HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thumper@engin.umich.edu (Bob Topping)
Subject: Re: Reason for Retirement (was Re: SR-71 Blackbird)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 13:48:47 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1dt211INNl3n@bigboote.WPI.EDU> megazone@realsoon.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23) writes:
>In article <g!C=#0#@engin.umich.edu> thumper@engin.umich.edu (Bob Topping) writes:
>>  That would be the KC-135Q tanker, which could carry the fuel.  I
>>  believe, but I'm not positive, that it was very corrosive, which
>>  was one of the reasons for the special variant.
>
>Actually JP-7 is one of the least reactive of all the JP's out there. The SR-71
>leaks like a sieve and ground crew get soaked regularly. Talking to some at
>Oshkosh a few years back they said JP-7 isn't as bad as gasoline to get on 
>your skin. Just wash it off when you get around to it. 
>
>Of course as has been said, you can put out a fire with JP-7, the Blackbird 
>used TEB to ignite it.
>
  And so, I stand corrected.  Thanks!  :)



-- 
@ "Our lives are better left to chance; +       PLEASE E-Mail to:           @
@  I could have missed the pain, but    +  bob.topping@um.cc.umich.edu      @
@  I'd have had to miss the dance."     +  phy_astrclub@emunix.emich.edu    @
@       -- Garth Brooks, The Dance.     +     ** RETURN OUR HURON! **       @
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Subject: Re: Mystery B-58
Keywords: Mystery B-58
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:37:47 GMT

colangel@rebecca.JSC.NASA.GOV (Michael Colangelo/MDSSC) writes:

>Well folks, here is the latest and greatest on that mysterious B-58 in Galveston, TX.

>I visited the fine folks at the Lone Star Flight Museum last saturday and found
>out that the B-58 there is no longer parked outside of the museum.  It is now parked inside
>there newest hangar on display while undergoing restoration. 

>The plane is a TB-58A, which is a trainer version of the Hustler.  It's serial number is
>55-0668.  It is one of six TB-58As built.  Honestly, I could not tell the difference 
>between this TB-58 and a regular B-58.  I'm sure there are some differences, but I don't

	Yes - you'll see LOTS of extra windows up front to improve visibility.

	Hmmmm....Miller's Aerofax originally had this one at Southwest 
Aerospace museum in Forth Worth.  Wonder if it was just never reassembled there
or what happened.

	The TB58A, BTW, was the trainer version of the Hustler.  I don't
have my B58 book in front of me, but I believe that the two pilot positions
were offset left and right to allow the rear-seater some forward visibility.

	All of the birds in the 55-66x block started life essentially as
YB58's, more or less service test aircraft.  They had no tail guns and
may have been missing some other goodies as well.  I think all the TB58's
were converted from YB58's; 668 is no exception to this.  Miller's
listing indicates that 668 was the last Hustler assigned to the 43rd
Bomb Wing at Little Rock AFB.

	Converted to TB58's were 661, 662, 663, 668, (669 was scheduled
for conversion but was lost before that) 670, 671, 672, 58-1007.

	661 went to the 305th BW here in Indiana at Grissom AFB (used to
be Bunker Hill AFB) as did 662, 663 and maybe 672.  668 went to the 43rd
BW in Little Rock, Arkansas along with 670, 671 and 58-1007.

>claim to be an expert on this particular type of aircraft.  It also had that big external
> pod mounted underneath the centerline.  I was also told that it is on loan to the museum
> from the USAF.  It came from Carswell, AFB in Ft. Worth, TX.

>Another interesting tidbit of info on this plane:  the museum had to disassemble it at Carswell

	Ahhh...now I get an idea of what happened.  Originally it was flown
to Davis-Monthan AFB (the boneyard) on 1/16/70 for scrapping but was saved.
Miller's book says it was transported via C5A Galaxy (no doubt in
pieces) to Southwest Aerospace Museum in Fort Worth.  So now it has been
trucked from Fort Worth to its new home.  Interesting.

	I hope they do a good job of putting her back together - we will
be one more Hustler to the good!  :-)

Duane
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: restored warbirds (was: Mystery B-58)
Date: 13 Nov 1992 08:33:52 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


In article <1992Nov12.181400.15710@news2.cis.umn.edu>,
"Robert J. Granvin" <rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu> writes:

>By the way, there are practically no warbirds flying with anything better
>than a Limited certificate.

I don't have the FAR's in fromt of me.  Can a limited cert airplane be used
commercially?  How do companies that sell time in their restored airplanes
work?

