HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: THE A-10
Date: 6 Jan 93 06:48:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 

-> I do wonder, though, how much the avionics packages add to
-> the cost of each aircraft?  A P-47 had pretty primitive sights, an
-> A-10 pretty advanced; what is their cost to adapt to a P-47?

But that's the real kicker. The avionics in most newer planes are so
sophisticated that the machine does all the work. Give the pilots a
plain old P-47 with General Aviation level instruments. (well throw in a
GPSS for grins) and tell them its up to the Pilot's skills to ensure an
accurate toss. Give the pilots all their old responsibilities back. Put
the "fun" back into flying. <grin>

Seriously though I wonder how many pilots would prefer a "primitive"
aircraft for those type of operations? The Skyraider in Vietnam was
highly regarded to my understanding yet it had relatively primitive
weapons avionics by todays standards. I wonder how much the slower speed
and greater maneuverability of the aircraft would compensate. Trying to
accurately deliver a weapons load from a high speed jet is a
qualitatively different thing from dropping from something like a
Skyraider or a P-47. That's obvious even in simulators. So perhaps the
question of adapting the avionics is moot. How about it? Any Attack
Pilots care to correct my ignorance. I'm just a poor GA flyer and
simulator warrior.

                                                Rocky
                                                                 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: acura@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (james.r.feeney)
Subject: Was RADARs' impact on the Battle of Britain overstated?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:18:12 GMT

A friend was telling me about a book he read that described the exploits of the
British code-breakers during WW2. One of the things he said was that this 
group had broken most of the German codes including the first generation
ENIGMA by the end of the battle for France (a substantial amout of help came
from anti-nazi German military personnel). This was such a closely guarded
secret that the British went to great lengths to conceal it from the Germans.
Apparently once the Battle of Britain began the British were intercepting the
very attack plans that the German bomber crews were getting, including
evasion and diversion tactics. This was what allowed the British fighter
groups to attack so efficiently. The quality of the RADAR at that time did
not provide anywhere near the definition required for the precise defence
tactics that the British used. However the RADAR network was given exclusive
credit as a cover to the real source of information. This is one reason why
the German attempts to confuse the British to the targets selected usually
met with failure.

Has anyone else heard of this? I always thought that it was the British RADAR
network that saved them but it always seemed a little strange that the Germans
were unable to counter this as the British and later the Americans were able
to do.

Jim Feeney
 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: Ar-234's disapearing guns.
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:43:51 GMT

In article <1iq8crINNep7@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU> rrg@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU (Rafael Rodriguez) writes:

>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.

The cannon are not mounted _intenally_, but are added to the
centerline store location.  They were indeed fired to the rear, and
the aiming was (crudely) by the periscope sight.  There is a reference
by Alfred Price (a very esteemed aviation author of over 35 books on
air combat since WWII) where he states the periscope could be used as
a crude bombsight.  I have yet to find any evidence of this, and in
the photos I have seen, the periscope is always facing to the rear.  I
believe this one account is in error, though there were _many_
variations within the small number of prototypes (two nacelles, two
engines; two nacelles four engines; four naclelles four engines, etc).

>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.

This was by a report from Erich Sommer, the gentle man that flew the
Ar 234 V3 prototype on the Normandy invasion recon missions.  He was
also making recon missions over southern England, and it was returning
from one of these when he sighted the Mosquito.

>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).

The guns could only be mounted on the Ar 234 B-0 models (two Jumo
004), as the landing skid on the A serties (and prototypes) took up
the centerline location.  The C-3 models (four BMW 003) could also
carry the two 20 mm cannon as well.  I don't know if the C-4 (photo
recon model) could carry the guns or not.  They may have interferes
with the camera view.  The C-0 through C-2 models (V6 and V8, I don't
think C-1 ever flew) also could not carry the gun as these are also
the skid aircraft with no centerline store location.

