HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: A FEW GOOD MEN AND F14'S
From: byrnes@cbr.hhcs.gov.au
Date: 7 Jan 93 11:50:17 +1000
Distribution: world
Organization: Aust. Dept. Health, Housing and Community Services
Keywords: F14 CUBA US NAVY
Summary: Why are there F14's in Guantanamo?

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?

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?
From: rrg@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU (Rafael Rodriguez)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Greatest Ace
Date: 12 Jan 1993 07:58:40 +1100
Organization: University of Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au

From article <1993Jan11.131046.12534@schbbs.mot.com>, by C13040@maccvm.corp.mot.com (Markus Zielke):
> Sorry,
> but if I remember right, Hans didn't flow a Ju-87 called "Stuka", as i
> know he flow a ME-109.
> 
> If someone know's better, please correcr me.
> 
> Markus
> 
> 
You are completely right. Marseille flew Bf-109's. His most known
aircraft is a Bf-109F-4 Trop with a yellow '14' on its side, and
he died in an accident while flying a new Bf-109G-2 Trop.

Probably our friend (that sent a personal posting to me regarding
Marseille flying an Stuka (?!?!)) is confusing Hans Joachim
Marseille with Hans Ulrich Rudel (The "Hans" rings a bell you see).

Rudel got some 460 kills while flying an Stuka in the Eastern Front,
but all his kills were soviet tanks.

Regards,
Rafael Rodriguez

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: hugh@kahu.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Hugh Emberson)
Subject: Re: SR-71 engines
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 09:16:53 GMT

>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 93 22:48:53 GMT, mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell) said:



Mike> I was chatting to a chap the other day about possible engines
Mike> for "Aurora", being variable cycle and all that stuff, when he
Mike> told me that the SR-71 engines were/are variable cycle.
Mike> Apparently the turbojet shuts down at high speed and theengine
Mike> functions as a ramjet thereafter.

The spike in the front of the engine nacelle can be positioned so that
most of the air flows around the turbojet rather than through it
(while still remaining inside the nacelle) and then out through the
afterburner.  So most of the thrust came from the "unburnt" air being
burnt in the afterburner.  I don't think the turbojet is shut down
though, it probably just idles.  In effect it is mostly a ramjet.

Mike> This was all news to me, as the sketchy info I have on this
Mike> engine (J58 (JT11D-20B)) simply calls it a low-bypass ratio
Mike> turbofan with afterburner.

I guess the J58 is low bypass, but the SR-71 isn't.  

BTW use present tense when referring to the SR-71 otherwise Mary gets
annoyed :-)




--
Hugh Emberson -- CS Postgrad
hugh@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz
From: urf@icl.se (Urban F)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Best fighterpilot ?!?!
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:56:50 GMT
Organization: None. On USENET I speak only for myself.
X-Alt.reply-Address: n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk

No, German pilots could not count one victory per engine. The
number of engines figured in the point system for handing out
decorations, as well as if it was on the eastern or western
front (western giving more points). Luftwaffe had a very strict
system on counting victories. For example, the wreckage _had_
to be found, you could not get 1/2 or 1/3 credit, it was all or
nothing, and there _must_ be a witness.

This difference in standards lead to it beeing hard to compare
between different nations. I'm also very doubtful whether it
is useful to compare individual pilots -- air combat is a team
work.

As many allied pilots had rather short tours of duty, a comparision
between victories/missions would be fairer, but still favour
some long-time German and Japanese pilots, as you get more
experienced with time. Different times and places also lead to
different conditions.

Instead, I'd like to see statistics for the different air forces:
How large % of pilots survived X missions; How large % of pilots
had flown X missions without a single victory....
--
 Urban Fredriksson  urf@icl.se  
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: ebstokes@uncc.edu (Edward B Stokes)
Subject: Re: P51s are Shiny Metal
Summary: Alpha Mike Foxtrot
Reply-To: ebstokes@uncc.edu
Organization: University of NC at Charlotte
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:39:10 GMT

In a computer game I have (Falcon3.0), the wingmen occasionally say "Alpha Mike Foxtrot". A,M,F, What does that mean? It's not in the manual.


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Subject: Re: P51s are Shiny Metal
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  4 JAN 93 17:40:13    

Another piece of the painting puzzle is the nature of how the a/c were to be
detected.  If "Mark I eyeball" detection is the threat, paintwork is critical. 
If its an electronic battlefield, paint is irrelavant, until loaded with
ferrite (iron ball....). 