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: watk@cbnews.cb.att.com (e.l.watkins)
Subject: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:54:51 GMT

In article <lg5b6rINNrtl@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes:
>
>
>In article <194@newave.newave.mn.org> john@newave.newave.mn.org 
>(John A. Weeks III) writes:
>
>>The Streak Eagle itself sits in front of the USAF Museum in Dayton Ohio,
>>flanked by a B-1A and a Warthog (not bad company, but it would be nice 
>>if they had room inside for this historic aircraft).
>
>
>Given their cost and the presumed need for them in squadron service, it
>surprises me that so many examples of current frontline aircraft are in
>museums.  The B-1A is a test article, of course, and was probably not easily
>modifiable to the operational B-1B configuration.  But the A-10 mentioned
>above is an example of an airframe that I'd have thought would be needed
>out in the field, as is the USAF Museum's F-117A.  Sounds like a waste
>of assets to put such aircraft on display while the types they represent
>are still in active service.
>
>Until I read this, I'd always assumed that the Streak Eagle was returned 
>to a standard configuration and passed along anonymously to a squadron
>as just another F-15.  After all, I take it that this wasn't an extra 
>airframe built for the sole purpose of breaking performance records, but 
>an airplane diverted from the regular production run.
>
>
>Geoff
>
>
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
>geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM  + + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
>-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
>


The Streak Eagle was 1 of many pre-production Eagles built for testing
and training. The same goes for the A-10 at the Air Force Museum.
Its also true for the Navy's Blue Angels, they fly pre-production F/A-18s.
-earl
From: bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: OV10A BRONCO
Date: 6 Nov 92 07:54:52 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

johnm@hpmcaa.mcm.hp.com (John Mosbarger) writes:
> Derek H Cedillo (cid@athena.mit.edu) wrote:
> : glt@rigel.genrad.com (Geoff L. Templeton) writes:
> : >I am looking for information on the 0V10A Bronco.  I saw one
> : [...]
> :
> : the bronco is a low-level prop driven aircraft used mostly for
> : observation and reconnaissance aircraft.
> : It has photo reconn capablilities with IR target acquisition
> : system and laser designator.
> : Has pretty good supression fire and is pretty quick as far
> : as its size is concerned.  Of course its no F23.

>      Both the Marines and Air Force used them in Vietnam, and in some Desert
> Storm videos, they were sitting in the background.  They always reminded me
> of a mutated P-38 with the cockpit of a Huey Cobra.  Unfortunately I don't
> have any data on them, but I believe their top speed was less than 300mph.
> They have counter-rotating turboprops, and practically leap into the air.
> The Marine versions in Vietnam had a weapons pod slung underneath the cock-
> pit, and were painted green, whereas the Air Force version was green with a
> light grey wing.  Coincidentally, I was watching some Super8 movies the other
> night I shot at Da Nang in 1970 of the endless parade of a/c landing and
> taking off (just wish I had taken more :-().

        Just a small note. One of my naval references says that the OV10A
can be operated from the Tarawa and Wasp class assault ships (these ships
don't have aircraft catapults). Whether this is a standard practice is
another matter, but it apparently can be done.

           Bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au  OR  bull@monu1.cc.monash.oz
                    DOD# 251  '84 VF 750   Closet Ducatisto
             Disclaimer. If you love your llama, let it lambada.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu (Michael Joseph Edelman)
Subject: Re: Missile types (was Re: TR-3a)
Reply-To: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu
Organization: Wayne State University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:48:13 GMT

In article G4@cen.ex.ac.uk, nyo@dcs.exeter.ac.uk (Neil Youngman) writes:
> In article <lg5a4eINNrsf@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes:
> 
>    What's a "semi-active" missile?  Does this mean that it's controlled from
>    the aircraft that fired it?
> 
> Active missiles use active sensors eg. radar, which actively attempts to
> illuminate a target with radio signals.  Passive missiles use passive sensors,
> which passively listen for signals emitted by a target, eg. IR radiation.
> 
> Semi-active missiles are a hybrid, I think they use radar to acquire a 
> target and then use IR homing for the terminal phase (or the other way 
> round). 
> --
I believe the distinction is this: A fully active radar homing missile has a 
complete radar transmitter and receiver. A semi-active missile utilizes the radar return from a signal transmitted from the launch platform. There are various
combinations. A missile can have an initial guided or semi-active homing phase
and then switch over to a fully active terminal guidance phase. I believe the
Phoenix uses this system to acheive its multiple independant targeting 
capability. The Patriot has an initial guided phase, and then switches over to 
a semi-active terminal homing phase. 


