HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hagood@sabre.den.mmc.com (Dave Hagood)
Subject: Re: The A-10
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:21:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.165306.14470@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu>, conan@northeastern.edu writes:

[disgusting drivel deleted]

	Where did this bozo come from?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
									|
David M. Hagood			Martin Marietta Astronautics Group	|
									|
Voice:  (303) 977-9657		When in danger, or in doubt,		|
E-mail: hagood@den.mmc.com	Run in circles, scream and shout.	|
Fax: (303) 977-1530							|
									|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
     static char *disclaimer = "My opinions, not Martin Marietta's."    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: khan@cs.cornell.edu (Taimur H. Khan)
Subject: Re: Gulf War Losses
Organization: Cornell University, CS Dept., Ithaca, NY
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:47:19 GMT

As far as I know, a lot of the IDS(Interdictor Strike) versions of the RAF 
Tornados were employed for anti-airfield missions, mainly to put the runways
of the Iraqi Air Bases out of commission.  The Allied commanders thought Tornado
to be a particularly  suitable aircraft for this role because of the JP233  
dispenser that the Tornado can carry.  The JP233 was specifically designed for
airfield denial to the best of my knowledge.

However to use the JP233 effectively requires the platform (in this case the 
Tornado) to fly at a very low altitude before the munition is dipensed.  The
AA artillery around the air bases was very dense and the Tornados had no choice
but to fly through them to drop their weapons.  I know that because of these
tactics, several Tornados were shot down and received some bad publicity as a 
result.

I don't know about the accidents.  Hope this helps.

Taimur

khan@cs.cornell.edu
  

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: The A-10
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:35:08 GMT

thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) writes:

>In all this talk about armor vs speed, etc, the focus is on the survivability
>of the airplane and crew.  Important, especially if you are the crew, but NOT
>the primary consideration in CAS.  Close Air Support is exactly that. Close.
>You have to be calm, cool, and good.  And you have to have a delivery platform
>that ensures the utmost accuracy.
>Speed is life for the pilot, but it detracts from accuracy, and inaccurate CAS
>is worse than no CAS at all.
>Right now, if I'm the guy
>on the ground, and understand what's going on, I'd rather have a Hog overhead
>every time.

	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.

	COnsidering how cheap an old piston fighter would be to produce and
maintain compared to the jets of today, this might be worth kicking
around as a CAS idea.

	It also has the side benefit of giving us great Army surplus!

< 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: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: PEARL HARBOR
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:43:37 GMT

rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin) writes:

>When these movies were made, Japanese Zeros, Kates, Vals, and all the
>rest simply did not exist or were extremely rare.  Since that time,
>restoration activities are increasing to preserve what remains, but there
>is precious little there.  

>The result is either no aircraft (hard to do a movie like Tora or Midway
>without airplanes) or cosmetically change available aircraft to represent
>the enemy.

>When compromises have to be made, at least credit those that made an effort
>to do as good a job as possible to bring through the correct look and feel
>of the enemy aircraft.

	Just to give a bit of praise where it is due, anybody remember the
TV show "Baa Baa Black Sheep" later renamed "Black Sheep Squadron"?  It
made me a Corsair-lover for life!  I later read that only twelve Corsairs
are still flying, and that the TV show had to make due with only 6 for the
flying scenes.  A crying shame, I feel, that such a lovely bird served as
recently as Korea and is so close to extinction.  BTW: the article I read
also memtioned a bill in the four figures range to change the spark plugs
on that aircraft!  No wonder there are so few.

< 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                    >
From: gt8303a@prism.gatech.EDU (The Great and Mighty Confused)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: The A-10
Date: 14 Dec 92 03:55:27 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

