HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Dr. Strangelove)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: TU-26, or Tu-22M.
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:37:09 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

Minor Question...

Who owns TU-26's?

The old Soviet Union had plenty, but did the and other Republics
other than Russia get them? Also Were any exported? Did Iran or Libya get 
Them?

Now as for the Tu-22,(not the M version) some were sold to Iraq, and Libya,
no where els right?

Ken
-- 
 Dr. Strangelove      "You just can't let nature run wild." -Gov. Hickel
 U.Wisconsin Milwaukee    of Alaska, refering to an aerial wolf kill.
 Major: Political Science  track." 
 Why that Alias? From the Movie Dr. Strangelove.
From: geoff@hawkesbury.uws.EDU.AU (Geoff Russell)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: C-5 Galaxy's in Australia
Keywords: C-5
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:20:53 GMT
Organization: University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury

Currently there are two C-5's paked at our local RAAF base, one with problems
preventing it flying. (It has the name "Empire State" painted on the lower
forward fuselage).

My question is where are the C-5's based in the USA and how many are 
operational? 

Geoff Russell
University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury
Richmond, New South Wales,
AUSTRALIA
From: megazone@lektroid.WPI.EDU (MegaZone)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: C-5 Galaxy's in Australia
Keywords: C-5
Date: 27 Jan 93 23:08:57 GMT
Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal
NNTP-Posting-Host: lektroid.wpi.edu

In article <geoff.10@hawkesbury.uws.EDU.AU> geoff@hawkesbury.uws.EDU.AU (Geoff Russell) writes:
>Currently there are two C-5's paked at our local RAAF base, one with problems
>preventing it flying. (It has the name "Empire State" painted on the lower
>forward fuselage).

The 'Empire State' is NY State... Probably from *duh.. blank* Griffiths(sp?)...

(I KNOW the name... what a time to blank...)

>My question is where are the C-5's based in the USA and how many are 
>operational? 

Hmm... I think ~89 C-5s are still operational..

###############################################################################
# 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: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu (Michael J. Edelman)
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Reply-To: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu
Organization: Wayne State University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:26:56 GMT

The GAU-8 probably wins in terms of mass of projectile fired per second, but
I suspect the largest gun mounted in an aircraft would be the 105mm guns 
mounted in some gunships...unless they've put bigger ones in since the SPECTRE
ships I've read about. 

   --mike
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Trivia
Date: 26 Jan 1993 10:58:14 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy) writes:

>in all of the aircraft mentioned, once the pilot has
>"punched out", the loss of the weight of the pilot and the
>ejection seat would shift the CG (center of gravity) so far aft
>that there is no way the aircraft could maintain level flight.

I doubt the veracity of the as yet undocumented stories presented about
airplanes landing themselves in any recoverable fashion - Aviation,
particularly military aviation, is rampant (rife?) with rumors and legends.
Every hear about the guy who smacked into the fantail, unstrapped, and stepped
into the spud locker?

>have seen film of aircraft after the pilot ejected nosing up into
>a tail stand and then doing a tail slide into the ground.

Sounds like the "Sabre Dance".  There are also films of airplanes nosing over
after ejection.  What you see may be the reason for the ejection (loss of
control) rather than a result of the ejection.

I would guess that losing 500-600 lb
at a mid to forward station is not necessarily going to make the airplane so
unstable as to be uncontrollable.  PILOTED airplanes have recovered after
losing quite a bit of weight often farther forward, including nose gears,
radomes and parts of radar, etc.  (these are documented and public info, btw).

The problem with the ejection part is that there's no pilot left to trim out
the moment change with the cg shift, so the airplane diverges (or just seeks a
new trim position which happens to be pointed up, stall, etc....)

An attitude hold system as may be found in
modern military airplanes _may_ try its best to maintain attitude (wings
level, zero rate of climb) even with a large cg shift, and the airplnnae may
continue flying.  Land?  I doubt it.

