HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jem3@pyuxf.uucp (25312-mc killop)
Subject: Re: PEARL HARBOR
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 14:39:28 GMT

>jaskew@spam.ua.oz (Joseph Askew) writes:
>>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.

What you forget is that films are produced for one reason, to make
a profit.  In order to do that, they must target the film for a
speicifc audience and the target audience for movies of this type, 
e.g., Top Gun, Iron Eagle, etc., are teens who don't have the
slightest idea of which aircraft is which and really don't care.
They are more interested in seeing young people outdo us older
types or see young studs make out with sexy looking women.

In article <1992Dec14.025423.60@penet.fi> an1603@anon.penet.fi (Bastard Regiment) writes:
>This pisses me off too, but not for your reasons.  It pisses my off
>because they take one of the best damn airplanes ever built (the F-4) and
>expect no-one to notice when they pass it off as a MiG.  Ditto "Top Gun"
>trying to pass off another great plane, the F-5, as a MiG.  If they
>can't be bothered putting in some effort why don't they just fuck off and die.

First of all, may I suggest you clean up your language; you can get
your message across much better without the vulgar comments.
Second of all, you certainly have a right to express your opinion
but there are many of us older types who first saw airshows over 40
years ago that think "bug suckers" are not real airplanes; IMHO, a
real airplane has one or more propellers.
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: The A-10
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Date: 16 Dec 1992 16:24:06 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com



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

>Are you interested in an honest discussion of the issue and the opinions of
>those who have an intimate familiarity with close air support, or would you
>rather just engage in a smartass contest to see who can post the cleverest
>put-down?

[...]

>You may post all the cute little replies that your nubile mind can come up
>with, but that won't change the laws of ordnance delivery as they now stand.


Toby,

What is it with you?  I've never seen anyone in the rec.aviation 
hierarchy who was so irascible and eager to take offense at nothing.
First there was the "Dammit, knock it off!" incident during the thread 
about airplane aesthetics, in which you tried to shout someone down
for posting his perfectly legitimate ideas about certain aircraft 
being better looking than others, and now this.  

If you interpreted Dan's comments as engaging in a "smartass contest to 
see who can post the cleverest put-down," then you have a chip on your
shoulder the size of Wyoming.  Dan mentioned what he feels is the 
apparent suitability of certain airplanes for the CAS role -- and 
considering the development of a turboprop-powered Mustang-based
protoype for CAS/FAC back in the Seventies, I can't see that his ideas 
are completely without merit or precedent.

Maybe you don't mean it that way, but you come across as someone who's
mighty impressed with himself, with an ego as big as all outdoors, who 
feels he's doing the rest of us poor miserable wankers a tremendous
favor by gracing us with his presence in this forum.  You have all the
delicate subtlety of a horny pitbull humping on an undefended thigh,
and you are out of line.

While most of the readership is far from expert on the topic of 
military aviation, and few if any of us share your Vietnam combat 
experience <insert genuflection here>, what we share is a common interest 
in the subject, which is far more important.  I for one value your 
contributions tremendously, but I sure wish you'd learn to lighten up 
a bit and stop throwing your weight around like a schoolyard bully.  The 
rec.aviation newsgroup hierarchy is for the most part refreshingly free 
of flames, and I'm sure I'm not alone in hoping it stays that way.   



Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller			+ + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM	+ + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: PEARL HARBOR
Date: 14 Dec 1992 20:36:30 GMT
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
NNTP-Posting-Host: obsidian.wpi.edu

In article <1992Dec14.192017.1561@news2.cis.umn.edu> rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin) writes:
>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?_

As I said, that isn't saying much... For me what was done with the aircraft 
was more believable in general.... I hanging from the seat was utterly stupid,
and the P-38 looping, and coming damn near Mach speed, was too... You could
flip the Spitfire with the P-38.... But it sure wouldn't have leveled so
nicely... How about the Tin foil? And still I thought it was the best of the 3
IE II was one error from open to close.... Planes doing things I couldn't
believe... I F-4 was TOO obvious... (I didn't figure out the P-51A, but I knew
it wasn't authentic) air-to-air weapons fired at ground targets... the canyon
run was too Star Wars....

IE had things like firing a Maverick while on the ground.. and the 'Hades Bomb'
plus the footage was awful... Every time the F-16 was shown it had a different
load out...

I'll watch all 3 for straight entertainment... (ok, I bought the first as part
of my video club requirements... :-)  ) But none of them are truly beliveable.
 I did like seeing the C-123 in action...

