HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:05:25 MST
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: $stevee@sasb.byu.edu (Stephen Eldredge)
Subject: Re: big a/c on carriers (was Re: Nuclear toss bombing)

In article <SHAFER.92Dec10182155@ra.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
>Path: news.byu.edu!gatech!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!news.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
>From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
>Subject: Re: big a/c on carriers (was Re: Nuclear toss bombing)
>In-Reply-To: gillum@en.ecn.purdue.edu's message of Thu, 10 Dec 92 22:37:48 GMT
>Message-ID: <SHAFER.92Dec10182155@ra.dfrf.nasa.gov>
>Sender: news@news.dfrf.nasa.gov (Usenet news)
>Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
>References: <1992Dec7.171959.20519@twg.com> <1992Dec10.140121.22538@ryn.mro4.dec.com>
>        <SHAFER.92Dec10111751@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov>
>        <1992Dec10.223748.6948@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
>Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 02:21:49 GMT
>Lines: 18
>On Thu, 10 Dec 92 22:37:48 GMT, gillum@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Tim Gillum) said:
>
>T> In article <SHAFER.92Dec10111751@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>>I've got a video tape, currently loaned out, that shows the C-130
>>carrier qualification.
>
>T> I saw in an earlier post that no catapult was used.  Was JATO used or is the
>T> deck long enough?  I've always wondered.
>
>No JATO (which is actually RATO, but that doesn't much matter) at all.
>
>Since the C-130 is designed to carry quite a heavy load, it's got a
>pretty good climb rate when it's empty.  It can really leap off the
>ground.  And, of course, it was at sea level.
>--

Make that +45' msl :)

>Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
>shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
> "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot
From: prince@fund.omsk.su (Rustam Kh. Yusupov)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Aircraft beauty .. P38
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 09:45:26 +0500
Distribution: world
Organization: Omsk Property Fund
Reply-To: prince@fund.omsk.su


>Russian A/C were fairly good by all accounts - once they decided that
>all they really needed was low-medium altitude fighters and ground
>attack types.  The later LaGG aircraft (-5FN, -7, -9) could
>outmanouvre all common German fighters, and the Yaks were no slouches
>either.
If I not mistaken You talk about La (Lavotchkin) aircraft, not LaGG.
We has Lagg-1,Lagg-3, but La-5FN and other...

Rustam
PROPERTY FUND OF OMSK
prince@fund.omsk.su


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: wjc@guardian.austin.ibm.com (Bill Collum)
Subject: Re: CAS: Fixed vs Rotary (was: The A-10)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:14:10 GMT
Organization: CTI, Austin

In article <8qquVB1w164w@n5abi.hou.tx.us> gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy) writes:
>Expierence in Viet Nam 
>showed that not only could a co-pilot take control of a helicopter 
>before the situation became too critical, but also that wounded 
>pilots could often land helicopters. 

This is true for UH-1's and similar Helicopters with two
pilots, but I suspect that it may not be as likely for a tandem seat 
attack ship where each crew member has his own duties to attend
to. Unless the non-flying pilot is "quick-on-the-stick", serious
trouble will follow. If the wounded pilot obstructs the controls in
any way, serious trouble will follow. If the momentary confusion
gives the enemy another shot, serious trouble will follow.

In V.N., assaults into hot L.Z's where usually (always?) made with 
the non-flying pilot "ghosting" the controls in case the flying
pilot was wounded. This is one of the reasons that the things had 
two pilots in the first place, and why more helicopters were
not lost due to pilot incapacitation. Besides, even if the
wounded pilot lands the thing, it's still outta the fight, no?
Especially if the bad guys keep shooting.

Don't misunderstand. Each (fixed and rotary wing CAS A/C) has
its own special role to fill. In their present forms, niether
can replace the other.

I love (and fly) both fixed and rotary wing aircraft, but my
personal preference has to be fixed wing in a combat environment,
because of my (perceived?) better chance of getting the job
done and making it home to the wife and kiddies (that is, after 
all, what its all about, ain't it?).

