HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: khan@cs.cornell.edu (Taimur H. Khan)
Subject: LANTRIN POD/F-16
Followup-To: none
Organization: Cornell University, CS Dept., Ithaca, NY
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:08:46 GMT

Can any body clearify something for me?  From what I understand an F-16 can be
fitted with a LANTRIN navigation and targetting pod for attack on targets in the
dark.  An F-15E I believe also has a LANTRIN pod.  Range and payload consideratio
ns aside, does this mean that the fighting falcon can strike targets
just as accurately using laser guided weapons (e.g. GBU-24 glide bomb) at night
or are there other features of F-15E which make it more accurate.

Also, was the LANTRIN pod used on the F-16s during Desert Storm?

Many Thanks.

Taimur Khan.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Best fighterpilot ?!?! 
From: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 06:33:43 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Me? Organized?


In article <m0n9GwX-000QzKC@aton.abo.fi> skronkvi@aton.abo.fi writes:

  > 
  > 
  >                      ===============================
  >                       Most successful fighter pilot
  >                            of all times ?!?!
  >                      ===============================
  > 
  > Who is the most successful fighterpilot in the history? The answer may be
  > different depending on who you are asking.
  > 
  > One possible answer is Hasse Wind from Finland.Wind was a member of the
  > volontary defence-organisation "skyddsk}ren".He joined the army and became
  > officer after graduating from school in Eken{s 1938.

   <some deleted>

  > The official number of planes that Wind shot down is 75.But he claims that he
  > shot down about 100 planes.
  > 
  > Wind is less known than Jonny Johnson (38 planes),Richard Bong (40) and
  > Pierre Clostermann (33).
  > Manfred von Richthofen shot down 80 enemy-planes,according to the Guiness book
  > of Records,but 20 of theese are unconfirmed...

Anyone got a count of how many Germans scored over 100?   Eric Hartman 
holds the all-time high of 352 (I think), of which 8 were against the 
Anglo-Americans, the rest aginst the Soviets (from a memory of long 
ago).

Mind you, this chappie Wind can't have been too bad getting most of 
those kills in a Buffaloe!!


Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz 
From: tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:42:15 GMT
Subject: Re: MiG29 on TV
Organization: the HP Mtn.View Resp. Cntr.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

        They have never been part of Russia (ex. maybe many years ago) -
	they have been members of the CCCP


	> the first place.
	>
	> So why dont they lighten up on the guy?
	>
	>      v
	> Tony Zugec

	-----------------------------------------
	Ph.D-student Harald Stegavik

You know what I meant... did I misspell anything Harald?
Your tie isnt on straight.
Buckle your belt.
Comb your hair. 

sheesh.  

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Greatest Ace
Keywords: Aces, Kill records
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: global
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:03:58 GMT

In article <wardml.726501624@catfish26> wardml@rtsg.mot.com (Matthew L. Ward) writes:
>
>I think the greatest fighter pilot of all time was Hans Joachim Marseille, a German
>WWII ace with 155 kills.  My reasoning is simple;
>
>1) All 155 kills were of fighter aircraft, with trained British pilots who knew
>what they were doing.  Unlike the Eastern front Aces, Hans had competent opponents.
>
>2) All 155 kills were made while flying a Stuka Dive Bomber.  Using the Stuka's
>fantastic dive rate, Hans would dive head-on at his target for a frontal attack.
>The Stukas firepower was thus directed at the unarmored front of the cockpit.
>
>A true innovator and tactician, Hans found a method and used it.  He was never shot
>down. By using a dive bomber against fighters he found a soft spot and took full
>advantage of
A JU-87 Stuka used for air-to-air attacks?  I've never heard about this.

I do follow military aviation closely, but I don't recall ever hearing about
this. Is there a book or documentary that mentions this?