###############################################################################
# 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#
###############################################################################
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:04:16 EST
From: <FWR100@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: B-1 Desert Storm

In article <9212151340.AA01862@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil>,
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil says:
>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.

We needed to drop precision guided munitions on targets in an area with
extreme amounts of air defense weaponry.  The stealth of the F-117 was
important to achieving the mission objective.

We also needed to drop lots of iron bombs on ground troops in areas with little
air defense.   The B-1 offered no significant advantages over the B-52, and
has several disadvantages (newer, more expensive, not many around, needed for
nuclear deterrence).  So, the B-52 was the appropriate choice.

-Frank
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: PEARL HARBOR
Date: 15 Dec 1992 00:23:16 GMT
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
NNTP-Posting-Host: obsidian.wpi.edu

In article <Bz9sIG.L7z@news.cs.andrews.edu> maierj@edmund.cs.andrews.edu (Joey Maier) writes:
>In article <1gir8eINN7c3@bigboote.WPI.EDU> megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23) writes:
>> Ok, so it REALLY sucked.... Iron Eagle was bad, and Iron Eagle III: Aces ha                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Wasn't that Burt Rutan's prototype tank killer that they used for the
>bad boy's plane?  What did the movie say it was?  Didn't it give it some
>phony military designation?

Yep, it was the ARES... or the ME-263 as IE III called it... hehehe Yahright

But last I heard Rutan is going ahead with testing himself... Maybe he'll go
for export sales... The Brits were developing a similar aircraft a few years
ago, maybe the ARES will fit the bill.

###############################################################################
# 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: jskean@unlinfo.unl.edu (jonathan skean)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: The A-10
Date: 18 Dec 1992 08:22:13 GMT
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln	
Distribution: all
NNTP-Posting-Host: unlinfo.unl.edu

thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) writes:
    (stuff deleted)
  | Issue 11 (FAC): "Put your next nape 20 meters
  |                  east of the last one."
  | Boxer 02: "That's inside the camp!"
  | Issue 11: "That's where the sons of bitches are!"
  |  - Radio transmission, Bo Tuc,RVN, 20 Dec 67

Back when we were still involved in the Viet-Nam conflict, my Marine
grunt friends claimed that when they needed REALLY close air support,
they preferred to put their lives in the hands of another Marine.
If no USMC pilots were available then the other variety of Naval Aviator
was acceptable, but there was a lot less confidence in calling for help
from the Air Force. I'd love for Mr. Hughes or anyone else directly 
involved to comment on this attitude.  For one thing, did the Air 
Force support Marine operations very often anyway?  All I can testify
to personally is that a lot of alcohol was involved at the time these
tales were told and it would not have been wise to dispute the
veracity of the story-tellers to their faces.
 //    JSKEAN@UNL.EDU . . . USN, but never again!  \\
 \\    2nd place, SE Asian War Games, 1960-1975    //
--
Jonathan Skean                     usenet: JSKEAN@UNL.EDU
502 Hamilton Hall                  bitnet: JSKEAN%UNL.EDU@UNLVAX1
University of Nebraska              voice: (402)472-2684
Lincoln, NE 68588-0304   USA          fax: (402)472-9402
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jim@specialix.com (Jim Maurer)
Subject: Re: PEARL HARBOR
Organization: Specialix Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:03:40 GMT

megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23) writes:

>IE had things like firing a Maverick while on the ground.. and the 'Hades Bomb'
>plus the footage was awful... Every time the F-16 was shown it had a different
>load out...

I understand that one reason for this is that they were using real IDF
aircraft, so they had to go with whatever was loaded on the aircraft.
They aircraft would make a few passes for the movie crew and then go
on to the rest of their mission.  Sometimes shooting was delayed because
the aircraft were needed for missions over Lebanon.  I read about this
in Airpower back when Iron Eagle first came out.
From: bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SAAB J 21 (R) and J 29 "Flying Barrel"
Date: 15 Dec 92 07:39:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: giraffe.bakc.238.724405186
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa

>Subject: Re: SAAB J 21 (R) and J 29 "Flying Barrel"
>In article <urf.724085737@sw2001>, urf@icl.se (Urban F) writes:
>|> ajpotts@castle.ed.ac.uk (A Potts) writes:
>|> But the J 29 was a _good_ aircraft, which not only took some speed
>|> records for 500 and 1000 km closed circuits: It is also one of the
>|> very few Swedish-designed aircraft to be used in combat, both in
>|> fighter-ground attack and reconnaissance versions.
>
>When, where and by whom was the J 29 used in combat?  The "Tonnen" was
>a unique aircraft and it's performance was indeed quite good, 
>possibly the best European fighter aircraft of the day when it was new.