--------
Bill Collum
wjc@dss1.austin.ibm.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: daveb@Ingres.COM (Dave Brower, DBMS hack, [510] 748-3418)
Subject: Re: The A-10
Originator: daveb@lotus
In-reply-to: wjc@dss1.austin.ibm.com
Reply-To: daveb@ingres.com (Dave Brower, DBMS hack, [510] 748-3418)
Organization: Ingres, an ASK Company
Date: 15 Dec 92 23:56:59 GMT

Someone please correct me if I am wrong.  I'm an A-10 "fan", but even
so the time for the plane may be over.  I thought I'd heard that
many/most/all of the A-10 airframes were approaching the end of their
service life because of metal fatigue.  With the plant and tooling
long long gone, there isn't really much chance of rebuilding them at a
reasonable expense.  So, while they might be useful for a while, it's
really time to look at what is going to have to replace them.

Idle and uninformeed speculation follows.

If we were building a real A-10 replacement from scratch, what would
it be like?  Probably not like an F-16, more like the A-mumble-X
(ATX?).  Given the existing A-10 requirements:

	* huge loading for bombs and anti-tank missiles.
	* survivability from ground fire.
	* long loiter.
	* low-level, slow-speed manoeverability.
	* A Big Gun.
	* low procurement cost  (The A-10 was always a cheap program).

There would seem to be a few new ones added:

	* Speed (more escapability from air attack).
	* More Radar and I/R stealth, mostly against SAMS.
	* all-weather capability

I'd think something akin to an F-117 ought to be able to do this.
Where the 117 doesn't meet the needs are:

	* not enough stores.
	* not enough lointer.
	* not enough armour.
	* too much tech (electronics & stealth) == too much cost.
oh, and
	* no gun.

Maybe an upsized, lower tech 117 would do the job?  Maybe that _is_
the ATX, with a gun.  I'd like to think the A-10 role could be part of
an existing program that made some sense (like the ATX) instead of one
that doesn't (the F-16).  The ground-attack profile seems like a huge
misfit for the F-16.  Sort of like ground attack F-104s.

cheers,
-dB



-- 
Windows/NT - the VMS of the 90s

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bruceh@cray.com (Bruce T. Hill)
Subject: Re: Fake planes (WAS Re: PEARL HARBOR)
Keywords: now fake cars (not planes)
Organization: Cray Research Superservers Inc., San Diego CA, USA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:53:01 GMT

In article <BzGuv6.Jvo@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.203848.5811@julian.uwo.ca> pettypi@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Carl Pettypiece) writes:
>>One of the most amusing cases of substituting fake planes was in
>>an episode of Magnum, PI (it just happened to be on -- really! :-)
>
>   What can you expect from a show (which I liked anyway) in which
>they doctored up a Corvette to make it look like a Ferrari?

I think you are mistaken.  Magnum DID drive a real Ferrari.  It was
Don Johnson in Miami Vice that drove the fake Ferrari.

-- 
Bruce T. Hill @ Cray Research Superservers, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA
Email: bruceh@cray.com  Phone: (619) 625-3746  FAX: (619) 625-0641
Humorous quotation:  Nobody looks good wearing _brown_lipstick_. --Frank Zappa
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: AIRCRAFT BEAUTY.. P38
Date: 11 Dec 92 06:58:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 

-> attack types.  The later LaGG aircraft (-5FN, -7, -9) could
-> outmanouvre all common German fighters, and the Yaks were no slouches
-> either.

