HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jmmatthe@apgea.army.mil (Jeffrey M. Matthews <jmmatthe>)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: The A-10
Date: 23 Dec 92 13:59:34 GMT
Organization: CRDEC APG

In article <1992Dec22.210900.23503@cirrus.com> gopal@cirrus.com (Gopal Ramachandran) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.213445.12704@unet.net.com> rmt@pioneer.net.com (Richard Tweedie) writes:
>>
>>Tony Levier used to fly whole aerobatic routines in a P-38 with one 
>>engine feathered--including rolls **into** the dead engine.
>
>I dont understand why rolling into the dead engine is surprising. I
>would expect rolling **away** from the dead engine would be far more
>difficult. Come to think of it, rolling an airplane with an engine out
>is pretty incredible in itself.
>
>Gopal
>-- 
Rolling into the dead engine isn't the problem; it getting the (*&^%$#@#@$%
to *stop* rolling with the nose somewhere near the horizon and above the
ground.

Flight Report:  The loud noise accompanying the termination of a flight.

J. Matthews
Standard Disclaimers Apply
From: v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: American kill...
Date: 29 Dec 92 04:43:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1ho06rINNlmq@uwm.edu>, zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Dr. Strangelove) writes...
>Does anybody know what type of aircraft the US shot down over Iraq today?
>The paper didn't say... All it said was an Iraqi MIG was shot down 
>by an F-16, after two other aircraft were escorted out by F-15's minutes
>before hand.
> 
>So if you have better details like which type of Iraqi Mig, and maybe
>what base the Mig came from that would be good.
> 
> 
>Thanks,
>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.

	Well, dont exactly know what type of MiG was killed, but I though I
heard that it was MiG 27 or MiG 23 variant. Oh, BTW, it was killed with an
AIM-120 AMRAAM at abt 20+ miles. Good shot, boys! Dont forget to paint a
star on the rail.

Peter Vasilion

Standard disclaimers apply.
From: scott@fraud.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: The A-10
Date: 3 Jan 93 20:12:12
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF)
	<1992Dec15.152530.25077@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
	<viking.724469708@vincent2.iastate.edu>
	<1992Dec16.032618.10440@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
	<viking.724529948@vincent2.iastate.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: xcf-gw.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: viking@iastate.edu's message of Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:19:08 GMT


>>      Somehow, it sounds like the best CAS weapon we could field would be
>>a P-47 Thunderbolt, and maybe an few P-38's with chain guns under the
>>nose for those pesky armored targets.

Well, even though the old WWII aircraft had tremendously powerful engines,
they had nowhere near the payload that an A-10 does... I think a P-47 was 
able to get off the ground with 2 500lb bombs, a small drop tank and a few
rockets.  That is about a ton or two of ordinance at best, but an A-10 has
a payload of something like 15000lbs (I think my memory is working properly).
That includes the GAU-?? 30mm gatling gun with many rounds of ammunition 
and a titanium armored cockpit.  I don't know what the A-10's cannon weighs 
in at with it's ammo, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was something on the
order of a half ton to a ton.

Moreover, I would think that a piston aircraft would be less reliable, 
more vulnerable to ground fire, and more of a headache to maintain than
the A-10's turbofans (but I'm just guessing here).  Don't even mention 
aircraft with inline piston engines and their elaborate liquid cooling
systems (which made the P-51, for example, notoriously vulnerable to
ground fire).

The A-10 is about as sweet a CAS aircraft as you're going to come up with.
Of course, the Su-25 isn't bad either.

Scott
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca (Fengxi Zhou)
Subject: Re: American kill...
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 03:23:59 GMT

As a previous poster said, no exact info on the type of the downed iraqi jet.
But from the shape shown on CNN (illustration, not actual photo), it looked
like Mig-21. Of course, maybe they just put something like a russian jet to 
distinguish from the F-16. But, you never know. Maybe they know more than we
do.