I have a case of a GR Mk.5 flying along without a pilot, but this post is too
long winded already.  If anyone's interested, I can post it.

Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions,
go and get your own."
From: stephan@blade.stack.urc.tue.nl (Stephan Eggermont)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: *** AF F15 Eagle/Strike Eagle vs. Navy F14 Tomcat ***
Date: 21 Jan 93 12:42:08 GMT
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

P. VASILION (v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu) wrote:
: In article <1689@blue.cis.pitt.edu>, nahst6+@pitt.edu (Nathan A Horstman) writes...
: >Which one is better?  I KNOW the F15 is supposed to be better, but I have a
: >Jet Combat Simulation Game (very realistic) that would make the Navy F14
: >Tomcat a little better.  Any facts/opinions?

Once upon a time there was a fleet effectiveness study in which the navy
tried to convince the AF that they should buy F14s instead of F15s. Of course
the study showed the F14 to be more effective than the F15. I would have to
look it up, but something like 200 F14s are as effective as 300 F15s. This is
of course for BVR combat, because else a fleet of hawk trainers is going to
be much more effective (with good AEW & ECM support they might still be)
The reasons:
- longer endurance for the F14, it was designed for CAP and has a crew of two
- better radar and Phoenix missile 
The problems:
- it's a navy aircraft
- in a full scale european theatre war the target density is so high that sheer
  numbers are more important than single-aircraft effectiveness, especially
  considering the SAM density.
- in such a theatre there is just no space to create a barrier CAP, and with 
  a missile range of 100 nm one could shoot down aircraft at the airfields 
  instead of in the air :-)

: >How about radar?  The game I mentioned gives the F14 a considerably higher
: >rating for radar than the F15...is it really more advanced?  How do they
: >differ?  

The F14 radar weights a few times that of an F15.

: No so. F-15 is a multi-mission a/c. Does ground pounding as well as ACM. F-14
: was designed to be an interceptor/fighter only. F-15 can carry more stores

Remember "not a pound for air to ground"? Both were designed as fighters.

: and a wide variety of war-loads. F-14 has four weapons: AIM-9, AIM-7(AIM-120),
: AIM-54, and M61A1 and thats it. Oh yeah, you can strap bombs to it but it
: is a LOUSY bomber.

Why? It's expensive, but that goes for F15E too. It's just a question of
putting Lantirn on a pod and writing the software for the radar to handle
ground-mapping right? Well, and training the pilots of course. Of course when
compared to an A6E both are lousy bombers, and even more when compared to a b1b

: >How about countermeasures?  Does the F15 have better or worse countermeasures
: >to use to avoid missiles and the like?  
: 
: Worse. F-14 has built in ECM/ECCM suites. F-15 must waste a pylon to carry
: ECM.

F15 has ECM built in according to Jane's

Stephan
From: zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Dr. Strangelove)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: A-10 replacement
Date: 22 Jan 1993 20:18:11 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

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.

>-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 believe the paper said the other day that some where based in the
 Saudi capitol, Ryhad(sp?).

-- 
 Dr. Strangelove      "You just can't let nature run wild." -Gov. Hickel
 U.Wisconsin Milwaukee    of Alaska, refering to an aerial wolf kill.
 Major: Political Science  track." 
 Why that Alias? From the Movie Dr. Strangelove.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin)
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 23:36:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.132512.22588@mlb.semi.harris.com>, smccoy@dw3g.ess.harris.com (Scott McCoy) writes:
|> [..stuff about 75mm aircraft weapons deleted...]
|> 
|> The British also mounted a large (75mm?) cannon on Hurricanes
|> during WWII for desert operations against Rommel's tanks in
|> North Africa.
|> 
|> ----
|> Scott McCoy

I believe that the Hurricanes carried a pair of 40mm antitank guns
in pods under the wings, not a 75mm cannon.  They were quite effective.
Stukas were also used with 40mm guns by the Luftwaffe, mostly on
the Eastern front.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: wcsswag@alfred.carleton.ca (The Charlatan)
Subject: Re: Media mistakes (was Re: Iraq attacks U.S. Navy planes)
Keywords: international, fighting, non-usa government, government, military
Organization: Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 01:08:21 GMT


  Well, don't worry this happens all the time. Just snicker at lack of
military knowledge on the part of the journalists.

