HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pscotto@MtHolyoke.edu (Peter J. Scotto)
Subject: Aircraft beauty: B-17
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:06:12 GMT


Am I the only one who thinks the B-17 was a great looking
aircraft?  And I'm talking all the versions too - from the
deco 17B with the teardrop side windows to the classic E's
and F's with the redesigned empannage. I'll admit that the
chin turret on the G version spoils the lines a bit, still
I'm sure the crews appreciated them.

And what about the DH Mosquito - a wicked good looking
plane!

--Peter Scotto

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: tomcat@cwis.unomaha.edu (Jeffrey S. Jo)
Subject: Re: What happened to the Blackjack?
Keywords: none
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Distribution: global
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:01:11 GMT

>For some reason or another, I was wondering about this last night.  Does
>anyone out there know what ever happened to the (then-)Soviet "Blackjack"
>bomber?  As I vaguely recall, it was supposed to be a sort of super-Backfire,
>but I don't remember having heard much about it after about the late '80s.

>Any thoughts, ideas, vague memories, etc.?

>Greg Anderson
>greg@perry.berkeley.edu

I heard that it crashed some time ago during either an airshow or a flight
test...if I remember correctly, the aircraft attempted a loop or something
and didn't quite make it.  I remember seeing pictures of the plane nose diving
into the ground...pretty good pictures too.  
I could be wrong..this could be about another plane, but not quite sure.
*shrug* Maybe someone can verify this...

--
|Jeffrey S. Jo                   | 	         F-14D Tomcat                 |
|Computer Operations		 |             VF-142 Ghostriders             |
|University of Nebraska at Omaha |       United States Navy F-14 Tomcat       |
|tomcat@cwis.unomaha.edu         |              Fighter Squadron              |
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: acura@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (james.r.feeney)
Subject: Re: Focke-Wulf Ta 152
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 14:13:40 GMT
Keywords: Kurt Tank's finest

In article <1992Dec22.054608.5498@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes:
>As promised, here is the follow-on to the Fw 190D story--Kurt Tank's 
>own Ta 152.  

******** (lots of good stuff on the TA-152 deleted)

>
>
>Joe Baugher			**************************************
>AT&T Bell Laboratories		*  "You see, something's going to    *
>2000 North Naperville Road	*   happen.  Something wonderful!"   *
>P. O. Box 3033			**************************************
>Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033		
>(708) 713 4548				
>ihlpl!jfb                   Who, me?  Speak for AT&T?  Surely you jest!	
>jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com

Joe, 

I seem to remember seeing a picture of a high altitude version of the Bf-109
that was under development at the end of the war. Actually the plane had 
little resemblance to a 109. It had very long wings with radiators for the
engine mounted midway down each wing in streamlined pods. I don't think any
versions flew. I wonder if Messerschmidt developed it in response to Kurt
Tank's work. Do you have any info on this plane?

Jim Feeney

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: cjd8@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher J de Zorzi)
Subject: RE: Ejection Seats On Space Shuttle
Reply-To: cjd8@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher J de Zorzi)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 01:29:15 GMT


Yes, there were ejection seats on the first few missions.  After about mission
five or so (I think...) they pulled them out.  Still haven't quite figured out
how the darn things were gong to work...possibly a shaped charge in the 
rather permanent ceiling above the seats?  (Something like a Jet-Axe?))  O
From: suhler@pollux.usc.edu (Paul Suhler)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Aurora
Date: 23 Dec 1992 13:45:52 -0800
Organization: USC Advanced Computer Architecture Laboratory
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu
Summary: Early Shuttle and Gemini had ejection seats

In article <8079@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com writes:

>Can you verify this? I followed the shuttle introduction in AWST rather 
>closely, and saw no mention of ejection seats. I do remember a lengthy 
...
>Also Gemini. I recall no ejection seats, and in the Smithsonian display I
>noticed no provision for them.

The first few shuttle flights definitely had ejection seats.  I still
remember hearing the "Negative Seat" advisory from the ground when
they got too fast (or whatever the criterion was) to use them.

At KSC a couple of months ago, I saw a Gemini capsule and it also had
them.  I remember years ago reading a statement that the very least
damage the astronauts expected from using them was badly-sprained
backs.  I couldn't tell whether the seats were equipped with leg and
arm restraints to prevent flailing.


Paul Suhler
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: sandro@lhc.nlm.nih.gov(Michael D'Alessandro)
Subject: Looking for old USAF silk maps
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:01:14 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

As a child, I remember buying at a surplus store several beautiful silk  
USAF maps that portrayed different parts of the world, all dating from the  
50's.  The maps folded into a wallet sized packet, and apparently were  
used by USAF personnel.

I'd like to know if anyone knows where I can get more of these types of  
maps today - does anyone know of any surplus stores or catalog houses  
selling such maps?