I am probably the biggest fan of the A-10 in the known world, so I couldn't
help taking notice of a few things said in the most recent posting about it.
First of all, the A-10 CAN carry a decent bombload, especially for its role
in battleground support, where it is needed "on order," so to speak.  It can
carry sixteen thousand pounds of armament on a reduced fuel load, and over
14,000 with max fuel.  That's more than enough to help out a unit in trouble,
with the weapons technology we have today.  The other point I wanted to      
address was the compatibility of the attack helicopter and the A-10.  Load-
bearing capabilities aside, there are a few other advantages which belong to
the A-10.  A helicopter makes a distinctive sound (BVI - I'm working on
cutting it down), whereas the A-10 is nearly silent over 10 thousand feet.
The altitude difference between the two also has its sides.  A helicopter's
performance degrades as it gains altitude because the air gets thinner and
the rotor blades have less air to "pull" on.  The A-10 on the other hand,
suffers no appreciable loss of ability as it climbs.  Thus it prefers to
remain as high as it can while attacking.  This helps the pilot to avoid 
ground fire, the most common cause of pilot "retirement" in a combat situation.
A helicopter usually attacks from lower altitudes, subjecting itself to more
danger from its target(s).  Then there is the matter of armor.  Attack helos
are armored more heavily than transports or transport gunships like the
Blackhawk.  Even so, the A-10 beats them hands-down.  It was designed to get
shot at.  It can fly with half of one wing gone, or only one vertical
stabilizer.  And the pilot is surrounded by the famed titanium bathtub to
improve his chances of survival should he encounter ground fire.  True, the
helicopter can sit behind hills or other terrain, but unless it works with
another unit (ground or airborne), it must give up it concealment to fire,
whereas the A-10 really doesn't care.  They'll fly it into a firefight with
confidence (but they try to avoid doing so for obvious reasons, like the
desire to avoid bodily harm).  Helicopters are fine in some situations, but
I really think the Air Force should not get rid of such a rugged plane as
the A-10.

Andy Entrekin
GTRI-CC/AERO
Aerospace engineering student, Ga Tech
Hopeful helicopter designer

Note:  If any of my info is inaccurate, feel free to correct me.  I got the
       figures from "Modern Air Combat," by Bill Gunston.  It's probably not
       the best place to get them, but it's all I have.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: rsingh@eos.ncsu.edu (Ranbir Singh)
Subject: Re: Cobra Maneuver (was :Re: Snaity check!!!.. [re: why would anyone consider the MIG-29M]
Originator: rsingh@surya.psrc.ncsu.edu
Reply-To: rsingh@eos.ncsu.edu (Ranbir Singh)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:36:00 GMT


In article <1992Dec7.212624.2442@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>,
colangel@sam.JSC.NASA.GOV (Michael Colangelo/MDSSC) writes:
 
> I do know that this maneuver was performed by an F/A-18 in one of
> McAIRs flight simulators.
> 
> Lastly, I'm a big fan of Russian aircraft, too (especially the
		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Su-26/29 aerobatic a/c), but like
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^		 
What the hell are these aircraft? I've never heard of them . Either it
shows clearly that Micheal is an avid admirer of Soviet aircraft or
(well) just the opposite of it!	

:-)			
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Airpower
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 04:20:48 GMT

For those who understand, for those who don't, for those who never will.

                                BRIEFING
                                   by
                            Gill Robb Wilson

                    Ahoy there, you who write the books
                    and ponder on definitions of airpower!

                    I'll brief you on airpower
                    straight from the horse's mouth.  Still squinting
                    from the sun on top, still stiff from
                    the dog fighting, still grimed from the cockpit,
                    still marked with the headings--
                    I'll tell you about airpower.

                    Airpower is the models you built as a kid,
                    the dreams you nurtured as a boy,
                    the freedom you craved to go out and beyond.

                    Airpower is the chatter in the ready room
                    before the horn blares, "Pilots, man your planes!"

                    Airpower is a faith
                    that your flight leader won't pile you in on target.

                    Airpower is the split-second pressing
                    of a button to get home a deflection shot.

                    Airpower is the comfort of your earphones,
                    the fit of your chute,
                    the dependability of your wrist watch,
                    the steady fluctuation of your oxygen dial.

                    Airpower is the confidence in the plane you fly,
                    confidence in the "old man" who sent you on the mission,
                    confidence in yourself.

                    Airpower is the skill and devotion
                    of a crew chief, the respect of your squadron mates,
                    the lift of love in the letters from home.

                    Airpower is a million little things
                    which merge like molecules of molten metal to form a spar
                    for the wings of your spirit.

                    But there is something more to add,
                    the final thing that tempers all the rest.
                    You must believe that, bigger than yourself,
                    enduring when you're gone, surviving though you perish,
                    your cause is right and just.

                    There is no power on earth or sea or sky
                    that can be power such as the airman needs
                    without convictions.  The integration of his faith
                    with all his skills of trade--
                    well, such is power aloft.

                    God in your guts, good men at your back,
                    wings that stay on--and Tally Ho.


Not ego, not bragging, not hopeless romanticism, just the way it is and has
always been in this business.  Ask anybody. Believe it or don't.  Your choice.