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney)
Subject: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:53:34 GMT

Uh, the MiG-25 is more versatile?  It's slower, carries fewer and less
sophisticated sensors, has a tiny fraction of the range of the SR-71, and can't
even turn as well as the Blackbird.  Remember, the interceptor versions of the
MiG-25 are wholly different aircraft.  There are major structural alterations to
the nose (since that massive 600 kW radar is removed) and the electronics are
different since there is no fire control system or missile capability.
  At lest the SR-71 was always capable of acting as a strategic bomber -- no need
fo accuracy with a 1 Mt bomb!

				E
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin)
Subject: Re: Mystery B-58
Keywords: Mystery B-58
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:08:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.032216.15273@u.washington.edu>, strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (Randy Haskin) writes:
|> 
|> It is one of six TB-58As built.  Honestly, I could not tell the differ
|> ence between this TB-58 and a regular B-58.
|> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
|> 
|> In all actuality, there's probably no difference, with the exception that 
|> there is a revised I.D. placard, and when in operation, the bombing 
|> mechanisms were probably removed.  For the most part, when converting to a 
|> "training" designation, all that is re|> quired is paperwork.  For 
|> instance, the CAF's B-29 "FIFI" ioks actually a TB-29, but there was 
|> really no difference, with the exception that it was located stateside in 
|> a strictly training unit.

But if you're going to fly the restoration, that "T" can REALLY cause
you fits.

The FAA has a list of "certifiable" warbirds.  It's one of those strange
things that are "carved in stone."  If your aircraft isn't on it, you
won't fly it.  Period, end of statement.

Ironically, the B-25J Mitchell is on the list, but the TB-25J isn't.
So, if you bought a B-25J, you can fly it.  But if you have a TB-25J
or RB-25J (B-25J converted to have a radar nose), you won't get it 
certified.  (At least I think I got the example right... :-)

Fortunately, at least in those cases, most TB-xx's were converted from
standard manufactured B-xx's.  (In most cases, there never were TB-xx's
built on purpose).  The "T" gets stamped by hand on the data plate after
the training unit takes possession.  

Through FAA regs, you can always restore an aircraft to it's original
configuration and therefore change the data plate _back_.  To convert
a TB-xx back to a B-xx, one option is to put fake guns on it.  :-)  
Then with FAA approval, you can stamp an "X" over the "T", and you no 
longer have a TB-xx, and you can fly it.  (This is not true for all
warbirds or aircraft - it all depends on what's on The List (tm)).

Government is weird.

-- 
Robert J. Granvin                                       School of Statistics
rjg@stat.umn.edu                                     University of Minnesota
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney)
Subject: Re: TR-3a
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:28:25 GMT

ACM production was terminated by USAF at very oow levels (100-) due to failure to
meet performance specs.  The program was both technically ambitious and highly
concurrent, a formula for diasaster.  With the fall of the Soviet Union, AF
concluded there just wasn't any call for a new strategic weapon.  ACM was a nuke
only weapon -- too expensive and too tech sensitive to be used for conventional
strikes.  Throwaway Tomahawks are a much better option for things like Desert
Storm.
From: bills@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bill Standerfer)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 15:54:44 GMT
Subject: Re: SR-71 Altitude (Was Re: B-58 Hustler)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military

In article <lfdo25INNckn@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM
(Geoff Miller) writes:
> [...]
>
>As for the retraction of the nose gear, it's been awhile since I  saw a
>photograph of a B-58, so I don't know what to tell you.  I thought the
>strut retracted forward, but if not, maybe it had a double hinge design
>that permitted it to fold to more or less half of its extended length as 
>it retracted.

From the distant memories of a model of the beast from the late 50's, I
believe the nose gear retracts forward, with the top of the strut moving
rearward in the process.  When extended, I believe the strut extends from near
the middle of the nose gear well.

Bill Standerfer
From: nyo@dcs.exeter.ac.uk (Neil Youngman)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Spitfires
Date: 9 Nov 92 10:35:37 GMT
	<1992Nov6.211258.7498@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Organization: Computer Science Dept. - University of Exeter. UK

In article <1992Nov6.211258.7498@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) writes:

   One I recall which was real interesting was "Song of a Merlin", sorry
   don't remember the author.  Jeffrey Quill by the way was the
   Supermarine chief test pilot and got to fly every single variation. 

I think this is probably "Sigh For A Merlin". Sorry I can't remember
the author's name either.

Neil Youngman
--
Eighteen Plus - THE NATIONAL ACTIVITIES ORGANISATION FOR YOUNG ADULTS
		For your nearest group ring 0531 821210 (UK)
This message the sole responsibility of Neil Youngman
nyo@uk.ac.ex.dcs		nyo@ex-dcs.uucp
From: john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25
Date: 12 Nov 92 03:50:00 GMT
Organization: Newave Communications, Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN

In <1992Nov11.005125.1@wharton.upenn.edu> shtono34@wharton.upenn.edu writes:
> I have heard the rate of climb world record still belongs to 
> MIG-25, I am not sure about the speed record. May be someone
> could help...