Thanks!

Michael
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: aboyd@quantum.on.ca (Andrew Boyd)
Subject: rec.aviation.flames
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 14:58:21 GMT
Organization: Quantum Software Systems

In article <1992Dec17.145735.11614@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> 
thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) writes:

<entertaining mud-slinging deleted>

>Larry Jewell once warned me about trying to be logical on USENET, and I
>wouldn't listen.  See ya!

You have to have the proper attitude to read USENET.  Treat it as a
pedants convention, and you'll do well.  If you treat every posting
seriously, you'll go nuts.  USENET, IMHO, has a very low signal-to-noise
ratio ... there's a lot of crap here, but every once in a while, there
will be a posting from someone (like you, toby) who really knows what's
going on in a particular aviation specialty, which makes it all worthwhile.

Gotta learn to filter out the crap.  One thing I'm amazed at is how thin-
skinned you are about this ... I would expect that someone (who is used to
having people shoot at him) would pretty coolly laugh off criticism from
some guy who might have 10 hours in a C-150.  I sure do, and hardly anyone
ever shoots at me :-)

Reminds me of the time that I got mail from some people, whom I hope
to god aren't licensed pilots, who claimed that during a normal flare,
their production a/c center of lift moved forward past the center of
gravity, and their tail quickly switched from producing downward lift
to producing upward lift.  Sure.  Cheque's in the mail, too.

What do you do with amateurs like that?  Well, you try to educate them,
and when they don't want to learn, you shrug your shoulders and move on.

You don't get angry at the fumbling student pilots in the pattern, do
you?  Nope, you try to be tolerant, and hope that they will improve
over time.  Same thing here.

----
#include <std.disclaimer>
From: v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: Aurora
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:05:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

First, my appologies since I neglected to mention flight envelope limitations
in my previous post. Furthermore, I did not know of the russian seat, nor the
X-15's. 
     Simply speaking, the human body can olny take so much stress before it
goes to mush or dies, regardless of how well a seat can withstand the force
of ejection at speed and altitude in extreme g-forces that you could expect in 
the even of a breakup. 
     Assuming the Aurora can do mach 8+ in the upper atmosphere, wind blast is
still a consideration, and although the S1030 pressire suit is rated at above
mach 3, it would offer minimal protection from flailing injuries, compression
injuries, and other hazards. If an aurora pilot was faced with a catastrophic 
failure, I doubt he would find himself still in the airplane after a few 
seconds. 

Peter Vasilion
KB2NMV2KE2VW.#WNY.NY.USA.NA
v111qheg@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

The views expressed are my own and not thoes of UB nor most sane people
From: conan@northeastern.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: A10 Re:AF career types
Date: 21 Dec 92 14:39:27 GMT
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA

Someone re-posted my flame and I am embrassed. I guess things come across the
net more harsh and severe than intended (never flamed anyone before). I dont
care much about offending people, but I rather eat crow than hurt someone. I
apologize if I hurt anyone especially Toby H. I think that we all can conclude
that making a judgement about someone's intentions will hurt them.
 
What I understand about promotions is that there are a lot of good capable
pilots in a wing and so the person chosen to command must have something
more than just tactical knowledge. He must be a good manager of the talent
he has under him (that is leadreship) and be able to work with other depart-
ments. When you talk about strategic planning there are only team players and
there is just no room for big egos at the top. But you are right. I have not
walked the walk so I will try to get a AF high ranker to post his opinion.
 
I do know something about egos though as I am do damage control after one has
been in town, eg I had a case where a young woman was sucidal, very angry and
confused after her father, a local cop, was killed when a John Wayne cop caused
a situation to get out of control. She might have gone to college, had the
egotistical maniac not been there, but now it is abusive relationships and
section 8 housing. After a while you know that big egos are nothing but trouble
 
>pukes are a dime a dozen does not mean that the system/brass does not care
about the brave men, but that there are just a lot of men available to deliver
a Mk82. (I wanted to say Mk79/122, but I will not repeat my mistake). A high
number of air combat missions is indeed impressive in any war although in Nam
the brass, whom everyone loves to criticize, had made things so safe for the
flyboys that some missions were milk runs. Same was more evident in the Gulf
conflict.
 
I thought that I was an old geezer, but if SOB means 'insult to someone's
mother" than an older generation is definitely present. No insult was intended
to anyone's mother. I wish all mothers a long prosperous life and know when one
dies she will go straight to heavens.

-c
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: CAS: Fixed vs Rotary (was: The A-10)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 06:56:12 GMT

In <1992Dec22.003608.27545@watson.ibm.com> wjc@dss1.austin.ibm.com writes:

>Helicopters are great for getting down in the weeds along the line of 
>contact. But unless you actually need to stop and drop something off or
>pick something up, or need to hang around and check things out, why 
>not just whizz on by, leaving the proper amount of destruction in the 
>proper place behind you.

