HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: F-22 Question
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
	<1993Jan11.190614.4666@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
	<1itp40INN1o1@bigboote.WPI.EDU>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:35:12 GMT

In article <1itp40INN1o1@bigboote.WPI.EDU> megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone) writes:

>In article <1993Jan11.190614.4666@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mtissand@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael D Tissandier) writes:
>>vertical.  It was also missing the canopy, but other than that, it looks
>>like it could be flyable, does anyone have any info on possible resumption
>>of the test program prior to the FSD aircraft being completed??

>The official word from the AF is that extensive internal damage was done by
>the fire, rendering the aircrafts structure unflightworthy...

>IE, the heat probably melted and/or warped the main framwork of the body. Plus
>the damage done by the impact.

>It won't fly again.

The test program was 94% complete at the time of the incident.  And
well over 50% of the structure was damaged.  The aircraft was to come
to NASA Dryden as a test bed after completeion of flying for the AF,
but that obviously will not happen now.

There are two stories about why the aircraft was allowed to burn for
over an hour after the accident.  Story one is that the test team was
curious as to how the Carbon Fiber would burn, and so allowed it to
continue.  Story two is that the fire fighters had not encountered an
aircraft made of CF before and didn't realize that you need to cool
the structure, not just put out the flames.  The official accident
report doesn't say which...

--
Al Bowers                       bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle, Lead Aero
NASA, Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, California
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: FINNISH DEFENSE
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:25:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 

-> than at the start.  Several studies have shown that axial agility
-> does not start to become a player until you achieve about 2 Gs of
-> axial acceleration.  At that point you start to get enough `chutzpah'
-> for the pilot to really use the throttle as a control device (rather
-> than sticking it in MAX AB and leaving it there).  As they say,
-> "point and

Could you explain that a little more. I'm not sure I understand exactly
what you're saying there.
                                                Rocky
                                                                                                                           
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: rrg@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU (Rafael Rodriguez)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Best fighterpilot ?!?!
Date: 12 Jan 1993 13:04:26 +1100
Organization: University of Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au

From article <C0pnGx.8Gq@srgenprp.sr.hp.com>, by jeffc@sad.hp.com (Jeff Crowell):
> also, 'Sailor' Malan had, I believe, 30 kills flying Spits for the
>   the British.  He was a South American.
> 
South African, I think.

Rafael Rodriguez
From: zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Dr. Strangelove)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: A FEW GOOD MEN AND F14'S
Date: 7 Jan 1993 15:42:24 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Keywords: F14 CUBA US NAVY

In article <1993Jan7.115017.1@cbr.hhcs.gov.au> byrnes@cbr.hhcs.gov.au writes:
>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?


Guantanamo Bay is an American base due to the treaty that granted Cuba
its independence. (I forgot the name of the treaty.) When the US won the
the Spanish American War of 1898, it gained control of Guam, Puerto Rico,
Cuba and The Philippines. Guam is still an American territory, and still has
a large military base, does it still have B-52's? Puerto Rico has several 
American military instilations, and is an American Commonwealth. 
The Philippines wanted indepence and the US wanted it as a colony, so 
in 1900 the US fought Philippine American War, a brutal war, and a fore runner
to the Vietnam War. (A good book on this is "In Our Image" America and the
Philippines, by Karnow). In 1948 the Philippines was granted independence.
After fighting in the Philippines, the congress had little stomach to 
fight another colonal war, so Cuba was granted independence. Yet it was
forced to sign a treaty that essentually made it a psuedo-colony.
In this treaty the US got a 99 year lease on Guantanamo Bay. I believe the
lease was extended before Castro came to power. Unlike Clark, this base 
has lived in isolation for years, so I would see little likeyhood 
that the US will give this baseup even if the lease runs out.

Ken

-- 
 Dr. Strangelove      "You just can't let nature run wild." -Gov. of Alaska
 U.Wisconsin Milwaukee    
 Major: Political Science  track." 
 Why that Alias? From the Movie Dr. Strangelove.
From: rrg@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU (Rafael Rodriguez)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Ar-234's disapearing guns.
Date: 11 Jan 1993 09:36:11 +1100
Organization: University of Melbourne
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au


There is a little feature of the Ar-234B Blitz that has puzzled
me for years.

On every reference I have read on the Ar-234B, the armament is
said to be an xxx amount of bombs plus two 20 mm cannon. However,
on every photograph, drawing, illustration, rendering, cutaway,
scale plans etc. I hav seen, there is no evidence of of guns.