 My fave(from the Toronto Star):AWACS(Airborne Warning and Control Ship)

Xref: sparky rec.aviation.military:2253 sci.aeronautics:2820
From: rdd@ukc.ac.uk (Rudnei Dias da Cunha)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military,sci.aeronautics
Subject: Request for info: NASA HARV and X-31 programmes
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:21:55 GMT
Organization: Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury, UK.

Dear readers,

I would like to ask if anybody from NASA could comment on the developments 
being made with the HARV programme (which uses a F/A-18 as test-bed), 
any modifications made to the aircraft, and if this project relates to the 
X-31 programme.

Thanks in advance!

P.S.: Please note the cross-posting...
--
                                    Rudnei Dias da Cunha
                       Computing Lab, University of Kent at Canterbury
                          Canterbury, Kent  CT2 7NF, United Kingdom
From: john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Saab Drakens in Hollywood?
Date: 21 Jan 93 04:22:53 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: Newave Communications, Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN

In <MORSE.93Jan15091551@quark.mpr.ca> morse@quark.mpr.ca (Daryl Morse):
> I recently watched the movie "Firebirds"

What a dud movie (other than the flying).  I hope all military chopper
pilots aren't such big crybabies.  If they were, we would be in big trouble.

> Does anyone know whose Draken(s) these are? Given that they are real,
> albeit somewhat dated, fighter aircraft, it's not like there will be a
> bunch of them available for such frivolous activities.

I saw a Draken parked at the Indianapolis International Airport late
this summer.  It was black and decked out in Miller Lite markings.
This plane was featured in a Miller Lite TV commercial.  From the looks
of the oil stains on the parking area under the plane, I would guess that
the Saab is based in Indy.

> Given the uniqueness of the Draken, it would certainly make an
> interesting airshow act, which one would expect if they are (it is)
> privately owned. Has anyone ever seen a privately owned (or otherwise)
> Draken at an airshow?

I have seen a number of foriegn ex-military planes on the airshow circuit,
but I have not seen a Draken yet.  It wasn't even at Oshkosh, which is
rapidly becomming the major jet warbird fly-in.

> Are Drakens still being operated for military purposes?

I have a 1987 vintage reference that says:
 - all Danish and Finnish models are still in service,
 - Sweeden is selling some of its older aircraft to Austria
 - Sweeden is upgrading the newer aircraft for service projected to
   last through 1995

The Draken is valuable because it has a rugged airframe, and the large
wing surface allows very short takeoff and landing distances.  This is
key to the Sweedish defense strategy of using remote country roads as
airbases in times of emergency.  The Draken has also been very sucessful
as a recon plane.

-john-

-- 
==============================================================================
John A. Weeks III		(612) 942-6969		    john@newave.mn.org
Newave Communications, Ltd.			    ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john
From: megazone@yoyodyne.WPI.EDU (MegaZone)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: type differences
Date: 21 Jan 1993 20:18:00 GMT
Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal
NNTP-Posting-Host: yoyodyne.wpi.edu

In article <1993Jan21.180929.25467@bernina.ethz.ch> FLY@EZINFO.VMSMAIL.ETHZ.CH (VOEGTLI,CHRISTOPH) writes:
>Can anybody tell me the differences of the several versions
>(e.g. F-14 A,B,.. or F/A-18 A,B,...)
>of US fighterplanes ?
>Are they improvements ?

Basically yes, they are newer models.