Exactly. The Later aircraft. In the early parts of the Russian campaign,
most of the Russian aircraft were older models and were NOT up to
"current" standards. In the latter years a large portion of the Russian
aircraft were ground attack aircraft and no matter how well armored are
still poor opponents for a conventional fighter. Look at some of the
kill rates for German pilots. Many were in the Hundreds and primarily
against the Russians. That is not a criticism of the Russians. Much of
their industry was destroyed and it took quite a while to restore
aircraft production after the initial attacks. Many of the early
production runs produced a LOT of low quality aircraft which despite
their quality were significant because of their numbers. A lot got
through to their targets and carried out their missions, but a LOT got
shot down doing it.
                                        Rocky
From: jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: PEARL HARBOR
Summary: What a cheek
Date: 13 Dec 92 23:11:20 GMT
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Organization: Statistics, Pure & Applied Mathematics, University of Adelaide

In article <1992Dec07.192623.7400@eng.umd.edu> rex@eng.umd.edu (Rex Root) writes:
>My thoughts on December 7th:

Exactly one week later.....

>I've watched several re-enactments of the bombing of Pearl Harbor over
>the past few years and noticed that the cast of single engine fighters
>that play the part of the "Zeros" are AT6's .. as a matter of fact, one
>T6 had the "Zero" paint scheme.

O.K. This really makes me angry. If there is one thing I hate it is passing
off second rate 'allied' planes as the enemy! Last night I saw five minutes
of the worst movie I have ever seen in my life - Iron Eagles II. They started
off with some F-16's in a fight with four MIG-29's. So far so good - except
they didn't have any MIG-29's so they painted some F-4's and called them that
thinking everyone would be too stupid to notice. I was so angry I could have
shot the producers! I mean MIG-29's are beautiful planes and they were trying
to pass of this hunched back piece of junk off as one (no offense to all those
people who like them but I am sure you know what I mean) They would have had
to borrow the footage or the planes from the Airforce anyway - why did they
give them a decent looking plane - a F-18 perhaps. It was almost as bad as
the five minutes of a Rambo movie I watched once - the one in Afghanistan. I
was expecting a real Russian helicopter or at least a reasonable replica. Did
I get one? No!! The worst fake I have ever seen - Russian helicopters are mean
mothers and these weren't!

That's my rant for the morning - I don't watch enough trash TV to know of
any worse cases. I'd be happy to hear of any though. Perhaps we could run
a competion for the worst replica plane in a movie. If they can't get an
original or at least a respectable copy then they shouldn't be making the
movie!!!


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.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin)
Subject: Re: big a/c on carriers (specifically C-130s...)
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 20:21:53 GMT

One of the root window pictures I use on my workstation is a grey USAF
C-130 doing a RATO take off.  The deck angle is truly impressive!  The
air is also humid enough to show condensation in the prop tip vortices.
I saw a Canadian Armed Forces C-130 do such a take off at CFB Shearwater
many years ago and it was very dramatic.  The RATO packs sure make a
racket.  Can anyone tell us what the thrust levels are for those things
(either pack total or per RATO engine)?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Corvin 	      PP-ASEL, PP-G		zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com
just another spaced rocket scientist at    Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============    My views, not Martin Marietta's   ========================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky rec.aviation.military:1201 sci.aeronautics:2570
From: trljim@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (JIM SONNENMEIER)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military,sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Better Than the Rest? (some peoples superiority on the net)
Date: 12 Dec 92 00:56:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

> 
long series of messages about noise to signal ratio, flaming, relevance deleted
>
>
>I'm done with this topic, by the way.
>--
>Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
>shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
> "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

I support all your views Mary. well said 

Jim
From: scott@sting.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Info on NAVY jet called "Cutlass"
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:29:43
Organization: UC Berkeley Experimental Computing Facility (XCF)
Distribution: world
	<M05751.92Dec14111154@foxtrot.data.st.statoil.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sting.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: m05751@foxtrot.data.st.statoil.no's message of Mon, 14 Dec 1992 10:11:54 GMT


%  As mentioned, the Cutlass was severely underpowered. As a result,
%  the nose strut was gradually made higher and higher, to get more lift
%  as the plane cleared the carrier. Still, the pilots considered the
%  Cutlass to be so unreliable that they routinely performed their
%  takeoffs with the canopy open.