Simon
From: rrg@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU (Rafael Rodriguez)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Best fighterpilot ?!?!
Date: 7 Jan 1993 09:16:53 +1100
Organization: University of Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au

From article <1993Jan5.214015.17279@den.mmc.com>, by zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin):
> The most successful fighter pilot of all time was Erich Hartmann whose
> official tally was 352 aerial victories.  He flew Bf-109 of various
> marks on the Eastern Front from (check Tolliver & Constable's book,
> "The Blond Knight of Germany" for accurate dates & facts) '42 or '43
> until the end of the war when he surrendered to the Russians along
> with his squadron.  After 10 years as POW he was finally released and
> eventually commanded the first jet squadron in the W. German Luftwaffe.
> 
> Quite a few german pilots had over 100 victories and several had over
> 200 in WW2.  The fact that most of the best of them flew missions almost
> continuously for the whole war contributed to these large tallies and
> most of them were each shot down themselves several times.
> 
I agrre with everything you said, and for the same reason I think that
the greatest pilot was Hans Joachim Marseille, because, although he
shot daown only som 155 enemy planes (I am quoting from memory), he
waas never shot down himself. He flew Messerschmitt Bf-109's in Africa
and died when his Bf-109G's engine caught fire accidentally. He bailed
out but, according to two different versions, was either struck 
inconcious by his aircraft's tailplane or his parachuta got entangled
with his aircraft's tailplane. In either case, he hit the ground
without an open parachute.

Another relevant aspect of Marseille's career is that all his victories
were against British aircraft, that means he didn't have the 
opportuniity to shoot down hordes of Polikarpov I-16's as did the
Liftwaffe pilots in the Eastern Front duroing Operation Barbarossa
(Walter Nowotny is said to have shot down 12 I-16's in a single
mission).

Regards,
Rafel Rodriguez
From: elamjd@elbert.sandr.com (Dan Elam)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Mach 8 super jet
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 15:47:30 EST
Organization: Imaging Consultant

Okay, folks, share with me what you know...

Jane's (All the World's Fighting Aircraft) is suggesting we all have a 
tiny piece of ownership of three new spy planes which replace the SR71.  
A story in the Washington Post ran supporting this.  This new "plane" is 
supposed to do Mach 8.  For reference purposes, the SR71 held the world 
record at mach 3.2, so this represents a considerable improvement.

At this speed the plane can be anywhere in the world in less than 3 hours 
(hello SST!) and has been making flights from California/Arizonia to 
Scotland in less than 45 minutes.

I've asked a few folks that ought to know, but no one is really talking.  
Some gurus at NASA's Langley research center did admit they've had the 
technology to build a Mach 10 airframe for a little over a decade.  The 
new airframe uses advanced (duh.) composites with a honeycomb type 
structure which pumps liquids through it for heat disapation.  We've 
known engines could be built to produce more power - the Concorde and 
SR71 are not limited by the engines, but rather the skin temperature of 
the aircraft.

The SR71 was retired under the premise that satellites could do 
everything the SR71 could do.  On the surface this seems correct, but if 
you think about it film is still better for high resolution than the 
digital images, so a film carrying platform would still have its place.  
We do have satellites which drop film and are caught in mid air by 
special planes, but these satellites have short life spans and must be 
higher than aircraft.  The satellites also cannot be placed into specific 
areas exactly when you want them.  The bottom line is that Jane's sounds 
right and we do have a need for such an aircraft.

Anybody know anything about this?  Especially does anyone know where I 
can get checked out in such an aircraft!!!  You think the POH recommends 
a touch down speed of, oh, 400 knots?

Dan Elam
N7347T - "Yellow Bird"

Sick and tired of IFR on the East Coast!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jeffc@sad.hp.com (Jeff Crowell)
Subject: Re: Best fighterpilot ?!?!
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:22:08 GMT
Organization: HP Sonoma County (SRSD/MWTD/MID)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Robert S. Johnson   28 kills  WWII  U.S.

also, 'Sailor' Malan had, I believe, 30 kills flying Spits for the
  the British.  He was a South American.


There is a considerable amount of evidence that Colnel Tomb was
 a 'composite' person for propaganda purposes.



My $.02.