Somewhere authoritative, i saw that research during WWII had shown that
natural/polished a/c were LESS visible, in search lights, than black painted. 
Seems the natural metal scattered the beam off angle, away from the observer. 
Flat black (the obvious choice) actually gave more visibility.  (Wish i had the
source, but, at the it struck me as authritative.)  (resemblance between this
line of reasoning/research and some aspects of stealth are not coincidental...)

(Who gets to mention the wing mounted "invisibility lighting", whose name i
forget???)

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
40 Old Bolton Rd		|I am the NRA.
Stow, Mass, USA	
01775				pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Best fighterpilot ?!?!
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:38:59 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <BOWERS.93Jan12121910@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov>, bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) writes:
|> 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.

     [stuff deleted]

|> 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?!?).

 Are these the formations that were said to have taken over a half hour
 to pass overhead?  It must have been an incredible sight.  
 
|> >Is this accurate?
|> 
|> I'll bring in some numbers tomorrow.  The losses are unbelieveable.
|> The numbers are so staggeringly high, they are beyond comprehension.

 There was something like 54 million casualties in WWII.  Makes the
 idea of tens of thousands of Iraqi casualties seem kinda insignificant.


 Travis
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin)
Subject: Re: Why didn't Luftwaffe paint propeller tips?
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 19:42:08 GMT

Actually, Luftwaffe pilots (especially the aces) did personalize their
aircraft with personal insignia (like Galand's cigar-smoking mouse)
and often had extensive victory markings, typically on the tail.  The
isignia were, however, usually smaller and much more restrained than
the 'colorful' markings favored by the USAAF pilots and crews.  Squadrons also
sported unique markings, such as the "Gr"unherz" (Green Heart) unit
on the Eastern front.  Hartmann's unit had the so-called tulip
pattern on their Bf-109s' noses.  He even had his post-war F-86 squadron
use this pattern.

The USN had a standing policy prohibiting 'nose art' on its aircraft in WW2.
In my Watanabe book on the Hellcat, several of the (superb) paintings
show a shark mouth on the nose.  Apparently, only one squadron did this
and when their carrier was sunk and the planes dispersed to other
carriers (the squadron was airborn at the time) the nose art was
ordered removed by the brass... (I can't remember which squadron
and carrier it was).

The RAF Tornadoes serving in the Gulf had rather racy nose art and
had names to match based on their two-letter call sign.  The nose
art disappeared rapidly when they returned to the UK, I understand...

There is a good cartoon posted at my flying club.  It shows a female
fighter pilot in a fighter cockpit.  On the side of her fighter is a
'nose art' of a flexing, muscle-bound guy entitled "The Memphis Hunk".
A couple of grizzled old (male) groundcrew are standing nearby and one says
to the other, "This is going to get some getting used to..."
Turnabout is fair play, eh?!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Corvin 	      PP-ASEL, PP-G		zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com
just another spaced rocket scientist at    Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============    My views, not Martin Marietta's   ========================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Subject: Re: Flying Wing Stability
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  7 JAN 93 18:45:55    

In article <1713@tdat.teradata.COM>, wbj@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com (William Jones)
writes, in part:

>A coworker recently visited the facility here in Southern Cal where one of the
>prototypes of the Northrup Flying Wing Aircraft is being restored. His tour
>guide remarked that the Flying Wing was a very easy aircraft to fly, and that
>it was very stable.

>This doesn't jive with what I've read about the Flying Wing. I've read that the
>thing was highly unstable and difficult to fly.
	I am a bit of a 'wing fancier & have most of the rerprinted stuff
	available.  My reading is that it was roughly as stable as anything
	else, with some lateral instability.

>In fact it was this instability that lead to the death of the Colonel Edwards
>who's the namesake of Edwards AFB,
	Can't copmment (from memory).  It was, however different to fly.  That
	has killed many pilots of developmental a/c.  It is worthwhile noting
	that the YB49 (etc) were the end products of 20 years of development,
	with a number of flying protos over that period.

>and eventually contributed to the cancellation of the program.
	This was one reason given, especially the lateral instability.  However,
	Jack Northrup (and others) maintained that Northrup got caught in a
	political power play, with "powerful influences" demanding that the a/c
	be built in the home state of a particular senator.  Jack refused,
	feeling he owed it to the people of his area to get them the jobs.  The
	program was ended soon after that.

>What's the real story on the Flying Wing's airworthyness?
	Without restoring one to flight status, we will never have, i suspect, a
	"real" answer.  In general, i do not believe in conspiracy theories.
	This one, tho, seems to have some fact to it.