	I believe this "interesting" a/c saw active service with the Swedish 
contingent of the UN Peacekeeping force assigned to the Congo (now Zaire) 
during the post-independence turmoil and the secession of Katanga province.  
The period would have been 1962-1963.   Swedish ground forces were involved 
so I guess it made sense to pack along a few Flying Beer-Barrels.  There was
no air opposition to speak of (Katanga operated a lash-up force of a/c, the 
most potent of which was +\- 5 T-28's), and the F.B.B.'s active role was 
really confined to making noisy passes overhead to impress the locals and 
strafing dudes primarily armed with spears, bows and arrows, and 1930's 
vintage Belgian Mauser rifles.  Operating in the tropical storms so 
prevalent in that part of the world must also have been a useful learning 
experience for their lucky pilots.  	

BTW, I can easily speculate that at the time in the Officer's Club of the 
(then) Royal Rhodesian Air Force there was some wistful talk as to the 
possibility of some F.B.B.'s straying over the border and trying conclusions 
with a flight Hawker Hunters!!!
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: conan@northeastern.edu
Subject: Re: Air Force Career Types
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:28:35 GMT

After reading a lot of flames; No I am not in the services, but
have family that is; AF(major), Navy (Adm lower half), and was.
Granted the promotions are not 100% fair, but it not crazy out there.
In AF good tactician, but poor manager will not get a position
of responsibility of others (and rightly so), but they do like
to keep good tactician on as instructors. Most people in such
situation leave for better money to airlines etc. I will get flamed
for this, but pukes are dime a dozen (sorry but this is the
official position). Nothing is 100% fair in life
and there are a lot of losers with sob stories, blaming others
left and right.
I flamed Toby H. cause arrogant SOBs bring a bad name to service
and to good people who are professionals. I have yet to meet a good
professional that was as arrogant and loved to put people down.
Never saw a good man who had to prove himself by hurting others.
Lot of jerks around that feel secure by putting others down.
I dont think we need any John Waynes in the services cause they are
the ones who get friendlies killed, mess up things for the good guys,
and live to brag.
 
-c

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: clallen@rodan.acs.syr.edu (LT CHAz)
Subject: Re: B-1 Desert Storm
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 10:16:26 EST

In article JESTER@vax1.elon.edu (John Jester) writes:
>I read in a previous article tht the B-1 did not have conventional bombing
>ability.  I went and checked a couple of my books and they both say that
>it can carry a good load of conventional bombs.  I was later backed up by 
>a TV program"Wings" or "Brute Frorce" that said and showed the same thing.
>I would contend that it was not a question of ability but of resources.  
>They would not want to waste a good limited quantity aircraft on a small
>conflict.

	While you are correct on the fact thatthe B-1 had the ability
to deliver conventional munitions, the reasons behind its non-participation
in the war was not due to the 'limited' number of aircraft.
	Up until this point the USAF has only given the B-1 one role, and that
is strategic nuclear delivery.  Because of this, the B-1 crews only train for 
that mission, and not for a conventional one.  The USAF is now working
on a conventional role for the bomber.
	Another reason to go along with that, the USAF does not have large
quantities(as far as Ive read) of the bomb bay equipment needed to handle
conventional munitions.

>LT Charles L. Allen, USAF		     Live from South Korea......CHAz<
>CLALLEN@rodan.acs.syr.edu     "IF A MAN HASN'T DISCOVERED SOMETHING THAT HE<
>Sryacuse University 1990       WILL DIE FOR, HE ISN'T FIT TO LIVE"-M.L.King<
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Info on NAVY jet called "Cutlass"
Date: 17 Dec 1992 10:30:41 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


Geoff Miller <geoffm@purplehaze.corp.sun.com> writes:

>Why would the
>absence of a horizontal stabilizer have an effect on the angle of attack
>needed for the wing to generate a given amount of lift?

Because part of the wing is in effect producing "negative" lift, i.e. a
nose-up moment for stability.  The up-lifting part of the wing has to work
harder to overcome the weight.  Also part of the problem is control power, not
just lift.

>I wasn't aware that non- Royal Navy F-4s had an extendable nose strut.  One
>fighter with an interesting approach to this problem was the Vought F-8, with
>its variable-incidence wing that was raised prior to takeoff.