Jeff Crowell
jeffc@hpsadm5.hpsad.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: Ben Burch <Burch_Ben@wes.mot.com>
Subject: Re: Greatest Ace
Organization: Motorola, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 07:52:25 GMT
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A7782963E702B081@ben_burch.pb.wes.mot.com>
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
X-Xxdate: Tue, 12 Jan 93 01:53:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.001608.3226@rational.com> Mark Miller,
msmiller@Rational.COM writes:
> Maybe you're thinking of Rudel who had some insane number of missions
> in the Stuka over Russia. Sank a battleship too I think.

Yes, Rudel sank the Russian battleship Marat in Riga harbor with a
single 500 lb. bomb.  He did flame a large number of aircraft,
including a Soviet ace.  (I forget his name) Also a large number of
IL-4 bombers.  He had over 500 tank kills.  He did not make all of
his kills in the JU-87, though.  He moved on to the FW-190 late in
the war.  He ran the Luftwaffe for the last several months of the
war.  His last combat mission was done with one amputated leg, one
in a cast, a broken arm, and a high fever.  He just didn't know when
to stand down.

-Ben
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jeffc@sad.hp.com (Jeff Crowell)
Subject: Re: *** AF F15 Eagle/Strike Eagle vs. Navy F14 Tomcat ***
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:54:22 GMT
Organization: HP Sonoma County (SRSD/MWTD/MID)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]


F-14 has some significant advantages over the F-15:

 variable-geometry wings, which are automatically controlled to optimize
   to whatever speed/G/altitude the aircraft is.  I never had the chance
   to take one on, but my buds always said that the -14 could take the
   -15 below 20,000 feet, tho the -15 would win above (engines favored
   up high, variable-sweep wins low).  Tomcat-Eagle fights therefore
   usually turned into name-calling fests, as the Turkeys orbited low and
   dared the Eagles to come down and fight like men, while the bluesuiters
   stayed high and vowed they'd kick butt if the Navy would only come up
   and take 'em on.
 Track-While-Scan radar and associated Phoenix missile system can track
   and attack up to six targets at once, while the F-15 is still stuck
   with a single-target-track system.  Max range of the Phoenix is about
   50 miles for a fighter-sized target, while the F-15's Sparrow is good 
   for about 13 miles.  Last I heard on the AMRAAM, it's supposed to be
   good for 25 or 30 miles on fighter targets (anybody got up to date info
   on this?) and it is launch and leave, so the F-15 is closing the gap a
   bit here.
 EW gear--it's been too long, I'm no longer current.

The F-14 is considerably heavier, and accelerates somewhat slower.  Has lower
max power engines, too.  Some other features, like the two seats in the Tomcat,
give it the edge in a turning fight (lose sight, lose the fight), helping
offset the gross power difference.  Also, if we're in a shootin' war, the
Tomcat can launch a bunch sooner than the Eagle can (assuming he can get clear
to fire permission at range)






Just my $.02 worth.



Jeff Crowell
former Navy jet puke
From: jpa@cs.bham.ac.uk (Jonathan P Alma)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Battle of Britain Shopping List
Date: 12 Jan 93 12:58:14 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham,UK.

Can anyone out there help with the following questions regarding the Battle of
Britain.

  - I need to know the following about the squadrons (RAF and Luftwaffe) 
    involved in the BoB :
	- where they were based
	- the aircraft they flew (including specific models if possible)
	- squadron size
	- famous squadron members
	- how effective/successful each squadron was
    plus any other interesting info/stories about any squadron. 

  - I need info on the RAF airfields (anything would be helpful).

Sorry for having to ask, but my present references don't go down to this level.

Also does anyone know of a source (ftp sites etc) of preferably high quality 
B/W pictures (any format) covering all aspects of the BoB.

Many (many) thanks in advance,

Jonathan.
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Alma					         J.P.Alma@cs.bham.ac.uk
School of Computer Science
University of Birmingham, UK, B15 2TT.

The opinions expressed are my own and not those of Birmingham University
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: energy and tactics (was: Finnish Defense)
Date: 6 Jan 1993 10:23:32 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


Scott Silvey <scott@fraud.berkeley.edu> wrote

% In WW II the only
% way to restore energy was to trade altitude, thus many fights
% started at 15,000-20,000 feet and ended just a few thousand feet
% above sea level.