TH (on YOUR side)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: johnm@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com.mcm.hp.com (John Mosbarger)
Subject: Re: Flames ect...
Organization: HP Cardiology Business Unit - McMinnville, OR
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:10:59 GMT

Dr. Strangelove (zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu) wrote:
: Stop Please! This is usually(I stress this) good news group.
: I love planes, and I'm a novice. I don't care if they are "ugly",
: whether they are preformance is poor, or if the pilot sucks(unless I'm on
: his plane.) This is to discuss military aircraft, not flaming (of people).
: 
: SO BACK TO AIRCRAFT, take the flames to alt.flames
: 
: To all those why write articles to this newsgroup, "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.

     I strongly concur.  People, remember that the participants in the news-
group are of varying levels of expertise.  With me it's just a hobby, so I
appreciate the "words of wisdom" that appear here on a (thankfully) regular
basis, and post when I feel I can contribute to a discussion.  So lighten
up and have fun!

John
--
*****************************************************************************
| John Mosbarger          |    You know why many people commit suicide      |
|                         |    during the holidays?  It's because they're   |
| HP McMinnville, OR      |    forced to spend time with their relatives.   |
|                         | 	                  --John Belushi            |
| johnm@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com |                     	                    |
|***************************************************************************|
|                     Opinions are mine and mine alone.                     |
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: colangel@sam.JSC.NASA.GOV (Michael Colangelo/MDSSC)
Subject: Clearing The Air On Sanity Check
Organization: IGOAL
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:45:47 GMT

Having gotten a handful of responses (pro and con - most humorous) 
with regard to my post on "re: Sanity Check", I have come to the 
conclusion that:

     1.  I may have misunderstood Mary
     2.  I was misunderstood
     3.  I probably went too far with my PS.

To that end, I would like to clear the air with this post.  First,
the first part of my post about "cutting the crap" with regard
to the "I'm better than you" attitude among some posters stands
as is.  Nobody knows it all.  Secondy, I would like to retract 
my P.S. where I flamed Mary when I accused her of being arrogant 
for flaming some college student.  I agree that I went too far and 
it was an unclassy thing to do.  Flaming individuals shows a lack 
of maturity of which I, and some others (and you know who you are), 
are guilty of.  

Lastly, I think rec.aviation.military is for everyone - from the 
aero engineers to the high school junior who likes military aircraft.
I've been told that the good engineer is always learning - I try 
to live up to that.  I see this newsgroup as a learning tool (although
one may need to separate the wheat from the chaff, occasionally).  I,
and most posters (I think), try to be as accurate as possible.  I
also see it as a chance to converse with fellow aviation buffs - hey, 
it's fun!  May I propose that we all agree to disagree.  There will 
be cases where two people may not be able to agree on a particular 
topic - let's not let emotions get in the way of better judgement.

What do you think?

'Nuff Said,
           Mike



Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: Fake planes (WAS Re: PEARL HARBOR)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:49:54 GMT

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! :-)
>There was a Soviet pilot who was defecting in a "MiG" I don't
>think they bothered giving it a numerical designation.  They used
>an F-4 for this purpose with a red star on the tail.  That in
>itself wasn't too bad, but then they sent up a pair of planes to
>intercept and escort the "MiG" to base.  What did they send up?
>Why, a pair of F-4s, of course.  They showed them in flight and
>there they were, three F-4s in vic formation.  The "MiG" even had
>the same Vietnam camouflage as the other two.  On approach, you
>could see the three of them line abreast with their distinctive
>wing-up-tail-down front view.  Even total aviation-unaware peolpe
>said something like "Isn't that the same plane?".  I don't expect
>them to import planes from East-block countries just to make a TV
>show, but couldn't they at least use a _different_ plane?

   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?

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: The A-10 
From: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 11:36:23 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Me? Organized?


conan@northeastern.edu 

thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) 

Will you two please sort your differences out by e-mail and stop 
wasting my time.

Thank you

Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: maierj@edmund.cs.andrews.edu (Joey Maier)
Subject: Re: "Fake" MiGs (was Re: PEARL HARBOR)
Organization: Andrews University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:06:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.191716.6838@olaf.wellesley.edu> lhawkins@annie.wellesley.edu (R. Lee Hawkins) writes:
>In article <RATINOX.92Dec14115306@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu writes:
>>of it's design concepts was similarity to the T-38. The F-5 is used in
>>the US as a MiG simulator and as NASA space shuttle chase planes. It's
>
>Err... NO.  All the NASA birds are T-38's.
>
>Cheers,
>--Lee
>
>>
>>--Rat

Mabey not an error.  I admit that I'm not a military type and that I
don't have any 'inside information'  but I am a well read aviation buff.
I could be wrong, but I think that the T-38 is an F-5 DERIVITIVE(sp?),
which would mean that we are picking semantics here. 

