HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: F-15E PERFORMANCE
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:23:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 

-> 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...


Define "corner" speed if you don't mind.
                                        Rocky
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: RE: WAS RADAR'S IMPAC
Date: 10 Jan 93 21:27:00 GMT
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins)
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016

-> ability in no way.    The question is, in 1940 just how capable was
-> the Luftwaffe at torpedo strike missions?   I imagine that in 1940 in
-> fact their weapon of choice against a surface target would have been
-> the good old Stuka divebomber -- as was the case a year later in the
-> Mediterranean.  The Stuka proved to be strong medicine versus the
-> relatively small convoys the RN sent to (say) Crete, Greece or Tobruk
-> -- a light cruiser and (e.g.) two

True, the Stuka was much more effective than level bombers, but the
Luftwaffe developed a technique with the Ju88 which was to drop while in
a shallow dive. The additional airspeed provided better defense against
AA and provided better accuracy. It was a nice compromise between level
bombing and dive bombing (which would have been pushing the 88 a bit).
The records of accuracy and efectiveness were impressive for a short
time. Better coordinated fighter cover quickly put an end to the
practice but if RAF fighter support had been eliminated, it could have
produced some very impressive results.
                                        Rocky
From: steinarb@idt.unit.no (Steinar Bang)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Finnish Defense
Date: 4 Jan 93 12:24:34 GMT
	<STEINARB.93Jan3140710@tindved.idt.unit.no>
	<1993Jan4.053258.27030@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: Norwegian Inst. of Tech./University of Trondheim, Trondheim,
	Norway

>>>>> On Mon, 4 Jan 1993 05:32:58 GMT, mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney) said:

> Well, top speed can make a difference.  An Iraqi MiG-25 outran a
> Sidewinder that was fired from astern.  They were down low, and the
> Sidewinder motor is just boost, no sustain.

Yes it *can* make a difference, but I think it makes more overall
sense (for a fighter) to optimize for acceleration rather than top
speed. If a MiG-25 tried to disengage from a dogfight it wouldn't be
able to accelerate fast enough to outrun a Sidewinder (I think).

Of course the MiG-25 is an interceptor and not a very good plane in a
dogfight (way too heavy) so it wouldn't engage in a dogfight, just fire
its missiles and step on it...

> It can also make a difference in initial, head-on radar and
> all-angle IR shots, because a higher speed for the firing airplane
> gives the missile a little speed boost -- so it will hit before the
> other guy's (slow down after firing!).

Won't this be a marginal advantage? Wouldn't it be easier to build a
faster missile?

- Steinar
From: scott@fraud.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: FINNISH DEFENSE
Date: 5 Jan 93 13:36:11
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 06:24:00 GMT


% 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.  Since American aircraft could almost always 
out-dive anything the Axis had, Americans especially got in the habit 
of heading for the ground whenever they didn't like what was happening.

In general, Americans weren't supposed to get into turning fights anyway.
The basic idea was to pounce on unsuspecting enemy craft in a high-speed
pass from above, loop around, and do it again.  Sure, there was always some
turning, but Americans were generally supposed to use energy tactics as
opposed to angles tactics.  In most of the accounts I have read, the guys 
that did try to mix it up with the enemy a lot eventually ended up not 
comming home because American aircraft were usually heavier and less 
maneuverable than their counterparts.

Of course, modern American aircraft ARE highly maneuverable and the reason
they have those big powerplants is for just the reason that you mentioned...
to regain energy quickly in a turning fight (there are other reasons too,
of course, but that's just one of the big ones).

Scott
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: noir@netcom.com (Noel Ang)
Subject: Re: energy and tactics (was: Finnish Defense)
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 07:17:13 GMT

In article <1498@blue.cis.pitt.edu> nahst6+@pitt.edu (Nathan A Horstman)
writes:

>I don't agree with this.  I think you turn TIGHTER when your airspeed is 
>slower, not faster.  You MIGHT turn faster if airspeed is faster, but you
>won't turn tighter corners.

It depends.  A F-16 fighter has an optimum turn rate at 450 knots, for
example.  Go faster or slower than 450 knots and your turn rate degrades.


