HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: marc@mercutio.ultra.com (Marc Kwiatkowski {Host Software-AIX})
Subject: Re: Why didn't Luftwaffe paint propeller tips?
Organization: Ultra Network Technologies
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 22:06:37 GMT

In article <gunnar.726605609@beppe> gunnar@beppe.ericsson.se (Gunnar Forsgren) writes:

>cwilliam@bbn.com (Christopher Williams) writes:

>>Anybody know?  I've looked at thousands of photos of WWII aircraft, and
>>it appears that the Luftwaffe is the only air force that didn't paint
>>some sort of bright warning color on their propeller tips.

>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 ?

I tried to raise this issue in the bare-metal P51 thread.  I guess I'll
try again here.  It seems to me that it wasn't a matter of Axis airplanes
following a fairly rigid paint-scheme and Allied airplanes choosing whatever
they wanted.  As far as I can tell, among the Allied powers the only groups
that had racy and varying paint and nose art were the USAAC bomber and
fighter escorts in Europe, the Marine fighter and CAS planes in the Pacific,
and the Flying Tigers - essentially a mercenary outfit - in China.
The RAF, the Royal Navy, and the US. Navy all had pretty uniform looking
airplanes.  While some US. Navy airplanes were personalized, (ie.
Mimsi I, II, and III), none, had nose art comparable to those USAAC planes
in the European Theater.  There are some exceptions.  Brazillian
and Indian squadrons seemed to get pretty creative.  

So, my questions are, is this observation correct, or are there examples
of US Navy or RAF squadrons who painted their planes as they saw fit?
And if it is true that only the USAAC and US Marines had relaxed policies
on airplane markings, what was the reason?  The same still seems true
today regarding US airplanes.  The Navy's F-14s and F-18s have some 
personalization, but it seems pretty uniform and unsuggestive.  While
USAF F-16s in Desert Storm had all manner of nose art.  Most of it pretty
tasteless in my opinion.



-- 
Marc P. Kwiatkowski                  /|/|            Ultra Network Technologies
internet: marc@ultra.com     \______/ | | W.A.S.T.E. 101 Daggett Drive
uucp: ...!ames!ultra!marc    / (__) \ | |            San Jose, CA 95134 USA
voice: 408 922 0100 x249             \|\|
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Does South-Africa operate Mirage Fighters?
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 12:01:18 GMT

In article <m0nBLNk-000QzZC@aton.abo.fi> skronkvi@aton.abo.fi (Stefan Kronkvist INF) writes:
>
>Hi!
>
>Question: Does South-Africa operate Mirage fighters?
>

	From "The Balance of Military Power" (1992 edn.)

	Combat Aircraft:

	4 fighter/ground attack squadrons with

	28 Mirage F-1AZs
	72 Imapala MkIIs
	12 Cheetah Es (a modified Mirage)
	10 Mirage F-1CZs

	Alec Chambers
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bishopjl@infonode.ingr.com (John L Bishop)
Subject: Re: F-15E Performance
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 17:57:13 GMT

Al Bowers writes:

>Maybe, maybe not.  Is that display in KEAS (knots equivalent airspeed)
>or in TAS (true airspeed).  I suspect the former, as most HUD
>(Heads-Up Display) equipped aircraft use KEAS for information
>displayed to the pilot.  this is more important in an ACM environment
>as it tells you if you are above or below `corner' speed...

I was assuming KEAS also, although I don't know for sure (I don't have the
game).

>BTW, 400 KEAS is about 1.109 knots.  That is a bit slow for a clean
>F-15, E or not.  Was he carrying the FAST packs?  And did he dump the
>pylons, tanks and racks?

If we assume the worst case "clean" configuration (FAST packs, pylons, and
racks) with no other fuel tanks or ordinance, then is this a reasonable speed?

							John
-- 
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
From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Re: F-86 question...
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: rec
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:53:44 GMT

In article <BOWERS.92Dec30130558@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov> bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) writes:
>I guess it was an odd bookkeeping thing related to the American Ace
>List I have (from the American Fighter Aces Association).  It
>seperates WWI and Vietnam, but it lumps Korea and WWII together.  It
>also shows Col Robin Olds as having a total of 16.  I know Olds got 4
>in Vietnam, but I thought he did only ground attack in Korea and had
>only 8 from WWII?  Did Olds get 4 in Korea?  Or did I confuse
>something again?