BTW, this is reportedly the first AMRAAM kill.
From: gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: A10 Re:AF career types
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 16:06:12 CST
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.

conan@northeastern.edu writes:

> Someone re-posted my flame and I am embrassed. I guess things come across the
> net more harsh and severe than intended (never flamed anyone before). I dont
> care much about offending people, but I rather eat crow than hurt someone. I
> apologize if I hurt anyone especially Toby H. I think that we all can conclud
> that making a judgement about someone's intentions will hurt them.
>  
 Well, perhaps you would answer a question then, if you don't
mind. Why is it that you refuse to use your own name openly on 
such comments and post from an account that rejects e-mail as
"no such user"? No "flame", just curious.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - 
                      gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jfb200@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (joseph.f.baugher)
Subject: Re: Soviet "Flashlight" bomber
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 02:29:44 GMT
Summary: Not a bomber, but a fighter

In article <65510001@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com>, tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates) writes:
> Does anyone remember a cold war Soviet bomber nicknamed "Flashlight"...
> I dont believe this was the NATO designation, but as a kid, I oogled
> over a model kit of this bomber and "Flashlight Bomber" was what it
> was called.  I have tried looking through aviation mags, references 
> with no luck.   
> 
> Thanks 
> 

Flashlight* was the NATO code name for the Soviet Union's Yakovlev 
Yak-25 two-seat night and all-weather interceptor which first appeared 
in the mid-1950s.  It was powered by a pair of 5500 lb.st. Klimov 
RD-9 non-afterburning turbojets housed in nacelles slung underneath 
the sharply sweptback wings.  The two-man crew sat in tandem 
underneath a single canopy.  An air intercept radar was housed inside 
a bulbous nose Armament consisted of a pair of 37-mm N-37 cannon and 
various underwing loads.  An unusual feature of the Yak-25 was the 
undercarriage which consisted of tandem mainwheels and wingtip 
outrigger wheels.  

The aircraft is definitely subsonic, maximum speed being 639 mph at 
sea level and 594 mph at 36,000 feet.  Service ceiling was 50,000 
feet.  

The Yak-25 entered service with the Soviet Air force in 1955.  It is 
more-or-less contemporaneous with such USAF interceptors of the 
'fifties as the Lockheed F-94 Starfire and the Northrop F-89 Scorpion 
and is in approximately the same performance class.  It is now 
thoroughly obsolete, and was long ago superceded by later types.  

There was a later version of the basic design given the code name
*Firebar*.  It was an uprated *Flashlight*, and contained more powerful
afterburning turojets and a radar installation in a more pointed
nose.  It was capable of marginal supersonic performance at altitude.
A bomber version of the *Firebar* design was also produced.  Given
tne NATO code name *Brewer, it was a light tactical bomber featuring
a bombardier/observer housed in a transparent nose in place of the
intercept radar.

I don't know the Yakovlev bureau numbers of either the *Firebar* or the
*Brewer*.  Anyone out there in Netland know?

Joe Baugher			**************************************
AT&T Bell Laboratories		*  "You see, something's going to    *
2000 North Naperville Road	*   happen.  Something wonderful!"   *
P. O. Box 3033			**************************************
Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033		
(708) 713 4548				
ihlpl!jfb                   Who, me?  Speak for AT&T?  Surely you jest!	
jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com
From: john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: American kill, Navy F16???
Date: 1 Jan 93 03:05:15 GMT
Organization: Newave Communications, Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN

In <1992Dec30.163620.1@woods.ulowell.edu> murphyed1@woods.ulowell.edu:
> In <C032x3.ABC@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu:
> > The Iraqi aircraft was shot down by a Navy F-16

> Unless someone has been witholding information from me, I didn't know that
> the F16 was flown by the navy, or had the legs to go from it's home port in
> the USA all the way to Iraq.

Yes, the Navy flies F-16's, but not in combat.  They use F-16's in the
aggressor squadrons.  While the Navy will not say which aircraft they
simulate with the F-16, they will say that they simulate newer foriegn
made aircraft that are highy manuverable.  I take this to mean Mig-29
and Mirage.  The Navy F-16 are standard F-16A (or maybe C), but without
arms.  They are strictly land based--the F-16 landing gear would not
survive a carrier landing.  The Navy also uses A-4 and F-5 as aggressors,
and until the Navy adopted the F-16, they used the F-21 Kfir.

There is almost no chance that the Navy is flying F-16's in Iraq.  If
the Navy was flying on patrol, they were using F-14 or F-18.  If it was
the USAF, it would have been F-15 or F-16.  My first guess is that it
was probably a USAF F-15.

-john-

-- 
==============================================================================
John A. Weeks III		(612) 942-6969		    john@newave.mn.org
Newave Communications, Ltd.			    ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: Custom built for Lemmings <ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu>
Subject: Re: American kill...
X-Posting-Software: GNUS 3.14.1 [ NNTP-based News Reader for GNU Emacs ]
X-Signature-Virus-Protection: Version 1.51
X-Get-A-Clue: Have two, they're small.
Organization: 3WA, Boston Office. Or Nu Meta Chi. Take your pick.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:33:45 GMT

>>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:44:43 GMT, fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca
>>>>> (Fengxi Zhou) said:

Fengxi> Now is a curious situation. What if Saddam keeps harassing US?
Fengxi> Well, he just sends a few jets near the no-fly zone sporadically,
Fengxi> keeping US jets busy.  What can American do? Launch another gulf
Fengxi> war?

Keep shooting down Iraqqi jets. First, the US has better weapons. Second,
the US has more a/c. The end result is that Saddam will lloose his entire
airpower force. Besides, the US a/c are already patrolling that area. This
gives them some target practice.

Fengxi> This is something like a guerilla war fought in the air, only
Fengxi> harassing, not fighting.

Only one major flaw with this statement: guerilla warfare requires the
extensive use of cover. Up there, there ain't any. It's more like shooting
at fish in a barrel.

--Rat                               PGP Public Key Block available upon request
||||| | | | |  |  |  |   |   |    |    |    |   |   |  |  |  |  | | | | | |||||
Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat          ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu
Carpe Joltem! (Seize the Caffeine)                                         --Me
From: cpc@moes.Eng.Sun.COM (Chuck Collins [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: big a/c on carriers
Date: 22 Dec 1992 19:05:55 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: moes

In article <BzCFqz.FGv@plato.ds.boeing.com> prang@plato.ds.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja) writes:
>According to Tex Johnston (Boeing test pilot of the XB-52 and YB-52) the
>production versions went to side-by-side because of... Curtis LeMay.  LeMay
>came to Boeing to try out the YB-52 (which, in fact, flew BEFORE the XB-52
>did).  After landing, he said:  "Great plane... change it to side-by-side
>seating and I'll buy it." ... It may be that the B-47 had proved the tandem
>arrangement too awkward, and LeMay didn't want to continue the trend.

A friend of mine who flew the back seat in a B-47 said that in order
for the back seat guy to land, he had to completely unfasten his harness
and stand up in order to see the runway.

Also maybe LeMay already was envisioning his 7-day-long 2-crew missions
where the B-52s circled the North Pole. This is just speculation, but
getting out of the front seat and strolling back for a chat with the
stewardesses in a B-47-like configuration might have been problematical.

-- Chuck Collins
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: AMERICAN KILL...
Date: 1 Jan 93 05:49:00 GMT
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins)
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016

-> Yes, it was a MIG Su-27 Foxbat equipped with twelve SS-20
-> air-to-air missiles.  The Iraqi aircraft was shot down by a Navy F-16
-> possibly flown from the USS Kitty Hawk, which fired an AMRAAM

So, the Navy has converted to F-16s eh. Must have been a blast trying to
teach those young hotshot Air Force pukes to land their Falcons on a
carrier deck. Especially without a naval type tail hook. <grin>
                                        Rocky
                                                            
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: P-51D and Dora-9: Which was faster?
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
	<1992Dec24.050728.23586@news2.cis.umn.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 16:48:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.050728.23586@news2.cis.umn.edu> rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin) writes:

>>between the Fw 190D-9 and the P-51D.  They were quite similar in 
>>overall capability.  In any combat between the two aircraft, the 
>>outcome would depend to a great extent on the relative skill and 
>>experience of the opposing pilots.  