Most (if not all) of the MiG-25 "time to climb" records were broken
by the "Streak Eagle", a specially modified F-15.  The USAF started
with an unpainted F-15, then stripped it of unneeded equipment to
reduce its weigth.  The records established by the Streak Eagle still
stand today.  There is a very good "Wings" episode on the F-15 that
spends about 5 minutes on the F-15 record attempts.  The Streak Eagle
itself sits in front of the USAF Museum in Dayton Ohio, flanked by
a B-1A and a Warthog (not bad company, but it would be nice if they
had room inside for this historic aircraft).

-john-

-- 
==============================================================================
John A. Weeks III		(612) 942-6969		    john@newave.mn.org
Newave Communications, Ltd.			    ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john
From: unregistered@newcastle.ac.uk (Jim Armstrong)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Bomber.gifs
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:36:16 GMT
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Organization: DCSC Newcastle



Like Weize Wade Xiong, I am interested in getting hold of gifs, PICTS
or jpegs of aircraft, in my case bombers, especially WWII RAF and
German ones. I am currently experimenting at colouring in old black
and white photographs using camouflage details and palettes from
geneuine colour photos.

Anyone out there got any to post.

															JIMBO
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Subject: Re: Reason for Retirement (was Re: SR-71 Blackbird)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:25:30 GMT

cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo) writes:

>I was wondering about putting the SR-71 on the shelf.
>Seems to me it is one of the most fantastic aircraft of
>all time.  I realize it may be a bit obsolete with
>sattelite recon, but sat's are limited by the ability
>to come around orbit every so often.  So even though
>the sats can do the same job, they seem much more
>limited.  For instance, the "spyee" may know when 
>the sats come by, so they can alter things or 
>whatever for the recon photos.  Sure, sats can be changed
>but they are still limited.

>Shouldn't the SR-71 be kept for these reasons?
>Is it much to expensive?  I find it hard to accept it being
>out of date, its still a hell of a soph aircraft for
>its age.  Can any one shed some light on this?
>Maybe I'm just naive, or not well enough informed.
>Thanks in advance...


	Well, if you have or are building a better aircraft, you usually
do retire the predecessor.  Anyone seen any good Aurorae lately?   :-)

Duane

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: rmiller@i88.isc.com (Richard J. Miller)
Subject: Re: SR-71 Altitude (Was Re: B-58 Hustler)
Organization: INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation, Naperville, IL
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 23:54:32 GMT

you know, that signature line is about as good a description of the way
most netters feel about the Blackbird as i've ever seen!

>< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
...
><  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
><   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >

officially, the bird had a service ceiling of 85,000 feet. everyone
"KNOWS" that it was higher than that, but, of course, the actual ceiling
is still classified (or is it?).

i had a Chicago Center controller once tell me that on a scope with a
250 mile diameter, he had seen 71's cross in one sweep. and then there
is the story of the one that flamed out over Washington state and
decided to head back to Edwards because he was still at 80,000.

and then ...

what we need to do is start collecting the "Blackbird stories", anybody
got a good site?

Rich Miller
ex-Schempp-Hirth Discus JBX and
From: scottwee@mercury.ksu.ksu.edu (Chuan Chun Wee)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: FSA application on the OV10 BRONCO
Date: 12 Nov 1992 13:47:14 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: mercury.ksu.ksu.edu


Does anyone out there know anything about FSA application to the OV10 
BRONCOs??? 

scottwee@ksuvm.ksu.edu
scottwee@matt.ksu.edu

Dept of Chemical Engineering, KSU
From: gunter@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Mystery B-58
Date: 13 Nov 1992 09:35:59 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: tartarus.uwa.edu.au
Keywords: Mystery B-58

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

>So, if you bought a B-25J, you can fly it.  But if you have a TB-25J
>or RB-25J (B-25J converted to have a radar nose), you won't get it 
>certified.  (At least I think I got the example right... :-)

I've never heard or seen references to an RB-25 before, are you sure such a
plane ever existed? Do you have a reference or was the above stipulated?
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Spitfires
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:53:06 GMT
 <1992Nov6.211258.7498@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> <BxG2rD.4x3@cen.ex.ac.uk> 
  <BxHt8L.GAK@cen.ex.ac.uk>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <BxHt8L.GAK@cen.ex.ac.uk>
nyo@dcs.exeter.ac.uk (Neil Youngman) writes:

> "Sigh for a Merlin" was by Alex Henshaw. I believe he was chief test pilot for
> Supermarine's Castle Bromwich factory.

This sounds right, sorry for the wrong title initially.

Corky Scott
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military