I even read a posting (I can remember on which group) where
it was mentioned that an Ar-234 comming back from a mission
encoiuntered a Mosquito  that was also comming back from a mission
and SINCE BOTH WERE UNARMMED (sic), they just waved at each 
other.

Does any one know for a fact if the Ar-234 did carry guns and,
in case it did, where? (The wing roots seem a pretty obvious
place to me).

Regards,
Rafael Rodriguez
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Best fighterpilot ?!?!
From: C.K.Black@massey.ac.nz (C.K. Black)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 02:22:12 GMT
Organization: Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
Keywords: quality opposition
Summary: WW2
X-Reader: NETNEWS/PC Version 2c

G'day,
 In Message-ID: <1993Jan6.191722.7674@rational.com>,  Mark Miller says...

>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

This is a topic that we can debate 'til the cows come home,  but I've got
to agree with Mark's vote.  We have to look at the number and quality of
the opposition the fighters were facing.  Hartmann was eating up a lot of
lower quality Russian pilots/planes,  but Marseille made most of his kills
in North Africa and the ETO.  On the other hand,  Marseille didn't make
it through the war.  I remember that he died when his chute failed to open
but can't remember if he bailed due to mechanical problems or if he just
finally met HIS match.   Cheers.....
-- 
Conrad Black 

Email... C.K.Black@massey.ac.nz
Snail... Massey U., Plant Sc. Dept., Palmerston North, New Zealand
From: cebp04@vaxa.strath.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Yak 21 info request
Date: 6 Jan 93 10:47:15 GMT
Organization: Strathclyde University VAX Cluster

Does anyone out there know of any sources of information on the Yak 21?
Thanks in advance.

Stephen.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jeffc@sad.hp.com (Jeff Crowell)
Subject: Re: energy and tactics
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 22:39:21 GMT
Organization: HP Sonoma County (SRSD/MWTD/MID)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]


More one 1:1 T/W--

When turning, the aircraft 'weighs' more.  That's the significance of G's
after all.  So just 'cuz you have 1:1 thrust to weight doesn't mean you can
turn tightly and accelerate at the same time.  It just means that you are
bleeding energy at a slower rate.

Also, your fuel package figures significantly into your thrust-to-weight
rating.  An F-14 carries 16,500 pounds of fuel internally, or about 4
minutes at Zone 5 'burner.  Even an F-4 Phantom, at low fuel states, can
get interesting,, and it's nowhere near 1:1 at takeoff (more like .75 or
so depending on what stores it's carrying).


Jeff Crowell
former USN jet pilot 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: F-15E Performance
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:33:01 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.184456.15862@infonode.ingr.com> bishopjl@infonode.ingr.com (John L Bishop) writes:

>Due to a "discussion" in another newsgroup, I became curious as to the high
>altitude performance of the F-15E.  The poster complained that in the new
>simulation "F-15 Strike Eagle III" from Microprose, he could only get the
>aircraft up to 400 Kts. at 30,000 Ft. (Aircraft was clean with full 
>afterburners).  I did some calculations, and this comes out to just over 
>Mach 1.0.  Is this realistic?  I know the standard Eagle can go to Mach 2.5 - 
>but at what altitude? 

Maybe, maybe not.  Is that display in KEAS (knots equivalent airspeed)
or in TAS (true airspeed).  I suspect the former, as most HUD
(Heads-Up Display) equipped aircraft use KEAS for information
displayed to the pilot.  this is more important in an ACM environment
as it tells you if you are above or below `corner' speed...

BTW, 400 KEAS is about 1.109 knots.  That is a bit slow for a clean
F-15, E or not.  Was he carrying the FAST packs?  And did he dump the
pylons, tanks and racks?

--
Al Bowers                       bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle, Lead Aero
NASA, Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, California
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Iraqi AA Missiles in No-Fly Zone
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:46:26 GMT
Organization: Chevron


 Several newspapers say that Iraqi AA missile batteries are being moved
 into the No-Fly zone over which Iraqi planes continue to enter.  The 
 batteries are supposed to be several miles inside the No-Fly zone and
 the Iraqi planes penertrate the zone but stay within the missile range.

 Is this a lousy attempt to Bait-n-Shoot some US aircraft or what!?!?

 I guess it's time for some more AG and AMRAAM training. (PHOENIX too?)
 