Olds had 12 kills in WWII (9 in P-38s, 3 in P-51s).  For reasons I have never
heard explained, he didn't get into the air-to-air war in Korea.  He spent the
50's in staff and command slots in the US, Germany, and Libya.  Why the USAF
would not use a pilot with his record in what he did best is a good question.
This strange situation occured again in Vietnam, when Col Ralph Parr, a double
ace in Korea with 10 kills, spent two combat tours as the DO and Commander of
the 12th TFW, the only F-4 wing in SEA that did not have an air-to-air mission.
Politics, I reckon.

>
>I wonder who the all-time jet ace is.  I know Major Walter Nowotny
>only had 8 in the Me 262 (total of 258), and I know that Leutnant
>Rudolf Rademacher had a total of 8 for the month of February 1945 in
>an Me 262.  Col Toon of the NVAF was reputed to have had 17 total
>during Vietnam...


Never seen any OFFICIAL tally that beats McConnell's 16, but there are a
couple of legends around about some better.  There was supposedly a honcho
MiG-15 driver in Korea who racked up a couple of dozen kills.  He was
variously reported to be North Korean, Chinese, and Russian.  Col Tomb is
another subject of varying reports, with kill totals ranging from 13 to 17,
with 13 being the more prevalent number.  There are also some who claim that
Tomb never existed.

One more rather fascinating rumor is that McConnell, Jabara, Fernandez, et al,
may have bagged significantly higher numbers than officially reported.
Remember the line from "Top Gun" when Viper tells Maverick that there are
some things that you don't hear about when they occur on the wrong side of
some line on a map?

TH
Xref: sparky rec.aviation.military:1714 rec.aviation.owning:359
From: janm@Aten.docs.uu.se (Jan Mattsson)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.owning
Subject: Re: In search of information about MiG ownership
Date: 9 Jan 93 11:41:22 GMT
Reply-To: janm@bern.docs.uu.se
Organization: Uppsala University
NNTP-Posting-Host: aten.docs.uu.se
Organisation: Dept. of Comp. Syst., Uppsala University, Sweden

aboyd@quantum.qnx.com (Andrew Boyd) writes:


>Dunno how hard it is to get MIG-17 engine parts.  I believe
>at least some of the russian migs cloned western engines.

>Specifically, during the cold war, the british incomprehensibly
>handed over state-of-the-art plans and engines to the russians,
>which seems unbelievable (refs avail), but might work to your 
>favour.

The Rolls-Royce Nene, if memory serves. A copy was used in the MiG-15.
I think this was just after WWII had ended, before the Cold War had
really started.
--
Jan Mattsson, CS student, Uppsala University, Sweden
janm@minsk.docs.uu.se
From: urf@icl.se (Urban F)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Lower drag with external tanks (Was: Re: F-15E Performance)
Date: 9 Jan 93 19:25:03 GMT
Organization: None. On USENET I speak only for myself.
X-Alt.reply-Address: n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk

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

[on the F-15]
>"Not only didn't the addition of the FAST packs increase drag, it actually
>REDUCED the parasite drag from the airframe!"...

Not the first time that happened. The external tank on our
Saab Lansens also reduced drag, surprising some. It's shaped
like a half teardrop stuck on the underbelly. (And it will
come off if you fly to low, but after that happened they
made "no flying below 10 m over the sea" a rule. It's
actually been raised to 20 m now.)
--
 Urban Fredriksson  urf@icl.se
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: P51s are Shiny Metal
Date: 11 Jan 1993 08:46:07 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


>What is SOP today for Mach 1.5+ aircraft?

Navy aircraft (max mach is another subject) are "tactical grey" for the most
part.  This paint feels slightly rough to the touch.

Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions,
go and get your own."

