jan27.225747.6705@netcon.smc.edu>
rblack@netcon.smc.edu (Russ Black) writes:

> But, I guess making a movie about what
> really happened on the last mission would've been really boring on the screen.

There was a documentary made of the Memphis Belle during the war and it
was also titled "Memphis Belle".  Even though this was supposed to be a
documentary, I think a few liberties were taken with the truth because
when the Group returned from the Belles last mission, the STAR was
missing.  

In my opinion, this is dramatic license because being a part of the
squadron formation, you definately don't want to become seperated while
over enemy territory because you're dead meat for the fighters.  Likely
what they did was come back with the formation until over England, let
the rest of the squadron land while they circled out of sight somewhere
then came over, probably at the request of the publicity officer.  It
was just too set up.  The real Memphis Belle didn't even get plinked
with AAA shrapnel let alone holed by fighters during that last mission.
 All fans were turning when it showed up late for its buzz job so there
was no real reason for it to be late.  It was in formation until the
turn for home after the bombing run, then the seen switched to the base
where anxious eyes peered to the East (and played catch of course, we
were Americans after all).  Then, (rumble of engines) here they come,
one, two, three, all are back but where's the Memphis Belle?  Where's
our star?  Ooooooh anxiety.  Then, THERE SHE IS, pandamonium, and not a
bad show either, which was the point.  The lone bomber makes a dramatic
low level buzz of the field which was filmed from the inside the
bomber.  Since this is film and not real time video cameras, the whole
thing had to be put together in a film studio.  Most of the film came
from the cameraman on board the Memphis Belle so he HAD to return in
order for the story be told.  

It still was a good film, extra drama notwithstanding.

Corky Scott
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette)
Subject: Re: The Gattling Gun
Reply-To: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette)
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 08:25:42 GMT

In article <C186yD.1tD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> pwg25888@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu  
(Patrick W. Grady) writes:

> Yes, the M-136 Six-Pac, used from tripod or helicopter
> mounts.  It supposedly has a variable fire rate because if it
> is being carried by infantry, because ammo is heavy.  This is
> the gun that was used in both Predator and T2 and when the fire
> rate is lowered, you actually can fire it from the hip as 
> shown, although the ROF is down to around 750 rpm. 

Sorry, but that "gun" used in Predator was a propane gun, not
the "real" thing.

--
Nathan Janette
PPP link from hilbert.csb.yale.edu

Please reply to: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (NeXT)
From: megazone@buckaroo.WPI.EDU (MegaZone)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: USE OF B-52 TAIL GUNS
Date: 26 Jan 1993 21:44:14 GMT
Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal
NNTP-Posting-Host: buckaroo.wpi.edu

In article <1993Jan26.212420.14444@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov> leem@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Lee Mellinger) writes:
>Wrong, all models, quad .50's, 20mm gatling, gunner aft or gunner
>foward, were all radar and or optically guided.

I thought the original poster meant that the crew wasn't aware of the guns 
engaging until the engagement started... "see" for me in a modern evironment
I read as Mark I Eyeball, Tele-optical, Radar, IR, etc...

I know mods to the B-52 provided automatic flare/chaff dispensing... But I 
don't recall if they added an auto-engagement system to the guns on the remote
system... (I doubt it... but it is possible.)

I said that it would only be a G/H because the tailgunner in an A-F would 
notice if the guns were about to engage anything, he manually controlled them.
(He had rear radar/sighting system too.. But the G and the H had a more
advanced system... I can look up the numbers again if anyone wants them.)

The G/H had two 'joysticks' I guess you'd call them for horizontal and vertical
traversing. But seeing as that was run remotely it is feasible to wire a 
proximity triggering system that would automatically track and fire on targets
within specified perameters. But seeing as how gunners were part of the crew
up until the guns were removed I don't think that was ever done...

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################
From: skronkvi@aton.abo.fi (Stefan Kronkvist INF)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: A-10 replacement
Date: 22 Jan 1993 04:01:19 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


Hello

-Is the A-10 operated by any other country than the USA.
-Are there any A-10:s in the Persian-gulf region at the moment.I recall reading
 somewhere that the A-10 was accounted for 80-90 % of the tank-kills in the 
 gulf-war.

 I read in an aviation-magazine about one year ago that there are plans to
 replace the A-10 with a spesial version of the F-16. Is this accurate? 
 The A-10 is of course getting old but it seems to me that it still is a
 very successful plane.Are there maybe any other problems with the plane
 that makes it useless in the near future?

-By the way,what kind of weapons (missiles,bombs...) are usually used by the
 A-10?


                      skronkvi@aton.abo.fi
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: whelal@engr.UVic.CA (Wael  Helal)
Subject: Re: "Our Century" on A&E
Reply-To: whelal@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 03:37:55 GMT

In article 8RgPXB9w165w@major.panix.com, dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:
>Have caught this show on the A&E cable network a few times - they've
>had features on several military aircraft, including the A-10, F-16,
>Harrier, and several others. More technical detail than you'd expect
>from a TV show, and interviews with pilots who describe some of their
>interesting flying experiences and techniques.
>
>


There is also Brute Force the History of Weapons at War. Its on every thursday 11:00pm and 3:00am Friday eastern time also on A&E. Its a good show if your interested in the history of weapons at war such as the submarine, aircraft carrier, fighters and etc. It also takes a look at the modern versions of weapons.

Sig?? What Sig??

Wael Helal
(whelal@sirius.UVic.CA)

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military