 TRAVIS

 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jem3@pyuxf.uucp (25312-mc killop)
Subject: Re: A FEW GOOD MEN AND F14'S
Keywords: F14 CUBA US NAVY
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 20:36:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.094133@usho72.hou281.chevron.com> hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
>
>  Quite common, I would think.  The Dallas NAS is several hundred miles
>  from any significant body of water yet F14s are stationed there.
>
The only difference is that NAS Dallas is a Naval Reserve training
base.  Gitmo is Regular Navy.  When a carrier is in port, the air
wing normally deploys to land bases and it is possible that a some
of the aircraft will be on cross country training missions.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca (Fengxi Zhou)
Subject: Re: F-22 Question
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:22:08 GMT

megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23) writes:
: In article <1993Jan10.125038.29928@admiral.uucp> dave@admiral.uucp (Dave Litchman) writes:
: >Demise? I remember seeing a news item (with footage of the incident) in which
: >the landing gear of the F-22 collapsed upon touchdown. Is this what you're
: >talking about? It didn't look too bad...
: 
: If only that were the truth...
: 
: The sole flying YF-22 crashed on a touch and go... The aircraft hit with
: the gear up and slid along the runway, catching fire. The pilot climbed out
: with minor injuries, but the aircraft was destroyed. With the damage already
: extensive it was decided to let the airframe burn under supervision to
: assess the burn characteristics...
:

AW&ST gave another reason for this. The external fire was put off immediately.
But the fire inside was not because some opening was in the underbelly which
could not be opened (gear was not down). The cutting tool could not cut through
the titanic skin (strange but that is what it said), so they could do nothing
but watch. One firefighter was injured when he stood on top of the a/c trying
to cut open the engine compartment and an explosion of some sort happend.

fengxi
From: jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Ultrasecret (Enigma)
Summary: Cipher machine was NOT secret
Date: 7 Jan 93 02:40:26 GMT
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Organization: Statistics, Pure & Applied Mathematics, University of Adelaide

In article <93004.212754VPN1@psuvm.psu.edu> VPN1@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

>Jim Feeney asked about radar vs.  code-breaking in the Battle of Britain.
>
>Here, briefly is what I've read:
>
>According to _The Ultrasecret_, by Winterbotham (an RAF Wing Commander or
>Group Captain personally involve):
>
>Some poles working in Germany deduced their factory was making code
>(actually, cipher) machines, called "Enigma." They smuggled out all the
>parts, which were sent to Britain.  At a country house called Bletchley, a
>group went to work to exploit this incredible intelligence coup.

The Enigma cipher machine was NOT a secret. It was produced by a poor
impoverished inventor who offered it to everyone. The Germans added a
few extra rollers to the machine and this is what was secret (and what
the Poles worked out) The Engima machine was used by *everyone*. The
British were arguing about whom to pay the royalities for their machines
when the war broke out (there was some argument about who had the patent
and they didn't want to tell a German they had adopted the machine) The
Japanese and Americans used it too. The US used a special version of it
with about 14 extra rollers I think.

>It wasn't duck soup because the "key" was changed daily, but a significant
>number of top-level German messages were deciphered.

The Germans were often very lazy using 4 keys in a diagonal down the
key board or repeated the same key over and over again.


Joseph Askew


-- 
Joseph Askew, Gauche and Proud  Barbarian horns draw out the northern wind;
jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu  Paler than water lies the Thistle Pass;
Disclaimer? Sue, see if I care  Sky swallows up the road to Kokonor;
One China One Korea One Eire32  Moonlight, a thousand miles along the Wall.
From: scott@fraud.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: THE A-10
Date: 5 Jan 93 13:23:11
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF)
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: xcf-gw.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com's message of 4 Jan 93 06:32:00 GMT


% But on the other hand, you could probably build a couple of squadrons of
% P-47s or comparable types for the cost of one A-10. 

But then you have to train and maintain a much larger pilot pool (very 
expensive), maintenance costs would most likely far exceed that of a 
single A-10 because you would have to have many more maintenance crews.
Paperwork alone would be a major loss in time and effort!  In a war 
you would have to expose far more people to a threat area to get the 
same number of bombs on target.  There could be many more downed pilots
to worry about (and SAR missions can tie up a LOT of assets).  The many 
more aircraft required to deliver the ordanance load of a single A-10 
would also take up much more base territory, especially if you wanted 
to protect them in revetments or bunkers.

All these operating costs would quickly overcome any savings gained by 
replacing a few very effective aircraft with many far less capable units.


% "Quantity has a
% Quality all it's own." and a weapon droped from a P-47 destroys a target
% just as effectively as one launched from an A-10.

Not necessarily true when you consider the larger picture ... such as some 
of the factors mentioned above.