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: wardml@rtsg.mot.com (Matthew L. Ward)
Subject: Greatest Ace
Summary: The Greatest Ace of all time (so far)
Keywords: Aces, Kill records
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: global
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:00:24 GMT


I think the greatest fighter pilot of all time was Hans Joachim Marseille, a German
WWII ace with 155 kills.  My reasoning is simple;

1) All 155 kills were of fighter aircraft, with trained British pilots who knew
what they were doing.  Unlike the Eastern front Aces, Hans had competent opponents.

2) All 155 kills were made while flying a Stuka Dive Bomber.  Using the Stuka's
fantastic dive rate, Hans would dive head-on at his target for a frontal attack.
The Stukas firepower was thus directed at the unarmored front of the cockpit.

A true innovator and tactician, Hans found a method and used it.  He was never shot
down. By using a dive bomber against fighters he found a soft spot and took full
advantage of it. 


mlw
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: Questions about AMRAAM, AAAM and F-14
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:30:51 GMT

In article <1icvt7INNbvl@cc.tut.fi> l115130@cc.tut.fi (Lehtonen Tero) writes:

>  Now, when the AMRAAM was for the first time used in combat to bring
>down that Iraqi mig, a couple of questions entered my mind. First of all, does
>anybody have any idea about the actual status of AMRAAM? I mean, is it already
>in full scale production and/or service? The latest information I've seen is
>already a couple of years old and says that AMRAAM-program is in severe
>trouble (delays, rocketing costs, lacking the required performance etc),but
>what's the current situation? Also, many sources have claimed the AMRAAM to
>have a range of mere 50 klicks against the 100 klick range of AIM-7F. Is this
>correct or not?

I have not been able to confirm that an AMRAAM was used.  first of
all, Block 50 F-16 Falcons are not equiped to use Sparrows (AIM-7s)
much less the AIM-120 AMRAAM.  Last I had heard, there were only two
F-16s fitted to carry Sparrows or AMRAAMs, and I thought I heard (from
the F-16 Combined Test Force down the road here) that they were
dismantled (possible rumor).  Anyway, the AMRAAM is supposed to have a
max range of about 60 miles or so, the Sparrow was something like 20
miles.  Published numbers for the Phoenix (AIM-54) is 54 miles, but
the Navy has conducted hits on drones at ranges as high as 120 miles.
The venerable Sidewinder (AIM-9) is supposed to work out to about 10
miles, though it is usually used closer in (more than gun range but
too close for a Sparrow), like 0.5 to 5 miles.

I hope to hear an accurate account of the F-16/MiG encounter (was
probably a Su-22 or something...).  We'll soon see...

--
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: pdills@staff.tc.umn.edu (Peter in Amiland)
Subject: Re: Aircraft beauty: B-17
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:49:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.193629.29335@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mhoza@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael J Hoza) writes:
>In article <Bzn1uD.9GM@mtholyoke.edu> pscotto@MtHolyoke.edu (Peter J. Scotto) w
>rites:
>>
>>Am I the only one who thinks the B-17 was a great looking
>>aircraft?  And I'm talking all the versions too - from the
>>deco 17B with the teardrop side windows to the classic E's
>>and F's with the redesigned empannage. I'll admit that the
>>chin turret on the G version spoils the lines a bit, still
>>I'm sure the crews appreciated them.

Aaahhhh.. Finally a thread about the very plane my heart belongs to! :-)

Speaking from the point of view of someone who is involved in the 
restoration of such a bird, IT'S SIMPLY AN INCREDIBLE AIRCRAFT. By saying
"it's", I mean all of them. Starting from the first Model 299 to the last
factory made B-17G.

If anyone is interested in an interesting article I recently found in a 
Warbird Magazine, concerning B-17s, please let me know. It is VERY
interesting, talks mainly about the B-17's many different forms, etc.
I would be glad to post it. 

...

>
>I have not yet had anything to add to this newsgroup, but as  this is in the 
>realm
>of the purely subjective, I would like to add a strongly agree here.  I have
>been to quite a few airshows and I am more and more impressed the "beauty" of
>the B-17.  It is a rather multifaceted, but well integrated design and I 

Again, I TOTALLY AGREE! The B-17 is 'to me' the most beautiful Bomber ever
built.