	Many of the prop version and many of the jet version were built and
	flown, many hours.  That relativley few crashed indicates that they were
	flyable.

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
40 Old Bolton Rd		|I am the NRA.
Stow, Mass, USA	
01775				pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
From: megazone@banzai.WPI.EDU (MegaZone)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Trivia
Date: 12 Jan 1993 20:57:50 GMT
Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal
NNTP-Posting-Host: banzai.wpi.edu

In article <9iV9wB1w164w@n5abi.hou.tx.us> gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy) writes:
>1. What was the first (perhaps only) supersonic jets fighter to 
>demonstrate the ability to fly with it's wings folded! (Hint. No 
>less than seven recorded, or.. er... admitted, cases including two 
>with full combat loads).

Oh, that's easy.... F-8 Crusader.

>2. The first helicopter gunship (or particular model) equiped as a 
>"night fighter" gunship.

That's not so easy... I'd say UH-1 Huey 

###############################################################################
# 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#
###############################################################################
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin)
Subject: Re: P51s are Shiny Metal
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:01:01 GMT

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?

The criteria was basically just nearing the end of the war (certainly
there was a lot more to it, such as local conditions, but that's the
big one).

You'll also notice that as 1944 was rolling to an end, all manner of
aircraft started showing up fully or partially unpainted - fighters,
bombers, transports.

The reason being pretty simple - in many theaters, air superiority had
been claimed without any argument.  The threat by flak was was diminishing
as the Axis forces were dealing with a retreating campaign. The camoflage 
paint became more and more unncessary as the increased visibility of the
unpainted aircraft became immaterial.  Additionally, paint is heavy, and
the loss of the paint made the aircraft lighter (and therefore slightly
better).  Eliminating the OD paint from B-25s, for example, saved over
300 pounds in weight - the weight of two additional crewmen or three more
100 lb bombs, for example.  Or more fuel (drool!)

Although the aircraft look polished, they aren't.  The aluminum is just
"natural."  It does have a bit of a reflective nature to it, but it's
not a true shine.  Film from the era shows the aircraft to be much more
reflective than they really were.  (Restored natural aluminum aircraft 
today are MUCH shinier than their WWII counterpart - Part of that is 
theatrics (because natural aluminum has a tendency to look "unkept") and 
part of it is necessity - it's necessary to protect that exposed aluminum 
SOMEHOW, and a coat of wax/polish (actually, 7 or more coats - you'll never 
complain about waxing your car again after applying seven coats and a sealer 
to a B-25 ... :-) does wonders for preservation and protection from the
elements.

-- 
\\ Robert J. Granvin                                 User Services Specialist
// School of Statistics - University of Minnesota            rjg@stat.umn.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Subject: Re: SR-71 engines
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date:  4 JAN 93 08:45:31    

In article <HUGH.93Jan4211653@kahu.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz>,
hugh@kahu.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Hugh Emberson) writes...
>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 93 22:48:53 GMT, mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike
>>>>>>Campbell) said:
>Mike> I was chatting to a chap the other day about possible engines
>Mike> for "Aurora", being variable cycle and all that stuff, when he
>Mike> told me that the SR-71 engines were/are variable cycle.
>Mike> Apparently the turbojet shuts down at high speed and theengine
>Mike> functions as a ramjet thereafter.

>The spike in the front of the engine nacelle can be positioned so that
>most of the air flows around the turbojet rather than through it
>(while still remaining inside the nacelle) and then out through the
>afterburner.  So most of the thrust came from the "unburnt" air being
>burnt in the afterburner.  I don't think the turbojet is shut down
>though, it probably just idles.  In effect it is mostly a ramjet.
	
	In general, turbojets don't idle, otherwise. i agree with you.
	(they can be spun down, but they still use a lot of fuel...)

>Mike> This was all news to me, as the sketchy info I have on this
>Mike> engine (J58 (JT11D-20B)) simply calls it a low-bypass ratio
>Mike> turbofan with afterburner.

>I guess the J58 is low bypass, but the SR-71 isn't.  