>This is probably more due to one side or the other attempting to
>bug out by diving away from the fight than it is due to an
>effort to recoup airspeed in a dogfight.

Fighters still trade altitude for airspeed/energy.  A fight generally
goes high speed at intercept, slow to corner speed at or just past the
merge, then turn as hard as you can.  You bleed energy at max turn
rate (instantaneous) so you descend to regain energy.  That's one reason
a prolonged turning fight often degenerates into a diving spiral.  You
can't get a solution (so its prolonged) and you bleed trying to get one.
Down like a rock trying to get enough airspeed to turn tighter than
your opponent.  Different fights do require different tactics, though.
You may also run out of poop during a scissoring fight and start to
descend.  In this case you want to do it as slow as possible, to spit
the bogie out in front.  So now you're descending due to lack of
energy, not really trying to increase it, just keep some of it.
More than you needed to hear, right?

Ethan L Mckinney <mckinney@athena.mit.edu> wrote:

>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...

Fengxi Zhou mentioned the F-14B already.
These are just educated guesses:  SR-71, Concorde.

>BTW, if you're engaged, excess power is going to be pretty useless
>in evading a missile.  Instantaneous turn rate and electronic
>fit are likely to be much >more important.  Decoys, Decoys, DECOYS!!!

Not useless at all, but probably not THE deciding factor.  The more excess
power you have, the harder you can turn without losing energy (meaning the
less energy you lose at max inst. turn rate.  It's more useful in a
defensive situation prior to launch.  Still, to turn hard into the missle
and not bleed too much, more power is better.  Remember, if the first
missle misses but you're now at 120 knots with no turn rate available,
chances are the second one won't.

Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions,
go and get your own."
From: ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Was RADAR's impact on the Battle of Britain overstated?
Date: 6 Jan 93 15:54:05 GMT
Organization: Bull HN Informations Systems Inc.

prang@plato.ds.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja) writes:
>What I think is even MORE interesting is the theory put forth in PIECE OF
>CAKE (somehow left OUT of the TV series....), which simply stated that the
>whole Battle of Britain was a wasted effort as far as preventing
>a German invasion of England.

An interesting theory, but I can take one serious issue with it:  the 
German losses in the Battle of Britain may have been what persuaded
Hitler not even to try the invasion.  Convincing your enemy not to
attack you in the first place is surely worth something compared to
sustaining an attack, even if you defeat it.
-- 
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
From: T726@music.mus.polymtl.ca (Alexandre Fortin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: P51s are Shiny Metal
Date: 6 Jan 93 22:28:45 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal

In article <1i9otoINNi6t@transfer.stratus.com> kvk@questor.sw.stratus.com (Ken Koellner) writes:
>
>On the topic of WWII fighters.  I always see p51s (in movies,
>documentaries, models, pictures, museums, etc.) with an unpainted,
>polished metal finish.  Most other fighter planes of that era, appear
>painted (I seem to remember seeing some p-38s and p-47s shiny though).
>Most of the navel planes are painted blue which makes sense.  A lot of
>the fighters (p-40, spit, etc) are painted though.  Does anyone know
>the criteria they used for deciding whether to paint a plane and what
>color?
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"Maybe he's just a little insane, like painters or composers."
>       -Miracle on 34th Street
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>.
>.

Most of the USAAF fighters were left with there shiny metal finish
because this lowered drag and gave speeds 20 to 30 mph higher than
a camouflaged plane.
                                    Alexandre Fortin
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: SR-71 engines
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:43:31 GMT

In article <1ibo4mINN7pq@flash.pax.tpa.com.au> cpatten@flash.pax.tpa.com.au (Craig James Patten) writes:

>mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell) writes:

>>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?

>My [also sketchy] data states here that the J58-1 (JT11D-20B) is a
>"continuous bleed afterburning turbojet". 