>especially like the looks of the thick wing from the front and feel that the 
>later tail is very graceful.  (especially when compared to British heavy 
>bombers of the era).  Still looks like the "Queen of the Skys" to me.
>
>M Hoza

Peter

*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*  pdills@epx.cis.umn.edu (Internet, immer/always) Walter Computer Lab Mngr *
*  pdills@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Internet, immer/always) Consultant EE/CSCI *
*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*
From: urf@icl.se (Urban F)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Rafale M, Jaguar M
Date: 2 Jan 93 19:27:03 GMT
Organization: None. On USENET I speak only for myself.
X-Alt.reply-Address: n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk

The Rafale M prototype has now completed its first series of 
carrier tests (on land) in USA, consisting of 45 launches, 58 
arrests but only 15 flights. Just to give you an idea of what 
proportion of launches and arrests that are made at sub-flight 
speeds during development.

As a data point regarding the different tailhook strenghts of 
land- vs carrierbased aircraft, the Jaguar M prototype had its 
stressed for 5.5G, other Jaguars are stressed only for 2.0G.
--
 Urban Fredriksson  urf@icl.se  
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: Ben Burch <Burch_Ben@wes.mot.com>
Subject: Re: Greatest Ace
Organization: Motorola, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 07:53:40 GMT
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A77829AC1103B081@ben_burch.pb.wes.mot.com>
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
X-Xxdate: Tue, 12 Jan 93 01:54:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.001608.3226@rational.com> Mark Miller,
msmiller@Rational.COM writes:
> Maybe you're thinking of Rudel who had some insane number of missions
> in the Stuka over Russia. Sank a battleship too I think.

Yes, Rudel sank the Russian battleship Marat in Riga harbor with a
single 500 lb. bomb.  He did flame a large number of aircraft,
including a Soviet ace.  (I forget his name) Also a large number of
IL-4 bombers.  He had over 500 tank kills.  He did not make all of
his kills in the JU-87, though.  He moved on to the FW-190 late in
the war.  He ran the Luftwaffe for the last several months of the
war.  His last combat mission was done with one amputated leg, one
in a cast, a broken arm, and a high fever.  He just didn't know when
to stand down.

-Ben
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter)
Subject: Re: THE A-10
Organization: Bull HN Informations Systems Inc.
Date:  5 Jan 93 21:31:13 GMT

kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki) writes:

>In article <1485.417.uupcb@the-matrix.com> rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins)  writes:

>>But on the other hand, you could probably build a couple of squadrons of
>>P-47s or comparable types for the cost of one A-10. "Quantity has a
>>Quality all it's own." and a weapon droped from a P-47 destroys a target
>>just as effectively as one launched from an A-10.
>>

>Remember that there are two parts to a weapon.  The weapon itself
>and the fire control system.  I don't think you can get those systems
>in a P-47 and thus make the statement "destroys a target just as
>effectively as one launched from an A-10".  I'm thinking of Mavericks
>and Hellfire missiles.

>Then there is total cost vs individual platform cost.  Total cost
>includes servicing, training, logistics, etc.  My guess is that
>overall, the initial procurement cost is not as big a factor as
>we make it to be.

Indeed.  One of the biggest problems with this approach is training
enough pilots to man all these aircraft.  The current training cycle 
takes more than a year, and costs a great deal of money, to turn out
one pilot.  If you look at needing, say, 10 P-47s to deliver the same
amount of ordnance as one A-10, the pilot training cost gets very high
very fast.
-- 
Roger Ritter N1FZZ (R.Ritter@ma30.bull.com) PP-ASEL, AGI
1946 Luscombe 8A N71983 "Rocky"
Sheep do not so much fly as plummet!        NH CAP: Profile 49

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: F-22 Question
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
	<yy4r5pr@dixie.com> <1ivb9pINN851@bigboote.WPI.EDU>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 23:26:38 GMT

In article <1ivb9pINN851@bigboote.WPI.EDU> megazone@banzai.WPI.EDU (MegaZone) writes:

>>>The other YF-22 was already rendered non-airworthy by use in ground testing.