F-14A - orignal F-14
F-14B - currently used for former F-14A+ models. Basically A models with the
        F-110 engine and various upgrades. At one time was applied to the
        engine test aircraft
F-14C - Designator for proposed version. Never saw service
F-14D - F-110 engines, new electronics, internal modifications. Similar to the
        F-14B but with a revised electronics suite.

F-15A - original F-15
F-15B - two-seat F-15A
F-15C - electronics upgrades, detail work, cockpits, FAST Packs, etc.
F-15D - two-seat F-15C
F-15E - The Strike Eagle penetration attack aircraft. All 'E's are two-seaters
        and they are major modifications of the F-15D basically. New 
        electronics, beefed up fuselage. Conformal carriage for several weapons
        on special FAST Packs. 

F-16A - original production F-16
F-16B - two-seat trainer version of the F-16A
F-16C - new tail-surfaces, redesigned cockpit, elctronics upgrades, lots of 
        detail work
F-16D - two-seat trainer version of the F-16C
F-16E - designation sometimes applied to the F-16XL 'cranked arrow' wing 
        aircraft that competed with the F-15E. I've also seen it applied to the
        "Agile Falcon" design with an increased wingspan.

F-18A - original F-18
F-18B - Two-seat F-18A I believe this was TF-18A at first, in the navies old
        numbering system. (T is for trainer)
F-18C - Revised electronics and cockpit, I don't think there were any mods to
        the airframe.
F-18D - Two-seat F-18C
F-18E - upcoming version. New engines, stretched body, wing increase from 400
        square feet to 500 square feet. New tail, new radar, new cockpit, new
        square engine inlets, more stores stations, more fuel. It's a new 
        plane basically based on the F-18. The only reason I can think of for
        keeping the 18 designator is political.
F-18F - Two-seat F-18E

###############################################################################
# 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: leem@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Lee Mellinger)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: USE OF B-52 TAIL GUNS
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:24:20 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)

In article <1k1qgcINNead@bigboote.WPI.EDU> megazone@realsoon.WPI.EDU (MegaZone) writes:
:In article <C1F3vy.Ez@ra.nrl.navy.mil> mcdermot@itd.nrl.navy.mil (John McDermott) writes:
:>with the added interest that the tail gun functioned automatically
:>without the crew seeing the attacking fighter. Is this true?
:
:IF this happened it could only be on a G or H model. Those are the only models 
:with the remote gun system and the tail mounted radar and tele-optical system.
:The earlier models had a real tail-gunner. Poor guy trapped all the way in the
:tail manually guiding the guns, quite a rough ride at low level.
:

Wrong, all models, quad .50's, 20mm gatling, gunner aft or gunner
foward, were all radar and or optically guided.


Lee

"Mit Pulver und Blei, die Gedanken sind frei."

|Lee F. Mellinger                 Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA
|4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/354-1163  FTS 792-1163     
|leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: smccoy@dw3g.ess.harris.com (Scott McCoy)
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:25:12 GMT
Organization: Harris Corporation Information Systems Division

[..stuff about 75mm aircraft weapons deleted...]

The British also mounted a large (75mm?) cannon on Hurricanes
during WWII for desert operations against Rommel's tanks in
North Africa.

----
Scott McCoy
From: gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Trivia
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 16:44:50 CST
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.

chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss) writes:

> In article <1993Jan21.150040.29754@ncsu.edu> edhresko@eos.ncsu.edu writes:
> >
> >	I should comment that the Crusader has the honor of being the first
> >aircraft to land by itself (that is, made a perfect landing AFTER the pilot 
> >punched out!!!)
> >
> Years ago, I took a tour of Griffis Air Force Base.  They were still flying 
> the F-106 in an active duty SAC wing there, I think it was 1983 or so (Hey, 
> when you're only twenty, 1983 is years ago).  Anyway, one of the -106's was o
> static display, but it didn't have a canopy.  The story, as I remember it, wa
> that the pilot punched out in a nasty spin/stall, and the force of the seat 
> leaving the aircraft was just right to kick the plane into level flight.  It 
> flew around for a while before settling in for a wheels-up landing in a field
> 
> That would be the ultimate embarrassment, to eject, and then have your airpla
> recover and land itself.
> 
 I find these stories interesting, but one thing bothers me about 
them; in all of the aircraft mentioned, once the pilot has 
"punched out", the loss of the weight of the pilot and the 
ejection seat would shift the CG (center of gravity) so far aft 
that there is no way the aircraft could maintain level flight. I 
have seen film of aircraft after the pilot ejected nosing up into 
a tail stand and then doing a tail slide into the ground. What I 
can't figure out is how any of these aircraft could have managed 
to land with the CG that far aft. Any ideas??

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - 
                      gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: BAGHDAD TOMAHAWKS
Date: 19 Jan 93 20:16:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 


CO> .My guess is that Tomahawk is a fake by Saddam.  Some hundreds of expolsive
  > .some tomahawk debris in a small building outside the Hotel detonating unde
  > .the attack. Bagdad is a large town and the tomahawks few. It's unlikely th
  > .one or few Tomahawks lost their guidance and just hit nearby the hotel..

One of the newscritters caught video of the tomahawk arriving.  It seems
highly unlikely that Saddam would cobble up a phony.  Far more likely
that some of the AA caught a legit Tomahawk and damaged it and
threw it off course, resulting in it impacting the hotel.  (Murphy's
law, you know...)  It left quite a large (35 ft.) crater, according to
an on-site newscritter.

        D/
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-3345 . Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
From: agae@palm.lle.rochester.edu (Andres C. Gaeris)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Trivia
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:09:37 GMT
Reply-To: agae@palm.lle.rochester.edu (Andres C. Gaeris)
Organization: UofR Laboratory for Laser Energetics


	In the Malvinas/Falklands conflict a damaged Douglas A4-Q Skyhawk
of the Argentinian Navy landed itself after the pilot ejected out
at low level. As Argentinian standard ejection seats are 0/70 -not 0/0- the
pilot died on impact into the ground, but the aircraft landed and afterwards
was repaired and refurbished and served for a while again in the 2nd Attack
Squadron of Naval Aviation.

Andres C. Gaeris
Armchair warrior and junior laser fusioneer

agae@lle.rochester.edu
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Trivia
Date: 28 Jan 1993 14:27:53 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) posts an account of an F-106
landing without a pilot.

OK!  In the interest of fair play, I concede.

BTW:  :)

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: Thomas.Enblom@eos.ericsson.se (Thomas Enblom)
Subject: Re: F-22 Name? (FAQ Question?)
Keywords: F-22 Name Black Widow
Reply-To: Thomas.Enblom@eos.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 10:40:12 GMT


> The name of the F-22 is "Lightning 2" after the P-38.
> The name of the F-23 is/was "Blackwidow 2" after the P-61.

I'm a regular reader of Flight International and I've read there	
that the name of the F-22 is "Superstar".

Could anybody elaborate?

================================================================================
Ericsson Telecom, Stockholm, Sweden
      
Thomas Enblom, just another employee.
From: megazone@coal.WPI.EDU (MegaZone)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Most Powerfull Gun ? (Was The Gattling Gun)
Date: 23 Jan 1993 05:46:10 GMT
Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal
NNTP-Posting-Host: coal.wpi.edu

In article <1993Jan22.104934@usho72.hou281.chevron.com> hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
> But lately, I've seen B-52's flying around Carswell AFB, Fort Worth, TX
> that don't seem to have any rear gun - are they being removed?

Yes, I believe it was in an AF News post on sci.mil that I read that the AF
has decided to remove the tailguns and all corresponding systems from the 
B-52, and thereby also eliminate that crew position, as a cost-cutting 
measure, It is felt that tailguns are ineffective in the modern environment
as fighters routinely make missile attacks from outside of gun range. 

###############################################################################
# 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