	Is cost not a criterion anymore?  For what the smart-bomb will
probably run, and the cost of keeping that fast-mover in the air, what
else can you get to do the job?  Can you get more of them too?

	As we found in WWII, there is some strength in lots of numbers
overwhelming technically superior but less numerous foes.  Most fighter
pilots are said to believe greater than 5:1 odds are unbeatable.  Take
this to the ground, and you have 5x the number of support craft helping
the grunts, which means many more on station and ready to help out at
any one time.

	Given that we're facing budget cuts in the military, and yet
are supposed to respond to these brushfire wars around the world, the
cost criterion is probably going to gain in importance.  So, what do
we get to use now?

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >

From: tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:36:01 GMT
Subject: Re: Aircraft beauty: B-17
Organization: the HP Mtn.View Resp. Cntr.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

I whole heartedly agree.  I guess everyone grow up with a favorite...

Mine was the B-17F.   Oddly, another friend was a devotee of the
Japanese Betty bomber... he would collect anything and everything
surrounding this ugly fat cigar..I used to give him a lot of sh** 
about it, but each to his own...
From: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Aurora
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:40:51 GMT
Reply-To: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <BOWERS.92Dec22143241@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov> bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) writes:

>A final note, Gemini and early Shuttle missions also used ejection
>seats.  I don't know what the maximum parameters were for those seats.
>
Can you verify this? I followed the shuttle introduction in AWST rather 
closely, and saw no mention of ejection seats. I do remember a lengthy 
article on launch simulations that discussed Return-to-Launch Site and Abort-
to-Orbit contingincies for certain kinds of launch difficulties. Each of 
these options was available only within restricted flight/decision envelopes.
The Return-to-Launch-Site option in particular sounded sort of hair-raising.

Outside of the respective envelopes, the NASA official interviewed said they
felt the crew, vehicle, and mission would be lost in the event of serious
problems. 

Also Gemini. I recall no ejection seats, and in the Smithsonian display I
noticed no provision for them.

???

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: griffith@acuson.com (Paul Griffiths)
Subject: Re: GULF WAR LOSSES
Organization: Acuson; Mountain View, California
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:42:13 GMT

rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins)  writes:

>-> I was watching a movie last night about the Tornado jet, and they
>-> mentioned its role in the gulf war.  They said the tragically 5 were
>-> lost, but mostly due to accidents.  Does anyone know of the details?
>-> Also, does anyone know how many planes were lost, why, and by whom in
>-> the

>The Tornado's mission profile calls for high speed, low level attacks.
>That always put a strain on air crews. In the European theater where
>that profile was developed it made good sense since terrain masking
>could be used to good effeect. In the Gulf, I suspect that is less the
>case and the standard mission profile would place the plane in a
>relatively vulnerable position to ground fire around well defended air
>fileds. In addition visual cues from European terrain provide a lot more
>contrast than the relatively featureless terrain in Iraq. I understand
>that the mission profiles were changed radically to high level flights
>after several were lost. While I don't have the information directly, I
>remember thinking when I heard the Tornados were going to be committed
>that that low level stuff was going to be "Not Good" in that
>environment.                                         Rocky
>                                                                                             

I just finished reading a book I picked up in the U.K called, Tornado Down.
This is written by both the pilot and whizzo of the second tornado shot
down.  (These were also the two british pilots shown on TV, after being
taken prisoner).  The reason they got 'pegged' was twofold.  One the mission
got delayed so TOT was going to be daylight, not the preferred dark of night.
As they were the second flight on Target, the AAA and sams were really flying.
Also noted, whether it was the strain of the first 'wartime mission' or just
a button that needed pressing harder, when it came time to drop the attack
radar was a step behind and failed to release their bombs.  (This was not a 
JP attack, but standard MK's on the taxy ways) As the usual procedure is to
pull up and toss the bombs, the tornado got WAY high over the target.  Suffice
to say they ended up getting shot down.  Anyway it's a good book, well worth
the read, not only from the flying point of view, but from the POW point of
view as well.  As mentioned the tornado crews had been primed for the European
theatre, and there was definitely some adjustment period.

			-Paul
From: jmmatthe@apgea.army.mil (Jeffrey M. Matthews <jmmatthe>)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Aurora
Date: 23 Dec 92 21:34:29 GMT
Organization: CRDEC APG

In article <BzqAFF.9JI@acsu.buffalo.edu> v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes:
>First, my appologies since I neglected to mention flight envelope limitations
>in my previous post. Furthermore, I did not know of the russian seat, nor the
>X-15's. 
>     Simply speaking, the human body can olny take so much stress before it
>goes to mush or dies, regardless of how well a seat can withstand the force
>of ejection at speed and altitude in extreme g-forces that you could expect in 
>the even of a breakup. 
>     Assuming the Aurora can do mach 8+ in the upper atmosphere, wind blast is
>still a consideration, and although the S1030 pressire suit is rated at above
>mach 3, it would offer minimal protection from flailing injuries, compression
>injuries, and other hazards. If an aurora pilot was faced with a catastrophic 
>failure, I doubt he would find himself still in the airplane after a few 
>seconds. 
>

Assuming, of course, that the pilot is *in* the Aurora.  Seismic occurrances
and donuts on a rope tell us little enough about what it really is.  I'm
sure when the details come out, I'll be both severely impressed and a bit
disappointed.

J. Matthews
Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: scott@fraud.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Prop-Driven CAS (was: Re: The A-10)In article
Date: 3 Jan 93 20:24:53
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF)
	<1992Dec15.152530.25077@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
	<viking.724469708@vincent2.iastate.edu>
	<1992Dec16.032618.10440@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
	<viking.724529948@vincent2.iastate.edu>
	<1992Dec16.235850.17736@den.mmc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: xcf-gw.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: hagood@sabre.den.mmc.com's message of Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:58:50 GMT


%         I don't believe P-51s were used in Vietnam, but the French used
% FG2D Corsair (F4Us built under license by, um, Goodyear?) prior to the Dien 
% Bien Phu debacle.

The French used Bearcats in Vietnam as well.  Also, the Isrealis used 
P-51's, B-17's, and Mosquitos for ground attack and CAS in the Sinai 
(sp?) conflict where the Egyptians were flying Mig-15's, Meteors, and 
Vampires.  Of course, the P-51's had a high loss rate due to ground fire.

%         The aircraft that comes to my mind is the Douglas A-1 Skyraider 
% (or the Martin Mauler, of course).  The Vietnam usage for the "sandy"
% mission is _exactly_ what I'm talking about...

Yes, the Spads were very nice CAS aircraft.  The Air Force replaced them with
A-7's ... I don't know if there were any complaints about their CAS
performance compared to the Skyraiders though.  Problem with the Spads is 
they are slower than A-10's, they only have one engine, and they only carry
about half the payload.

Scott
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Bf 109 questions
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:21:52 GMT
 <1992Dec17.184355.16018@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
 <1992Dec20.060934.10506@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

I knew I could count on Joeseph to come up with the definative
description of the Focke-Wulf.  Now I'll do my part and re-read the
section from JG-26 in which the quote occurred about the German pilots
not liking the roll rate of the Dora.  I'll post it when I find it.

Corky Scott
From: fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca (Fengxi Zhou)
Subject: Re: American kill...
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:44:43 GMT

Now is a curious situation. What if Saddam keeps harassing US? Well, he just
sends a few jets near the no-fly zone sporadically, keeping US jets busy.
What can American do? Launch another gulf war? This is something like a 
guerilla war fought in the air, only harassing, not fighting.
From: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: SR-71 engines
Distribution: world
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 93 22:48:53 GMT
Organization: Me? Organized?

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?



Thanks

Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: mhoza@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael J Hoza)
Subject: Re: Aircraft beauty: B-17
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:36:29 GMT

In article <Bzn1uD.9GM@mtholyoke.edu> pscotto@MtHolyoke.edu (Peter J. Scotto) w
rites:
>
>Am I the only one who thinks the B-17 was a great looking
>aircraft?  And I'm talking all the versions too - from the
>deco 17B with the teardrop side windows to the classic E's
>and F's with the redesigned empannage. I'll admit that the
>chin turret on the G version spoils the lines a bit, still
>I'm sure the crews appreciated them.
>
>And what about the DH Mosquito - a wicked good looking
>plane!
>
>--Peter Scotto
>

I have not yet had anything to add to this newsgroup, but as  this is in the 
realm
of the purely subjective, I would like to add a strongly agree here.  I have
been to quite a few airshows and I am more and more impressed the "beauty" of
the B-17.  It is a rather multifaceted, but well integrated design and I 
especially like the looks of the thick wing from the front and feel that the 
later tail is very graceful.  (especially when compared to British heavy 
bombers of the era).  Still looks like the "Queen of the Skys" to me.

M Hoza
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Bf 109) 
From: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 06:30:14 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Me? Organized?


In article <1992Dec22.221535.12860@apgea.army.mil> jmmatthe@apgea.army.mil writes:

  > To be effective, a fighter has to be, in addition to a damn good machine
  > (which the Ta 152 was), available in sufficient quantity.  The P-51 was
  > popular not only for its performance, but because it was more producible
  > than, for example, the Jug.  Inelegant, but typical of the American ap-
  > proach to strategy at the time.  After all, if you can win by applying
  > 5 to 1 odds with an indifferent machine, just think what you can do with
  > 5 to 1 and a comparable one.
  > 
aka "Any five of us can beat any one of you."



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