I always thought that having the canopy open was done for visibility
reasons ... especially in a nose-high aircraft.  Corsairs had a very
long nose and pilots regularly taxied/launched with open canopies so
to help them see ahead of the airplane.

Scott
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Aviation in the Movies (was Re: PEARL HARBOR)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 08:58:03 GMT

craigdo@microsoft.com (Craig Dowell) writes:

>My favorite case of mucking with aircraft types happened in some movie about
>an aircraft carrier going back in time to 1941.

	The movie title is "The Final Countdown" for those who wish to
spend a buck and rent it.  The scene with the F14's dogfighting Zero's
is certainly worth the dollar it cost you.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jpt@telecaster.think.com (James P. Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Employment for ex-military
Date: 19 Dec 92 10:07:10
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com


If I am violating these group's etiquette, my apologies.  But, I am posting
for an acquaintance without net access.

He, for family reasons, terminated what appears to me to have been a very
successful career as Marine officer. He was a pilot and then in charge of a
very large helicopter maintenance operation.  Highest rank was Captain.

In civilian life he is struggling.  He can not find aviation employment
here in the New England area [he is willing to move.]  

I would have guessed that there were very effective support organizations
for ex-military that could help him locate employment opportunities.  If
there are, he does not seem to know about them.  

Basically, he is a very bright, energetic, hard-working guy who has lots of
skills.  I can not believe that he can not transfer his management and
technical skills to the civilian world.

If anyone has any suggestions for him, I would be happy to forward them.

jim taylor jpt@think.com     Thinking Machines Corp    Cambridge MA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: m05751@foxtrot.data.st.statoil.no (Bjorn Hell Larsen)
Subject: Re: Info on NAVY jet called "Cutlass"
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Reply-To: bjla@statoil.no
Organization: Statoil, Norway
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 10:11:54 GMT


In article <1992Dec3.203044.18894@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> acura@cbnewsi.cb.att.com 
(james.r.feeney) writes:
>
>Does anyone have information on a U.S. Navy jet called "Cutlass"? I don't
>know what its' number designation was. I believe it was operational during
>the late 50s and early 60s. It was a very unique design, almost delta winged,
>with a vertical stabilizer located midway down each wing. I think it was
>twin engined. I also seem to remember it having a very long nose wheel strut.
>

A bit of trivia:

- The F7U was the first US plane to be stationed abroad carrying missiles.

- As mentioned, the Cutlass was severely underpowered. As a result,
  the nose strut was gradually made higher and higher, to get more lift
  as the plane cleared the carrier. Still, the pilots considered the
  Cutlass to be so unreliable that they routinely performed their
  takeoffs with the canopy open.



Bjorn
From: bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SAAB J 21 (was Re: Ejection seats/capsules
Date: 15 Dec 92 07:17:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: giraffe.bakc.237.724403839
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa

>In article 29437@castle.ed.ac.uk, ajpotts@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Potts) writes:
>> of a milk float but it was very pretty - especially compared to SAAB's
>> next jet effort which looked like a flying beer barrel...
>This is an interesting point. What is your definition of full service?  Are
>you excluding trainers?  Hunting made the piston-engined Provost before the
>Jet Provost. How similar were the airframes?

From the traling edge of the wing to the rear - aft fuselage, tail assbly, 
plus canopy, the two Provosts certainly appear to share many common 
features -- at least on the basis of a superfical visual impression.   If 
you look closely you can also pick out seemingly common aspects with the 
Hunting-Percival Pembroke, the Proctor, and even some much earlier a/c from 
previously independent firms that were subsequently absorbed into the H-P 
empire, such as Airspeed and Miles. 