>I'm not a fighter pilot, but I don't play one on TV.

:-) Cute.  I'm not one either (though the thought occurred to me more
than once), but I have had the opportunity to visit F-18 type
conversion school, sat in on a few Navy Fighter Weapons School
lectures, flown some high performance aircraft (simulators and real
flying, though nothing like some of the experience of others here such
as Mary Shafer) and I teach a course at the Air Force Flight Test
Center Test Pilot School.  Oh, almost forgot, I have an understanding
employer when it comes to this sort of thing as well...

>In addition to speed, climb rate and armament, there are several other 
>factors which contribute to aircraft abilities as a fighter.  For example,
>turning radius is very important as well as it's stall speed at times.

Maximum turn rate, minimum turn radius, your P_sub_s diagram, T/W
(P/W), corner speed, G capability both plus and minus, and a couple of
others.  Just because you are inferior in one or the other of these
means little to the final outcome.  At the end of WWII the Mitsubishi
Zero still had the best minimum turn radius of all priciple
combatants.  But other aircraft had overtaken the Zero in too many
other areas, making the Zero an easy target (note that the Model 52
Zero was nearly the equal of the F6F Hellcat, but the scales tipped in
favor of the Hellcat with superior firepower and protective armor).

>Speed and climb rate are important, but not always the deciding factor in
>a combat situation - sometimes all it provides is the ability to escape
>(which, of course, I fully expect to have as an option... :-)

Keep in mind, the FW 190D was only the first in a line of liquid
cooled Focke-Wulfs.  Some of the later TA 152s had top ends as high as
472 mph.

I came accross an interesting reference.  I didn't realize that a
version of the Me 262 was also fitted with the motor of a Me 163 (as
if the 262 wasn't fast enough already?).  Two versions were built, one
with the motor in the tail, and another as a strap on centerline
store.  Bizzarre...

--
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: gopal@cirrus.com (Gopal Ramachandran)
Subject: Re: The A-10
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:09:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.213445.12704@unet.net.com> rmt@pioneer.net.com (Richard Tweedie) writes:
>
>Tony Levier used to fly whole aerobatic routines in a P-38 with one 
>engine feathered--including rolls **into** the dead engine.

I dont understand why rolling into the dead engine is surprising. I
would expect rolling **away** from the dead engine would be far more
difficult. Come to think of it, rolling an airplane with an engine out
is pretty incredible in itself.

Gopal
-- 

Gopal Ramachandran <gopal@cirrus.com>
UUCP:  uunet!cirrus.com!gopal
Cirrus Logic Inc, Fremont CA  PH: (510)-226-2138 FAX: (510)-226-2160
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: greywolf@draco.unm.edu (Michael H. Tipping)
Subject: U.S. Air Kill - The Real Story
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 07:37:06 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Keywords: I'd fly 10,000 miles to "smoke" a camel!

   You are all wrong about that poor Iraqi kill in the gulf.
He was brought down by our much beloved A-10 (Air superiority
version) using a Trident missile.
Poor Iraqi Cesna (All Purpose attack) never saw it comming.  =)

   Seariously, I heard on CNN (and in the Albuq. Tribune) That
it was a Mig 23 brought down by an F-16.  (Too bad those first
two F-15's were in the wrong area when the first two Iraq planes
crossed over - we might have got two more expensive Mig-29 kills.
Somebody just has to tell old Saddam that those peskey harrasment
flights to the south are just too damn expensive for his budget,
not to mention his pilots!  Anyone wanna take odds on us going
back over to do the job better?  (better as in taking out the
whole military structure, all of the planes and tanks.)
			Greywolf...
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: murphyed1@woods.ulowell.edu (The Butler)
Subject: Re: American kill, Navy F16???
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:36:20 GMT

In article <C032x3.ABC@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
 (Steve Creps) writes:
> air-to-air missiles.  The Iraqi aircraft was shot down by a Navy F-16
> possibly flown from the USS Kitty Hawk, which fired an AMRAAM
> heat-seeking missile from a range of 20 miles.
> 
>    Well, maybe they aren't _that_ bad.
> 
> -	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
> Steve Creps, Indiana University
> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu

Unless someone has been witholding information from me, I didn't know that the 
F16 was flown by the navy, or had the legs to go from it's home port in the
USA all the way to Iraq.  I think someone has made a mistake when watching the
news, and is getting everything confused.