Noel
noir@netcom.com
From: jeffc@sad.hp.com (Jeff Crowell)
Subject: Re: strike variant of F-14
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:27:35 GMT
Organization: HP Sonoma County (SRSD/MWTD/MID)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

A Potts (ajpotts@castle.ed.ac.uk) wrote:

  [stuff deleted about (shudder) moving mud with F-14's]
: 
: A few years ago a strike varient of the F14 was proposed. It involved
: removing the canards and putting in extra fuel tanks there, and obvously
:

A nit: the Tomcat has 'glove vanes', not canards.  The surfaces extend
from the wing glove to balance trim changes in the supersonic regime.
They provide no control function. 
: 

: Here is another F-14 Question:
: 
: Whenever the BBC here in the UK wants to show US warplanes in the Gulf
: it drags out some footage of an F-14 trap and cat-shot. I have noticed
: at least two of these planes have had their covers removed from there
: in-flight refuelling probes. Is this USN policy? Have they been dropping
: off (and potentially screwing up the engine?) Does anyone know? Does
: anyone care...?
:
Not sure what you mean here.  The F-14 has a retractable probe; there's no
cover. I suppose the outer plates might be removed, exposing the probe in
the retracted position.




Later,
Jeff
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Fun authors :-)
Date: 12 Jan 1993 06:38:00 GMT
Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal
NNTP-Posting-Host: obsidian.wpi.edu

In article <1676.417.uupcb@the-matrix.com> rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) writes:
>I recently started one about a potential third world war between Nato
>and Warsaw pact. Written by an Australian Mil Intel fellow. It started
>off with an F-18 shooting a ship with a Penguin Anti-Ship Missile then
>using the other one to shoot down a Russian Recon plane. Of course while
>this was going on the F-14 were bombing the heck out of a nearby Russian
>Airfield with Mavericks! I didn't make it to the second chapter. <g>

Well... If it is a Bear, in theory a Penguin MIGHT be able to track on a
target that large... And there are the Bombcats, dual-role Tomcats... But I
don't know if they carry Mavericks...

I love how Dale Brown created the Old Dog in his books... Put an SST nose with
fighter radar on, a V-tail, ala a Bonanza, replace the tail gun with a Stinger
launcher system, hange AMRAAM's on the inboard pylons. Replace the wing with
one of all composite construction, reskin the body with 'fibersteel' which
incorporates RAM.... ANA HANG THE ORIGINAL 8 ENGINES BACK ON THE AIRFRAME!

Why? WHY? WHY!? 

All the funky stuff he did to build a stealth BUFF, and then you hang 8 old
inefficient, high IR signature jets on it? Why not 4 new turbofans? Hell,
even TWO with the big fans of today... ok 4 is more survivable....

Clancy and Larry Bond are good for realism and Stephen Coonts is pretty good...

I read Brown for pure escapism....

Oh, Harold Coyle is also damn good...

###############################################################################
# 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: fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca (Fengxi Zhou)
Subject: Re: Finnish Defense
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:33:00 GMT

mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney) writes:
: 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, less than half
: fuel, and perfectly clean -- not even pylons.  The Mirage II did it also, but it
: was a prototype, and the larger Mirage III lost the capability.  Any others?

  F-14B with twin F-110(?) engines.

:   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!!!
: 
: 					E

  I once read somewhere that the max g an AAM can pull is near 30-40g. And many
  of them can reach a top speed of M3.5+.
From: ajpotts@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Potts)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: strike variant of F-14
Date: 12 Jan 93 11:20:24 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

ebstokes@uncc.edu (Edward B Stokes) writes:

>I read somewhere (sorry, I forgot where) that there was a study some
time ago about the possibility of replacing the F/A-18 with a modified F-14
 (F/A-14?). It supposedly had greater speed, range, payload, etc.
 Has anyone heard anything about this?



 I recall that the pre production F14s were tested with Iron bombs (I
have a photo of one with 12 bombs (4x3) underneath), but I think F14
pilots would be horrified at rearranging the earth, being dogfighting
types. Anyway, there is the capability to drop bombs on all F14s as far
as I know, but no-one bothers for obvious reasons. They don't even have
it in training.

A few years ago a strike varient of the F14 was proposed. It involved
removing the canards and putting in extra fuel tanks there, and obvously
changing the avionics. I think it was shortly after the A12 cancellation
and the Navy was considering all options to fill in till the A-X came
along. But nothing came of the proposals.


Here is another F-14 Question:

Whenever the BBC here in the UK wants to show US warplanes in the Gulf
it drags out some footage of an F-14 trap and cat-shot. I have noticed
at least two of these planes have had their covers removed from there
in-flight refuelling probes. Is this USN policy? Have they been dropping
off (and potentially screwing up the engine?) Does anyone know? Does
anyone care...?


AJP
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: energy and tactics (was: Finnish Defense)
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:18:12 GMT

In article <9301061604.AA22877@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil> davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil writes:

   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.
[deleted]
>More than you needed to hear, right?

Correct, and for those interested, Robert Shaw's "Fighter Combat" is a
book without equal.  Highly recommended to understand ACM tactics with
some good discussions on weapons performance and aircraft performance
(and how to use your advantages).

>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.

The SR-71 was actually particularly _bad_ in the transonic region.
The usual way to get through the transonic region was to dive through
(and occasionally, you'd get too low and have to back off, climb up
again and try again before going sonic).  The B-70 also had this
problem (even more so).  SR's cruise in AB.  Ditto the Concorde.

The single case of an F-4 or F-14 doing `supercruise' involved
non-operational planes with little to no equipment on them.  In both
cases, the max Mach w/o burner in level flight was less than 1.10.
Don't know anything about the Lightning, one of our pilots flew BAC
Lightnings, I'll go ask him.

The YF-22 and YF-23 were both in excess of Mach 1.5 in Mil Power.  The
reported number for the YF-22 was 1.58 and it was supposed to be the
`slower' of the two.  Another kettle of fish alltogether.

--
Al Bowers                       bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle, Lead Aero
NASA, Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, California
From: asp+@pitt.edu (Anandeep Pannu)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: DC1/3
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:30:22 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

The Dakota is the RAF name for the C-47/C-53/DC-3 aircraft (like the Harvard
is the RAF name for the T-6). There were various marks of the Dakota. Most of
them were Mk IIIs and there also were Mk IVs with superchargers.

The Mk IIs were glider tug capable Mk Is. 

The Indian AF got C-47s/Dakotas from all over and classified them either 
as Dakota Mk III or Dakota MK IVs. 

Anandeep
From: bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: strike variant of F-14
Date: 12 Jan 93 23:48:43 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

ajpotts@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Potts) writes:
> ebstokes@uncc.edu (Edward B Stokes) writes:
>
>>I read somewhere (sorry, I forgot where) that there was a study some
> time ago about the possibility of replacing the F/A-18 with a modified F-14
>  (F/A-14?). It supposedly had greater speed, range, payload, etc.
>  Has anyone heard anything about this?
>
>  I recall that the pre production F14s were tested with Iron bombs (I
> have a photo of one with 12 bombs (4x3) underneath), but I think F14
> pilots would be horrified at rearranging the earth, being dogfighting
> types. Anyway, there is the capability to drop bombs on all F14s as far
> as I know, but no-one bothers for obvious reasons. They don't even have
> it in training.

        There was a posting from someone in the US Navy to sci.military
late last year, commenting on how F-14's from a carrier in the Med had
completed an exercise which involved dropping bombs. The posting had
implied that it was not common for F-14's to drop bombs, but it has
been done, and only a few months ago, with in-service F-14's (but I
forget which carrier and exactly what model F-14's were involved).


           Bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au  OR  bull@monu1.cc.monash.oz
                    DOD# 251  '84 VF 750   Closet Ducatisto
             Disclaimer. If you love your llama, let it lambada.
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: F-15E Performance
Date: 8 Jan 1993 05:50:11 GMT
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
NNTP-Posting-Host: obsidian.wpi.edu

In article <1993Jan7.175713.12922@infonode.ingr.com> bishopjl@infonode.ingr.com (John L Bishop) writes:
>racks) with no other fuel tanks or ordinance, then is this a reasonable speed?

No... *dust of cobwebs*... I recall that the F-15C configured for combat,
4 Sparrow, 4 Sidewinder, gun rounds, 50% fuel, has a >1:1 thrust ratio. It
can most definately break Mach with burner. Actually, in level flight a
loaded F-15C can break Mach 2 in most of it's operational altitudes, but
that means burner and lots of fuel used... I believe the trivia answer is
an F-15C at full burner will use al its fuel in 7 minutes...

Another thing, the FAST packs actually REDUCED the drag, and the pylons
on an F-15 are almost never discarded. Most of they hardpoints on the F-15E
are permanent, part of the body/FAST packs...