--
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: bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)
Subject: Re: Does South-Africa operate Mirage Fighters?
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 12:59:30 GMT

In article <m0nBLNk-000QzZC@aton.abo.fi> skronkvi@aton.abo.fi (Stefan Kronkvist INF) writes:
>From: skronkvi@aton.abo.fi (Stefan Kronkvist INF)
>Subject: Does South-Africa operate Mirage Fighters?
>Date: 10 Jan 93 21:25:15 GMT
>
>Hi!
>
>Question: Does South-Africa operate Mirage fighters?
>
>skronkvi@aton.abo.fi

	Yes.  See a recent copy of Janes for full details.   They comprise a 
mixed bag of single and dual seat jobs, with the earliest airframes dating 
back to  circa 1964-1966.  Avionics have been upgraded over the years and 
the intro of a ground-attack role occured from the mid-1970's.  The most 
significant upgrade was the adoption of Israeli-sourced know-how in the early
1980's to yield a SA equivalent of the IAF's stop-gap Kafir -- canard wings 
and avionics to improve combat manoeuverability.  

	Last week the SAAF announced force reductions that will see only 2
operational fighter squadrons by 1995 albeit each will supposedly have a 
"reserve" of spare a/c to call upon.   

	Overall, compared to the case ten-plus years ago, SA fighter 
capability today (official statements and publicity to the contrary) is 
decidedly marginal and is probably in exponential decline with each passing 
year.  The Mirage force represents only a moderate regional deterrent and 
would be quite incapable of defending SA airspace against any serious 
aggression: in fact they'd be a dead loss against Tornados or F16's!  A/c 
numbers are falling and technology-wise the force is stuck in a 1980-era 
time warp.  The only saving grace is that potential regional adversaries are 
even worse off: a point the "official spokesman" announcing the force 
reductions advanced as an ostensible tho fundamentally specious reason for 
the cutbacks!   (All in all, as a parallel in overseas terms, think of a 
resources-strapped AF equipped with well-worn F104's, but whose potential 
oppos stagger into the air with Mig 19's and early export model Mig 21's -- 
very reassuring!!)
Cheers,
Keith Coman
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If we pay dogfood salespeople more than we   :  Dept of Management
 do teachers, we should not be surprised if   :  Rhodes University
 our dogs eat like kids, and our kids end     :  Grahamstown, 6140
 up reading like dogs."                       :  Rep of South Africa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: rmt@pioneer.net.com (Richard Tweedie)
Subject: Re: DC1/3 
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:44:19 GMT

In article <726528263snx@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz> mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell) writes:
>
>In article <1712@tdat.teradata.COM> wbj@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com writes:
>
>  > 
>  > What relationship (if any) is there between the DC1 & DC3 aircraft? I  >  read/heard
>  > at one time that the DC1 was the prototype to the DC3, and that few were built  >  and
>  > NONE are still flying. Is this true?
>
>The DC-1 was essentially the "prototype" DC-2 (I think).  The DC-2 was 
>built in reasonable numbers for the time (60-ish), but had a few 
>problems.  These were ironed out and became the DC-3.  The DC-2 and 3 
>were very similar, to the extent that a DC-3 in the Phillipines was 
>able to be fitted with a DC-2 wing in order to fly out and escape the 
>aps in 1941/2.
>
Would rather quote from a book, but if memory serves there was *only*
the prototype DC-1.  THe DC-2 was for 14 passengers (and had a terrible
steam heater).  The DC-3 was initially set up for 21 PAX (in day config,
the *original* "DC-3" type airframe was the DST [stood for Douglas
Sleeper Transport] that had bunks for sleeping).  The DC-2 had wings
that were several feet shorter.  The only time a DC-2 wing was mated 
to a DC-3 that I am aware of was the famed DC-2 1/2 put together in
China as the Japanese army approached (by CNAC I believe) and even
with the shorter wing hauled an amazing number of people out of there.

Rich Tweedie
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SR-71 engines
Date: 10 Jan 1993 09:15:12 GMT
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
NNTP-Posting-Host: obsidian.wpi.edu

In article <greg.726600780@saltydog> greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis) writes:
>Does this mean a flameout (caused by fuel exhaustion, turbulence, a failure
>in the rudder, etc.) implies that the engines will depart the
>airframe?

No, Unstarts were very common for the SR-71 in the early days, what he meant
was that if you were to shut down the turbo-jet burners yet continue to use
the reheat you would create a vacuum force... I don't know if it would actually
rip out the engine, but it would not be a good thing to do.

>I don't follow you here.  By "inlet" do you mean the ramjet?  I have always

No, the actual inlet, ie the cone and nacelle upstream of the jet, actually
produces thrust.. It does get very confusing and I don't know the terms well
enough to explain it...