At last check, the  KItty Hawk had just begun steaming for the gulf, and will
arrive there in a while, it still has to clear the Atlantic, and the bottom of
Africa.  It will be a while before the navy gets there....

Unless they have something closer  ;-)

Ed...


-- 
=====  Ed Murphy    (The University disclaims everything!)   --- | /  ---- 
  |    Internet Mail :: Murphyed1@woods.ulowell.edu          /|\ |/    \
=====  "Warning, Phi Kap's May Be Habit Forming!!!"          \|/ |\    /
  |    Groundmail (The Slow Way) 1 University Ave. Box 1136  --- | \  ----
===                             Lowell, Ma. 01854 U.S.A.    Phi Kappa Sigma
                                                         Gamma Upsilon Chapter

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: tssmith@netcom.com (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Aircraft beauty: B-17
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 03:41:19 GMT

In article <65510002@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates) writes:
>I whole heartedly agree.  I guess everyone grow up with a favorite...
>
>Mine was the B-17F. 

Interesting.  I started to make a list of my favorites.  Hmm...B-25,
P-61D, F4U, Spitfire Mk IX, Bf109e.  After the first three, I though
maybe I just liked gull wings, then I realized--these were the planes
I had modelled as a kid.

Never did care for the B-17x.  Have you ever seen a live one up close?
Amazing how small they are by today's standards (military and
commercial).  And how quiet, for that matter.



From: tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:39:06 GMT
Subject: Re: American kill...
Organization: the HP Mtn.View Resp. Cntr.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

The nightly news reported the downed aircraft as MiG 23 (flogger) type.

But then, the news screws up everything a lot of the time.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jfb200@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (joseph.f.baugher)
Subject: P-51D and Dora-9: Which was faster?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 04:11:31 GMT
Keywords: comparisons

Was the P-51D faster or slower than the FW-190D-9?  That is the 
question! 

In order to settle this matter, I looked up the numbers in William 
Green's *Warplanes of the Second World War*.  Here they are: 

Fw 190D-9: 

  Maximum speed (with MW 50 boost): 357 mph at sea level, 397 mph at 
  10,827 feet, 426 mph at 21,653 feet, and 397 mph at 32,810 feet.  

P-51D-25-NA: 

  Maximum speed: 395 mph at 5000 feet, 416 mph at 10,000 feet, 424 mph 
  at 20,000 feet, and 437 mph at 25,000 feet.  

So it appears that the Mustang was marginally faster than the Dora-9 
at low and medium altitudes.  They were almost equally fast at 
altitudes above 20,000 feet.  

What about climbing rates, another key indicator of fighter 
performance? 

Fw 190D-9: 

  Climb to 6560 feet in 2.1 minutes, to 13,120 feet in 4.5 minutes, to 
  16,685 feet in 7.1 minutes, and to 32,810 feet in 16.8 minutes.  

P-51D-25-NA: 

  Climb to 5000 feet in 1.7 minutes, to 10,000 feet in 3.3 minutes, and 
  to 20,000 feet in 7.3 minutes.  

The Dora had a slight edge in climbing rate at low altitudes, but the 
Mustang had a somewhat better climbing rate at higher altitudes.  
However, the differences in climbing performance between the two types 
were quite small.  

In summary, in terms of performance there was very little to choose 
between the Fw 190D-9 and the P-51D.  They were quite similar in 
overall capability.  In any combat between the two aircraft, the 
outcome would depend to a great extent on the relative skill and 
experience of the opposing pilots.  

Joe Baugher			**************************************
AT&T Bell Laboratories		*  "Round up the usual suspects."    *
2000 North Naperville Road	**************************************
P. O. Box 3033
Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033		
(708) 713 4548				
ihlpl!jfb                     Who, me?  Speak for AT&T?  Surely you jest!	
jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com