From the "Researcher's Handbook", pg 1-6, paragraph 1.3.1 states:

"...Of the total thrust produced at cruise speed (Mach 3.2), the
engine delivers 17.6 percent, the ejector section (aft of the
afterburner) 28.4 percent, and the inlet 54 percent..."

So you could sort-of think of the engine itself a convenient way to
burn the fuel in a `ram-jet'...

--
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: gunnar@beppe.ericsson.se (Gunnar Forsgren)
Subject: Re: Why didn't Luftwaffe paint propeller tips?
Organization: Ericsson
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 18:53:29 GMT

cwilliam@bbn.com (Christopher Williams) writes:

>Anybody know?  I've looked at thousands of photos of WWII aircraft, and
>it appears that the Luftwaffe is the only air force that didn't paint
>some sort of bright warning color on their propeller tips.

An uneducated guess (really)
would be that Germans in general focused more on
technical functionality than their counterparts.

A German propeller had the functionality of acting as a propeller,
nothing else. Who saw shark jaws,lightly dressed women or girlfriend's names
painted on the Luftwaffe avional equipment ?

This is a highly interesting topic which true answer could possible
shed a new light on why World War II developed as it did.
Did the fact that the German pilots were not allowed to express
human feelings on the outside of their aircraft have a positive
psychological effect on the performance of their aircraft ?
Or was it possibly the opposite way around ?

Gunnar Forsgren <gunnar@beppe.ericsson.se>
Ericsson Telecom AB
S-126 25 Stockholm, SWEDEN
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: maierj@edmund.cs.andrews.edu (Joey Maier)
Subject:  Best Bombcrews
Organization: Andrews University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 09:02:47 GMT

In article <C0JMrq.Fvn@cs.bham.ac.uk> jpa@cs.bham.ac.uk (Jonathan P Alma) writes:
>
>Also, why not start a new subject - best bomber pilots/crews/squadrons.  

'Cause Yossarian from _Catch 22_ would win hands down! :)

Joey            maierj@andrews.edu


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: frank@rover.uchicago.edu (Frank - Hardware Hacker - Borger)
Subject: RE: WAS RADAR'S IMPACT ON
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Reply-To: frank@rover.uchicago.edu
Organization: Joint Center for Radiation Therapy
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:26:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.225415.18304@den.mmc.com>, hagood@sabre.den.mmc.com (Dave Hagood) writes...
>In article <1570.417.uupcb@the-matrix.com>, rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) writes:
>|> I would have to disagree. If the Luftwaffe had destroyed the RAF t...
>...
>The Germans had to have control of the channel to invade England.
> 
>	It should be noted the the Repulse and the Prince of Wales were sunk
>in broad daylight, and had no other escorts with them.  Two ships sunk in good
>conditions does not extrapolate to sinking hundreds of ships in the dark.

	However, the sun also rises, and ships are damn hard to hide in day-
	light, given that they can only steam so far in 6 hours. Thus, had
	the Germans attained air mastery, they could have then pounded the
	##### out of the English navy. As even the Bismark found out, (being
	effectively sunk by an obsolete biplane torpedo plane,) ships without
	an effective air umbrella are soon sunken ships.

   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
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: msmiller@Rational.COM (Mark Miller)
Subject: Re: Best fighterpilot ?!?!
Organization: Rational
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:17:22 GMT

In article <BOWERS.93Jan5122043@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov>, bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) writes:
|> In article <m0n9GwX-000QzKC@aton.abo.fi> skronkvi@aton.abo.fi (Stefan Kronkvist INF) writes:
|> 
|> name               victories           war                 country
|> ===========================================================================
|> Erich Hartmann         352             WWII                Germany
   [...]
|> Han-Joachim Marseille  158             WWII                Germany

From numerous things I've read, many in the Luftwaffe felt that
Marseille was the most gifted natural fighter pilot who ever lived
(at that time, of course). Amazing marksmanship, great instincts,
and outstanding pilot skills.

	-MSM
-- 
________________________________________________________________________
Mark S. Miller                                     msmiller@Rational.COM
"Life is a 4-letter word."                        msmiller@world.std.com
[ insert tedious disclaimer drivel here ]                           IV-Q
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military