Scott
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: hakoskinen@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi (Harri Koskinen)
Subject: change the subject line! (was: RE: FINNISH DEFENSE)
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 06:20:41 GMT

In article <1483.417.uupcb@the-matrix.com>, rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins)  writes:
> -> As Yeager pointed out in his autobigraphy: the top speed of a fighter
> -> (as long as it is in the Mach 2 range) is largely irrelevant. If you
> -> turn tail to flee you present a nice IR flare and will have a
> -> Sidewinder (or equivalent) up your ass before you can say "mommy!".
> 
> Afterburner and high energy acceleration is also an excellant way to
> restore energy lost in high G maneuvers at subsonic speeds. Energy
> bleeds off pretty fast in a turning fight and if you can't restore
> energy fast you're nothing more than a faded memory. 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.
>                                         Rocky
>                       
How is this posting (and also many others in this newsgroup) related
with Finnish defense??? Can't you just change the subject line when
you change the subject from the original?

-----
Harri Koskinen
freelance aviation writer
Siivet magazine
Finland
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: mtissand@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael D Tissandier)
Subject: Re: F-22 Question
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:06:14 GMT

The latest issue of World_Air_Power Journal has a photo of the YF-22 that
crashed up on its undercarriage.  I don't have the article with me at the
moment but I seem to remember that parts of the craft were covered with a
black material (a tarp perhaps), specifically part of the port wing and
vertical.  It was also missing the canopy, but other than that, it looks
like it could be flyable, does anyone have any info on possible resumption
of the test program prior to the FSD aircraft being completed??

  --Mike

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  We joined the Navy to see the world
  And what did we see?
  We saw the sea.

        ---Irving Berlin

                  mtissand@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: MiG29 on TV
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Date: 5 Jan 1993 17:05:32 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com



tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates) writes:

>Anyone see 60 minutes re: defector pilot (forgot his name) who flew
>to Turkey and now living in US?

That's Alexander Zuyev.  He wrote a book about his defection and the
events leading up to it called _Fulcrum_, published by Warner.  I've
read the first three chapters, and it's an extremely interesting and
entertaining read.  Zuyev writes with a lively style and an engaging,
down-to-earth irreverence; I couldn't help but like the guy.  It's a
much more interesting book than the one about Belenko, _MiG Pilot_, 
because it was written by the defector himself.  Unfortunately, I 
missed the 60 Minutes show...



Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller			+ + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM	+ + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: A FEW GOOD MEN AND F14'S
Keywords: F14 CUBA US NAVY
Date: 7 Jan 93 15:41:33 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1993Jan7.115017.1@cbr.hhcs.gov.au>, byrnes@cbr.hhcs.gov.au writes:
|> 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?

  Quite common, I would think.  The Dallas NAS is several hundred miles
  from any significant body of water yet F14s are stationed there.

 
|> 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?

  I think the US Military has been in Cuba since the Spanish American
  War.  The treaty says something like they can stay until BOTH parties 
  agree to have the US leave.  I forget what the lease terms are (some
  paltry $ amount) but Cuba has not cashed a single check since Castro 
  came to power.

 TRAVIS
From: augustho@aludra.usc.edu (August Horvath)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: P51s are Shiny Metal
Date: 4 Jan 1993 11:41:16 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

In article <1i9otoINNi6t@transfer.stratus.com> kvk@questor.sw.stratus.com (Ken Koellner) writes:
>
>On the topic of WWII fighters....  Does anyone know
>the criteria they used for deciding whether to paint a plane and what
>color?

With respect to the USAAC/USAAF, their aircraft were natural metal
(silver) in the late 30s until May 1940, when the P-40 went into service
with olive-drab over grey paint.  In Feb 1941 this became standard for
all tactical types.  Various exceptions arose during WW2, including
all-black for night fighters, all-powder-blue for high-altitude recon
aircraft, desert sand over grey for arid-climate theaters.  Aircraft
acquired from (or rejected by) the RAF were usually flown in RAF
camoflauge but with US markings.  There were also unofficial variations.

Around the end of 1943 the USAAF began leaving most of their a/c 
unpainted.  Most P-51Ds were used in 1944-45, that's why they were
silver for the most part; most P-51As-Cs were olive and grey.  Most
daytime combat aircraft stayed unpainted into the 50s.

Of course, there is a different story for the US Navy and for every
foreign air arm.

Some observers have pointed out that, historically, the amount of 
attention given to camoflauging combat aircraft is correlated with
the extent to which there are international tensions (in peacetime)
and with the extent to which the relevant air arm's air superiority
is challenged (in wartime).  As far as I know, no one has attempted
a systematic documentation of this.

august horvath <augustho@usc.edu>

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military