Seems to be a glitch in the game... I remember an early F-16 game that let
you go to Mach 2 and 90,000 feet.... uh huh.. Yahright...

###############################################################################
# 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: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: THE A-10
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 5 Jan 93 20:35:12 GMT

In article <1485.417.uupcb@the-matrix.com> rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins)  writes:

>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. "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.
>

Remember that there are two parts to a weapon.  The weapon itself
and the fire control system.  I don't think you can get those systems
in a P-47 and thus make the statement "destroys a target just as
effectively as one launched from an A-10".  I'm thinking of Mavericks
and Hellfire missiles.

Then there is total cost vs individual platform cost.  Total cost
includes servicing, training, logistics, etc.  My guess is that
overall, the initial procurement cost is not as big a factor as
we make it to be.

The [possible] bright side to the proposition is that the P-47 is a
big, piston-engine, plane that drinks gobs of 130+ octane AV gas.
This *could* bring the price of GA fuel down if we could get the
military to use it again.  [Yeah, in your dreams pal!]
From: rrg@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU (Rafael Rodriguez)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Ar-234's disapearing guns.
Date: 11 Jan 1993 12:42:56 +1100
Organization: University of Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au

From article <1993Jan11.000633.2901@den.mmc.com>, by zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin):
> {Foggy Memory Warning... will check ref when I get home (of course, they
> never let me out of here :-) )}
> The Blitz {methinks} had a fixed, rearward firing 'scare' gun(s?) in the
> tail that the pilot could try to aim with a periscopic mirror sight.
> Ineffective, I'd imagine, as was the similar arrangement in some Do-17s.
> 
It makes sense.

Thank you very much.
Rafael rodriguez

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: FINNISH DEFENSE
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:26:27 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.

This is still the case today, altitude is _always_ lost in angles
fights.  Even energy figts can result in less total energy at the end
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
squirt".

--
Al Bowers                       bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle, Lead Aero
NASA, Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, California
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: energy and tactics
Date: 11 Jan 1993 08:50:51 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


Nathan A Horstman <nahst6+@pitt.edu> wrote:

>I don't agree with this.  I think you turn TIGHTER when your airspeed is
>slower, not faster.  You MIGHT turn faster if airspeed is faster, but you
>won't turn tighter corners.

AW, s**t.  I've go to learn to proofread.  you're absolutely right.  When I
said turn tighter I meant get the most turn rate, or "turn harder".  Poor
choice of words.

Rocky Rawlins <rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com> wrote:

-> 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...


>Define "corner" speed if you don't mind.

Corner speed is the slowest speed at which you can pull to the g-limit of the
airplane without stalling.  Pull to max AOA below corner speed, you're not
turning as fast as you can, pull to max AOA above corner speed and you'll
overstress.  Pull to max AOA at corner speed, you're tuning as (ulp!) hard, or
with the highest turn rate, as you can.

BTW most of the HUDs I've seen are in knots calibrated (KCAS).  More advanced
ones can display KTAS in some modes, such as air-to-ground.  Every once in a
while I've seen a flight test mod for a HUD to get KEAS.  And in an all-out ACM

environment, you probably aren't spending much time looking through the HUD.

>Isn't that the essential reason though for developing aircraft with
>greater than 1-1 thrust ratios? With that kind of power isn't it
>possible to regain or maintain energy, even in a high-G turn without
>having to sacrifice altitude?

1-1 T/W at sea level does not mean 1-1 at altitude.  But the general idea is
right, more power is always better.  To the best of my knowlege there's nothing

out there (fighter type) with a reasonable g envelope that can sustain max
instantaneus turn rate (i.e. sustain the max attainable or allowable g) in
level flight in a realistic combat environment.  I add all these caveats
because it may be possible in some stripped-out or hopped-up demonstrator or
something.

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

From: tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:52:59 GMT
Subject: Re: MiG29 on TV
Organization: the HP Mtn.View Resp. Cntr.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

The point I was trying to make was that Zuyev defected from 
a communist government that was not to his liking.  

It seems that as soon as Ukraine got the chance they too "defected"


And Latvia, and Lithuania ad nauseum....

I dont believe these states ever wanted to be part of Russia in 
the first place.  

So why dont they lighten up on the guy?

     v
Tony Zugec