>BTW use present tense when referring to the SR-71 otherwise Mary gets
>annoyed :-)

	There's anb engine sitting next to the SR-71 in the Wright-Paterson
	AF Museum.  I remeber looking at it, and thinking:  Not so long ago
	various people would have "*****"ed to get a look at that engine...

dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
40 Old Bolton Rd		|I am the NRA.
Stow, Mass, USA	
01775				pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
From: bob.dethlefsen@pcs.sj.ca.us (Bob Dethlefsen) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: LOOKING FOR OLD USAF SILK
Date: 8 Jan 93 15:10:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: PCS-BBS - San Jose, CA - 408-270-4085
Reply-To: bob.dethlefsen@pcs.sj.ca.us (Bob Dethlefsen) 

     The silk maps you are referring to were issued to flight crews to
be used if downed in unfamiliar territory.  As a B-25 pilot in the CBI
circa 1942-42, I was given one, which I still have.  I have never talked
to anyone that actually tried to use this map but considering the scale,
I would guess that it would not have been too helpful.  Mine covers
China, Burma and Southeast Asia.  Unfortunately, I have never been able
to figure out to properly display this beautiful memento.
       Bob Dethlefsen, San Jose, CA
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Trivia
Date: 12 Jan 1993 13:26:47 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


>1. What was the first (perhaps only) supersonic jets fighter to
>demonstrate the ability to fly with it's wings folded! (Hint. No
>less than seven recorded, or.. er... admitted, cases including two
>with full combat loads).

Sounds like the F-8.
Was:     When you're out of Crusaders, you're out of fighters.
Became:  When you're out of Crusaders, you're out of danger.

>2. The first helicopter gunship (or particular model) equiped as a
>"night fighter" gunship.

UH-1?

Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions,
go and get your own."

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: Focke-Wulf Ta 152
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
	<1992Dec28.141340.7902@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>
	<1992Dec28.215828.26302@cbnewsd.cb.att.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:20:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.215828.26302@cbnewsd.cb.att.com> jfb200@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (joseph.f.baugher) writes:

>In article <1992Dec28.141340.7902@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>, acura@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (james.r.feeney) writes:

>> 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.

>The BV 155 high-altitude  interceptor is almost a textbook example  of  
>how NOT to design a  combat  aircraft.  It  went through an agonizing 
>number of  design changes,  starting off  its life  as  a  single-seat  
>carrier-based  fighter, gradually  evolving into a  precision  bomber,   
>then going through several incarnations as a high-altitude interceptor.  

I'm curious, why would they attempt to build from scratch a high
altitude interceptor, when they had a usable high altitude platform to
start with?  The aircraft to which I refer is the Junkers Ju 86P and
Ju 86R.  While it was intended for use as a bomber and for recon work,
fitting a large cannon (ala Me 262 A-1a/U-4) would not have been out
of the question.  Absolute ceiling of the aircraft is reported in
Jane's as 49,000 feet, though there were combat reports of them flying
as high as 52,000 feet (usually recon over the Suez canal)...

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).

An odd postscript to this, there was a proposal to use a similar type
of engine for the high altitude research aircraft proposed by NASA for
atmospheric research at altitudes in excess of 85,000 feet altitude...

--
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: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette)
Subject: Re: Questions about AMRAAM, AAAM and F-14
Reply-To: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette)
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 05:51:47 GMT

In article <BOWERS.93Jan6103047@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov>  
bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) writes:

> I have not been able to confirm that an AMRAAM was used. 
> first of all, Block 50 F-16 Falcons are not equiped to use
> Sparrows (AIM-7s) much less the AIM-120 AMRAAM.  Last I
> had heard, there were only two F-16s fitted to carry
> Sparrows or AMRAAMs, and I thought I heard (from the F-16
> Combined Test Force down the road here) that they were
> dismantled (possible rumor). 

"During 1989, a major rebuild programme affecting 270
existing F16As was introduced under the title of Block 15
Advanced Day Fighter (ADF), the aircraft involved having
been selected to serve with the Air National Guard (ANG)
as interceptors.  With this in mind, provision was made
for the use of the AIM-7 Sparrow air-to-air missile (AAM)
and the AIM-120 AMRAAM, as well as introducing an
improved IFF system and HF radio.   The Westinghouse
APG-66 radar has also been improved to facilitate
operations with the medium-range missiles noted, and a
night-identification searchlight has been
installed." 

[Classic Warplanes: F-16 Fighting Falcon, Doug Richardson, Gallery
books, 1990, ISBN 0-8317-14018]

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

Please reply to: nathan@laplace.csb.yale.edu (NeXT)
From: wbj@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com (William Jones)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: DC1/3
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:08:58 GMT
Reply-To: wbj@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Distribution: world
Organization: Teradata/NCR

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

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


bill



Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military