>> Right conclusion, wrong reason.

>The other airframe was used in ground testing, at least that's all I've ever
>heard of it being used for after the initial flight tests were done. 

Actually, there were four YF-22 airframes.  The two different engines
resulted in different engine bay configurations (the engines were not
interchangable) and structures in this area.  But the two GE engined
configuration aircraft were already dismantled after the selections
process was complete.  There were rumors that we (NASA) would get the
GE YF-22, but then the Air Force offered to let us have the P&W YF-22
and we (of course) popped for that one.  We didn't think we'd lose it.

Oddly enough, the history of prototypes being lost is getting to be a
pretty much forgone conclusion.  The Have Blue prototype, the F-14,
the YF-22, many of the Kestrels...
--
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: zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin)
Subject: Re: Ar-234's disapearing guns.
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:23:15 GMT


I checked my references:

The Ar-234 did indeed have two rearward-firing, fixed, MG 151 20mm guns
sighted with a periscope.  I guess they figured that anything else in the
air would be behind the Blitz - a valid assumption!

The Blitz was quite a remarkable aircraft, used on on all fronts in the
closing months of the war.  It had a pressurized cabin and ejection seat
and could outrun just about anything.  Operations against England began
in September, '44.  One of the most significant accomplishments was
the destruction of the Rhine bridges at Remagen by Blitzes of III/KG-76
in March, '45.

In my previous post I mentioned the Do-17... actually it was the development
of the Do-17, the Do-217, which also had "scare" guns.  Specifically the
Do-17-k-2 had four MG 81 7.95mm machine guns fixed in the tail and could have
two more fixed in the belly, all fired by the pilot.  I suppose this
covered a defensive blind spot, but aiming the bomber to get a shot would
give the attacking fighter a zero deflection shot, a decided advantage for
the fighter.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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   ========================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: wardml@rtsg.mot.com (Matthew L. Ward)
Subject: Soviet Shuttle Interceptor
Summary: Looking for information on Soviet Space Interceptor 
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: global
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:17:27 GMT

I am lokking for information on a Soviet interceptor.  I saw an article in an old
issue of AW&ST on a special interceptor designed to kill the shuttle or NASP.
This plane set several altitude records.

Does anybody have any more information on this plane ?


**********************************************************************************
*Matthew Ward, formerly McDonnell Douglas F-15E program                          *
*            , formerly General Dynamics F-16A/B program                         *
**********************************************************************************
*"A system that contains with in its workings the slightest possiblity for human *
*error will, inevitably, during the life of the system, fail from that error"    *
*										 *
* 			-- David Murphy, of Hughes AeroSpace 1956 A.D.           *
*                                  The Creator of Murphy's Law                   *
**********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: hagood@sabre.den.mmc.com (Dave Hagood)
Subject: RE: WAS RADAR'S IMPACT ON
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:54:15 GMT

In article <1570.417.uupcb@the-matrix.com>, rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) writes:
|> I would have to disagree. If the Luftwaffe had destroyed the RAF they
|> would have had free reign in the channel and the Royal Nazy would have
|> had great difficulty operating at all. As we discovered in the Pacific
|> warships are quite vulnerable to aircraft. I suspect the Luftwaffe could
|> have neutralized the Royal Navy if they had Air Supremacy. It is even
|> possible that the German surface Navy could have been brought into play.
|> With continuous air cover the German capital ships could have moved
|> fairly easily.
|>                                         Rocky
|>                                                                                                                      

	I have to disagree with your disagreement.  If the Luftwaffe had
destroyed the RAF they would have had air superiority.  Air superiority does
not automatically imply control of the channel.  Destroyers and cruisers, using
wakes along, could have caused catastrophic casualties among the German invasion
forces.  The Germans had to have control of the channel to invade England.

	It should be noted the the Repulse and the Prince of Wales were sunk
in broad daylight, and had no other escorts with them.  Two ships sunk in good
conditions does not extrapolate to sinking hundreds of ships in the dark.

	This would make an interesting war game, wouldn't it?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
									|
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