My guess is that under the skin the two airframes are significantly 
different -- for self-evident reasons, and that their common "styling 
points" are merely a reflection of Hunting's design philosophy.  H-P's a/c 
designers thus appear to have worked within formal or informal styling 
parameters -- perhaps in some instances because of the adaptability of 
manufacturing jigs or panel presses and in others because of a rationale 
such as, "We would like people to recognise the distinctive appearence of 
one of our family of a/c."  (Another notable example is the time-honoured De 
Havilland treatment of their a/c's tail profile.   In more colloquial terms, 
post-1974 Volkswagen car styling!!!  Yuk!)
Cheers,
Keith Coman

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Condemning a research report on the basis of :  Dept of Management
 invalid and unreliable methodology is the    :  Rhodes University
 cheapest shot in the book."                  :  Grahamstown, 6140
                                              :  Rep of South Africa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Re: The A-10
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:04:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.165306.14470@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> conan@northeastern.edu writes:
>
>>As an ex-air force type who flew 200 combat missions in VN
>That means s**t, if you were any good you would be a career
>air force type. Napalming unarmed civilians is probably all
>you did.

conan, I owe you an apology.  My first reaction to your post was that you were
just another young pup who enjoys taking shots at anybody who might not think
like you do.  Shows how misleading first impressions can be.

"Napalming unarmed civilians" is right out of the 60's.  You're a prof, right?
Political Science or History of the Vietnam War?  God!  Remember those great
old days, sitting around the bong, carrying on entire conversations using only
the words "like," "you know," and "man?"  Remember when history was only the
Berkley Free Speech Movement and the bombing of Cambodia?  Remember that nobody
knew where Cambodia was?

To the rest of you folks, Dave and Geoff included, sorry about being the list
curmudgeon,  but it's hard to draw a bye on something when you know it from
first hand experience.  Maybe that's not what this list is for.  Maybe it
should be limited to theory and rhetorical discussion.  But until it is, and
is identified as such, I intend to continue to contribute to the conversation.
I'll tell you what I think, and I will respond to hits in-kind.  If you think
I have something to say, you can read it.  If not, my name is clearly posted
in the header; you can just use the magic d-key.

And conan, I'm REALLY glad I could help with the flashback.

TH
From: gt8303a@prism.gatech.EDU (The Great and Mighty Confused)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Short landings (was Re: big a/c on carriers)
Date: 14 Dec 92 03:37:22 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

Don't quote me, but I seem to remember a C-130 crew being killed when their
plane landed kind of hard...my guess is that either the gear gave way or the
shock of impact took care of them.  So I guess the gear is sufficient to
support a moderately rough touch-down, but nothing too rugged.

Andy Entrekin
GTRI-CC/AERO
(next door to Lockheed's C-130 "corral")
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: B-1 Desert Storm
Date: 15 Dec 1992 07:39:24 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


Still stirring things up :)

In <227@newave.newave.mn.org> "John A. Weeks III" <john@newave.newave.mn.org>
writes:

>> They would not want to waste a good limited quantity aircraft on a small
>> conflict.

>Exactly--why risk an expensive plane when the nearly obsolete B-52 could
>safely do the same job.

Oh, like F-117's? (Geez, what's this gonna start?) :)
I doubt that was a tactical consideration.

Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions,
go and get your own."
From: cmraman@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Focused on Infinity)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Allied Code Names for Japanese World War II Aircraft
Date: 12 Dec 1992 00:26:54 GMT
Organization: Flightless Birds
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucscb.ucsc.edu
Summary: 1940


In article <29436@castle.ed.ac.uk> ajpotts@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Potts) writes:
>Although aware that the Zero was codenamed ZEKE, it seems that all and
>singular refered to it as the former. Does any one know what 'Zero'
>means in Japanese (or is it ZeroSen) because it has always puzzled me...
>
I believe it was referred to as the "Zero-sen" because it went into service
in 1940, a year which ended with two zeros in the Japanese calendar.
If I could find my copy of Caidin's book (the one he co-wrote with the guy
who designed the bird in question) i could confirm this...


-- 
..___... ...___... ...___... ...___... ...___... ...___... ...___... ...___...
Marc Reeve
cmraman@ucscb.ucsc.edu	cmraman@deeptht.armory.com
I want a MAC!
Naturally my opinions are unheard by UCSC, as it is a bureaucratic monolith.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military