 The point, IMHO, is that a very cool plane, one that is often overlook
because of more high profile military aircraft, is still with us, and it
is still earning its keep.

Joey

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: msmith@crc.ac.uk (Mike Smith x3297)
Subject: Re: SAAB J 21 (was Re: Ejection seats/capsules
Reply-To: msmith@crc.ac.uk
Organization: MRC Human Genome Mapping Project Resource Centre.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 12:27:24 GMT

In article 29437@castle.ed.ac.uk, ajpotts@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Potts) writes:
[ About the SAAB J 21 ]
> 
> But it was (and still is) the only military aircraft to see full service
> in both a piston powered and jet form, which makes it kind of special,
> and a fact of which SAAB are rather proud. OK, it may have had the range
> of a milk float but it was very pretty - especially compared to SAAB's
> next jet effort which looked like a flying beer barrel...
> 
> AJP
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?

Mike Smith
---
Computing Services, Clinical Research Centre and   
Human Genome Mapping Project Resource Centre,     Internet:   m.smith@crc.ac.uk
Watford Rd, HARROW, Middx, HA1 3UJ                Janet:      m.smith@uk.ac.crc
Tel +44 81-869 3297 Fax +44 81-423 1275   Usenet ...!mcsun!uknet!mrccrc!m.smith

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin)
Subject: Re: PEARL HARBOR
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:20:17 GMT

In article <1gi1vrINN9il@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23) writes:
[...]
|> Ok, so it REALLY sucked.... Iron Eagle was bad, and Iron Eagle III: Aces had
|> the most believability. Which isn't saying much.... [...]

_Really?_

Iron Eagle III was "reviewed" over a pizza binge at our hangar some time
ago, and it was the only movie which we openly broke up in hysterics
over.  Little things like hanging upside down from the cockpit of a 
Spitfire, having it flipped right side up by a P-38 wingtip and the
pilot miraculously falling back into the seat... Or a P-38 pulling a
loop where, if I recall correctly, the aircraft should have exceeded
max compressibility and at least came out of it in pain, if not in
multiple earth-plunging pieces.  P-51A being redressed as an ME-109 when
Bf-109's are available, standing backwards on the seat of the Spit and
shooting a jet with a grenade launcher, etc. etc. etc.

For entertainment, it was excellent - People hadn't laughed that hard
in a long time (I personally enjoyed the church bell... :-)

As far as believability, knowing more about the capabilities of WWII era
aircraft than anything following made it by far the least believable.
Of course, that probably added to the hysterics about it.  :-)

-- 
// Robert J. Granvin                                         rjg@stat.umn.edu
// School of Statistics - University of Minnesota        System Administrator
// ``One of the `right' people.''
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bishopjl@infonode.ingr.com (John L Bishop)
Subject: Re: Air Force Career Types
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 16:58:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.081953.12232@cactus.org> rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes:
>In article <9212190235.AA16253@cs.utexas.edu> 379LSSCC@strathost.stratcom.af.mil (379LSSCC) writes:
>>Well, until you've "walked the walk and talked the talk", don't
>>characterize those who have, even for a "short" period.
>
>One thing I've run into over the years, and more these days than ever
>before, is this INTENSE desire of individuals to attain some sense of
>"uniqueness" by a rigid association with some group, whether an ethnic
>minority, a religion, an organization, or even a region.  
>
>However, something else I've learned is that when these people try to
>avoid external censure, they invariably resort to a "you're not one
>of us, so are not worthy to comment" sophism.

Robert, I believe the original "inane comments" were of a personal nature.
Specifically the comment where Toby (I believe) was accused of napalming
innocent civilians.  

Even if this were TRUE, your argument of the military being the executor of 
national policy would seem to absolve him of most (if not all) responsibility.  

Finally, I wouldn't be too quick to attribute the "you're not one of us" 
attitude soley to the desire to avoid censure.  Over the years I have learned
that there are some things that you CAN NOT understand without the proper
experience to put them into perspective.

For example:  You may think you know what it means to be paralyzed (or blind,
etc.). But unless you are forced to confront the issue, you haven't really
dealt with it at a meaningful level  - and consequently don't really know what 
it is like to be disabled. 


					Ens. John L. Bishop, USNR Ret.
-- 
Standard Disclaimer:  These are my comments, and not necessarily my employer's.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!
John L. Bishop, Tech. Manager, Intergraph Corp.     bishop@jlb911.b17a.ingr.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military