I've got photos of Navy F-4's on the cat, bridle attached, nose strut extended.

>I thought the A-3 had a sealed cockpit -- not really a conventional
>canopy, more of a glazed roof --  with a crew entrance hatch/escape slide on
>the bottom of the fuselage.  I've seen a lot of photographs of Whales, but
>never one of an A-3 with an open canopy.

That was unclear, wasn't it.  I'm sorry, the A-3 had a HATCH overhead that was
open for takeoff and landing.  It opened to the inside and swung backwards.
Trust me, I had one come out of the bracket that held it open and smack me in
the back of the head on touchdown once.

The  Whale (at least TA-3's, EA-3's, and ERA-3's) had 3 nowrmal exits.  Side
hatch in the aft compartment, bottom opening hatch between aft compartment and
cockpit, and overhead hatch in the cockpit.

Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions,
go and get your own."
From: gopal@cirrus.com (Gopal Ramachandran)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Ejection seats/capsules (was Re: B-1B)
Date: 12 Dec 92 02:27:57 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.

In article <1g2665INNlig@rave.larc.nasa.gov> d.j.piatak@larc.nasa.gov (David J. Piatak) writes:

>What about the fighter museum somewhere I think in the south-west (U.S.) that
>fires up they're Fw-190 (I think it is a 'Dora' model) and Me-109 once in
>a while for spectators.  I seem to remember them also having other Luftwaffe
>birds.  Is it the Chaplin Fighter Museum???

That would be the Champlin Fighter Museum. Also could be the Chino Air
Museum (Chino CA). They have a lot of warbirds, almost all in flying 
condition or slated for restoration.

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: nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu (Nathan F. Janette)
Subject: Re: The A-10
Reply-To: nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:14:33 GMT

In article <92349.103907FWR100@psuvm.psu.edu> <FWR100@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

> Sure, this is all true, but there's a little problem: SAMs.  If the A-10 is
> flying anywhere near a battle area at 10,000 feet, it's going to be greeted
> by a Surface to Air missile.   Considering that the US Navy took out a
> destroyer(!) with a SAM, _no_ armor is going to save you from that.  Any
> aircraft (A-10, F-16, Helos, etc.) near the battle area has to stay low or
> it's life expectancy is very short.

That destroyer was rather surprised by an "allied" ship attacking it
with those Sea Sparrows.  If it was really in a conflict, it may well
have avoided the attack with various defensive weapons including
chaff and CIWS guns.

The flaw in you logic is the assumption that a SAM fired equals a SAM hit
on the plane.  That is hardly true, as I'm sure many combat pilots will
testify.  Aircraft may attack the SAM site's radar with HARMs, may use
chaff and flares, may actively jam, use clever maneuvers, etc, all to
avoid the SAM successfully engaging. 

--
Nathan Janette		"I'm a NeXTstep man,
Dept MB&B, Yale Univ	 I'm a NeXTcube guy"
New Haven, CT
nathan@laplace.biology.yale.edu (NeXT)

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: pscotto@MtHolyoke.edu (Peter J. Scotto)
Subject: Info needed on Mew Gull
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 02:58:44 GMT


I'm posting this request for my brother who does not have access to
the net:

Does anyone know where to obtain information on the Perciville
Mew Gull, a celebrated British racer of the 1930's.  Particular
interest in drawings and photographs.

(I realize that this doesn't exactly belong in rec.aviation.mil-
itary, but with all the aviation buffs around here, I thought
I'd give it a try.)

-Peter Scotto (for his brother, Stephen)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: pscotto@MtHolyoke.edu (Peter J. Scotto)
Subject: Info needed on Greek Airforce WWII
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 12:19:38 GMT


Does anyone out there know where I can get information on Royal
Greek Airforce [EVA] colors, markings and camouflage patterns
during WWII?  Any language.

Thanks.

--Peter Scotto

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: hagood@sabre.den.mmc.com (Dave Hagood)
Subject: Re: big a/c on carriers 
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:59:08 GMT

In article <urf.724012326@sw2001>, urf@icl.se (Urban F) writes:
|> I'm reading an article on the Vickers Valiant in Air International,
|> where it is claimed the USA showed some slight interest in it, to
|> be used on carriers. Nothing came of that, but Curtis LeMay was
|> influenced by it enough to recommend side-by-side seating for the
|> B-52, as opposed to tandem, which it probably would have had otherwise.
|> --

	Interesting.  The XB-52 had tandem seating, a la B-47, but I had never
heard any reason for the change.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
									|
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."    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lines: 35