>imagined a single SR-71 engine as a "conventional" turbojet buried inside
>a "conventional" ramjet.  The inlet spike varies the mass flow between the

No, it isn't.... It is a turbojet inside a nacelle that has many bypass ducts
that can remove air upstream of the jet and inject it into the air downstream
of the turbine and upstream of the afterburner fuel nozzles...
 
     --------------------\       Fuel in
              BYPASS      \ /====|==
    /    ===============        
  <=      |TURBOJET|         AFTERBURNER
    \    ===============     
              BYPASS       / \====|==
     ---------------------/       Fuel in

This isn't totally accurate, but it should give you some idea of how it works,
the turbojet is never out of the loop, but as speed increases more and more 
air is diverted via the bypasses and the AB in effect becomes the burner for
a ramjet... some authors refer to the J58 as a turbo-ramjet...

###############################################################################
# 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: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: DC1/3 
Distribution: world
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 06:23:10 GMT
Organization: Me? Organized?


In article <1993Jan11.204419.8360@unet.net.com> rmt@pioneer.net.com writes:

  > 
  > In article <726528263snx@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz> mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz  >  (Mike Campbell) writes:
  > >
  > >The DC-1 was essentially the "prototype" DC-2 (I think).  The DC-2 was 
  > >built in reasonable numbers for the time (60-ish), but had a few 
  > >problems.  These were ironed out and became the DC-3.  The DC-2 and 3 
  > >were very similar, to the extent that a DC-3 in the Phillipines was 
  > >able to be fitted with a DC-2 wing in order to fly out and escape the 
  > >aps in 1941/2.
  > >
  > Would rather quote from a book, but if memory serves there was *only*
  > the prototype DC-1.  THe DC-2 was for 14 passengers (and had a terrible
  > steam heater).  The DC-3 was initially set up for 21 PAX (in day config,
  > the *original* "DC-3" type airframe was the DST [stood for Douglas
  > Sleeper Transport] that had bunks for sleeping).  The DC-2 had wings
  > that were several feet shorter.  The only time a DC-2 wing was mated 
  > to a DC-3 that I am aware of was the famed DC-2 1/2 put together in
  > China as the Japanese army approached (by CNAC I believe) and even
  > with the shorter wing hauled an amazing number of people out of there.

Could well have been, somewhere in Asia early in WWII is a reasonable 
description of my memory :-).

FLIGHT recently had their annual airliner census.  Sorry to say that, 
in conflict with my previous post, no DC-2's showed up.  Still over 
250 DC-3's in airline service throughout the world.  We've a couple 
doing freight runs around here even.



Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz 
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.
	<BOWERS.93Jan6101807@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:46:54 GMT

In article <BOWERS.93Jan6101807@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov> bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) writes:

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

>>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.

*WHOOP* *WHOOP* screw-up alert! *WHOOP* *WHOOP* *WHOOP* 

>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.

Dave got it right.  Concorde does indeed cruise in mil power.  The
`reheat' (proper British term, don't you know) gets turned off at Mach
1.7 and the aircraft accelerates on out to Mach 2.0 in MIL.

Mary Shafer caught this one and set me straight (heck, she's the one
that _RODE_ on the damn airplane, I only watch...).

--
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: grout@netcom.com (Stephen Blankenship)
Subject: MiG-29 Data needed
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:09:05 GMT

I am working on a project dealing with the MiG-29. If anyone out there can pointme toward any reference material/people(pilot types), photos, technical specs, etc. I would be forever in your debt. Specifically, I need cockpit layout/functionality, IR detector functionality, flight model data, and HUD symbology. Any andall information welcome. Thanks in advance.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: Best fighterpilot ?!?!
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:01:00 GMT

In article <C0pnGx.8Gq@srgenprp.sr.hp.com> jeffc@sad.hp.com (Jeff Crowell) writes:

>also, 'Sailor' Malan had, I believe, 30 kills flying Spits for the
>  the British.  He was a South American.

Adolf Gysbart Malan (pretty funny if you think about it) , aka
"Sailor" Malan, a South African.  Not well liked amongst the press for
his outspoken views, quite moody.  The press was looking for a
chilvarous hero and Malan would shock them with replies like the
following:

"...Once he was asked how he went aboput shooting down a German
bomber.  `I try not to, now,' was his reply.  `I think it's a bad
thing.  If you shoot them down they don't get back, and no one ever
knows what's happening.  So I reckon the right think to do is to let
them get back.  With a dead rear gunner, a dead navigator, and the
pilot caoughing up his lungs as he lands.  If you do that, it has a
better effect on their morale.  Of course, if you just mean to shoot
them down-well, what I generally do is knock out both engines...'

>There is a considerable amount of evidence that Colnel Tomb was
> a 'composite' person for propaganda purposes.

Quite probably, but until the Vietnamese open their records, we won't
know for sure.  Ditto the IAF...

--
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: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Re: Re: Best fighterpilot ?!?!
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:18:14 GMT

In article <5586@disun48.epfl.ch> moret@disuns2.epfl.ch (Pierre Moret) writes:
>
>Viet-nam war:
>  Colonel Tomb                 - Pop. Rep. of V-N - 13
>  Captain Nguyen Van Bay       - Pop. Rep. of V-N -  7
>  Captain Charles De Bellevue  - USAF             -  6

Not trying to open a new bucket of worms here, but it should be pointed out
that Chuck DeBellevue at the time of his six credited kills was not a pilot.
Although he later went through pilot training, in 1972 he was an F-4 Weapons
Systems Officer (WSO). The policy of crediting kills for a two-place aircraft
was to award a single kill to both of the aircrew.  This is not meant to take
anything away from DeBellevue, Jeff Feinstein or Willie Driscoll; a kill is a
kill. But as the discussion heading is 'Fighter Pilots,' it's a technicality
that some might not be aware of.

TH
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:27:54 EST
From: <VPN1@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Ultrasecret (Enigma)

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.

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

It was in fact the "ultra" secret, and extreme measures were taken to keep
the Germans from finding out.  Winterbotham says the Brits read the message
that Coventry was to be flattened in retaliation.  Churchill decided to do
nothing, but to let Coventry be bombed and many people killed, because to
take any unusual action would tip off the Germans, and render the "ultra
secret" useless for the remainder of the war.

Several other authors have also written on Ultra.  One, a Brit with a name
that suggests Greek heritage, is called _Beyond Ultra_.  There is also
discussion of Ultra in several other books, one of which, I think, is _A
Bodyguard of Lies_, by Anthony Cave Brown.  Some other authors dispute the
Coventry story.

I'm uncertain about this, but I think it may have been an Enigma machine
that the Brits gave us (the Germans having supplied the Japanese) that
enable us to read the message that enabled the fleet to ambush the Japanese
at Midway.  Perhaps someone else can clarify this.

There is a huge literature on the subject of ciphers and codes, and the
people who invented them and broke them; and it is fascinating.

                                vince norris,  penn state u.
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: WHY DIDN'T LUFTWAFFE
Date: 10 Jan 93 21:36:00 GMT
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins)
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016

-> This is a highly interesting topic which true answer could possible
-> shed a new light on why World War II developed as it did.
-> Did the fact that the German pilots were not allowed to express human
-> feelings on the outside of their aircraft have a positive
-> psychological effect on the performance of their aircraft ?
-> Or was it possibly the opposite way around ?

There is another factor here. After the Battle of Britian, the Luftwaffe
took it on the chin in Command circles. While the darling child of the
German forces up til then due to their successes, they took a lot of
abuse afterwards despite the incredible job they did. When Hitler
frowned at Goehring it was not good for the men in the field. Sort of an
early "trickle down" effect. Then when Goehring foolishly promised that
the Luftwaffe would supply the surrounded Army at Stalingrad and failed
because of the weather and insufficient equipment and facilities they
received even more degradation. Morale in the Luftwaffe diminished
througout the war because of the treatment received from above.
                                        Rocky
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Yak 21 info request 
From: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 22:11:40 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Me? Organized?


In article <1993Jan6.104715.1@vaxa.strath.ac.uk> cebp04@vaxa.strath.ac.uk writes:

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

"....Yakelov's last 1937 design, the Ya-21, a single seater sports 
aircraft with a fixed undercarriage."  Engine was a GAZ of some sort.

 - Russian Civil & Military Aircraft, 1884 - 1969.  

Not a lot of info, but if it's correct (can't see any reason why not) 
there probably isn't a lot more in general circulation.



Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz