HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Aurora
Date: 25 Dec 92 02:45:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <6885@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca>, gee@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Thomas Gee) writes...
>In article <BzoHFs.95v@acsu.buffalo.edu> v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes:
>>
>>A: One, the pilot must wear a an astronauts space suit to prevent his blood
>>from evaporating and his skin from flaking off. 
>Nonsense.
>Your blood does not boil at altitude, nor does your skin flake off (at
>least, no more quickly than at sea level.)  Your blood does not boil
>because it is under considerable pressure within your body (and that
>pressure does not change markedly under decreased ambient levels).
>Although some of the moisture in your skin must boil off, it doesn't take
>your skin with it.  (I can attest to this through personal experience,
>having been exposed to 72,000 feet altitude for a minute or so in an
>almost shirt-sleeve environment.)  If you mean that your skin would flake
>off because of windblast, well, perhaps.  I don't know.

To wit I respond:

Ascent ----> Reduction in  -------> Decompression Sickness
         |   total pressure   |
         |                    |---> Ebullism
         |                    |---> Effects of gas contained w/in
         |                          body cavities                   <-|
         |                                                            |
         |-> Reduction of  -------> Hypoxia                           |
         |   part'l O2 prssr                                          |
         |                                                            |
         |-> Reduction in  -------> Cold injury                       | 
	 |   temperature                                              |
                                                                      |
Descent  --> Increase in total O2 pressure  --------------------------|

     Hypoxia symptoms increase rapidly over 45,000'. Consciousness is lost in
abt. 20 seconds, and death occures abt 4 minutes later.... Gases obey Boyles'
law, and as such cause such trouble as the bends and the like. As pressure is
lost, boiling points fall and at 100,000 feet the lack of pressure combined 
with lack of moisture will cause liquids to boil and evaporate instantly. 
(In Antarctica, if you take a cup of coffee outdoors, it will evaporate
immediately leaving a dry cup.)

>>Two, no seat / spacesuit could survive the "windblast" at altitude and speed.

[Paragraph commenting on this accidentally deleted and was unrecoverable. 
 however, dealt with pressure at 90,000' and comparing it to 600 kt windblast
 at sea level]

Well, good point about pressure, but pressure is not a factor in this 
situation. Air density is, however, and there is enough air at 100,000 + feet
to turn the SR-71 a dull red due to friction induced heating. 

***

Does anyone have the SR-71 pilot's manual? What does it say about personell
survival and ejection? I cant afford a $100 book at thi time. :-)

Merry Christmas to all, 

Peter Vasilion
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: mtissand@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael D Tissandier)
Subject: Re: Air missions in Viet Nam (was: Re: A10 Re: AF career types)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:27:27 GMT

In article <8054@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com writes:
>In article <105390@bu.edu> conan@northeastern.edu writes:
>>
>>"... although in Nam
>>the brass, whom everyone loves to criticize, had made things so safe for the
>>flyboys that some missions were milk runs. Same was more evident in the Gulf
>>conflict.
>>
>Well, I was only in the surface Navy, not in the air over Nam. I don't
>believe I have ever heard the term "milk run" applied to that situation in
>any broad sense. I would accept that there probably were individual
>missions that were undemanding.
>
>But in the gulf, we earned and soon got control of the air in a way that
>we never had
>in North Nam. Read "Thud Ridge" for a gripping, but sad account by an F-105
>jock that was there. The most revolting and shameful aspect of the story is
>the the way "the brass", acting for political expedience, vastly multiplied
>and extended the aircrew hazard to suicidal levels. This, too, was something
>we did not see in the Persian Gulf, thank God.

Speaking of "Thud Ridge," by Col. Jack Broughton, He wrote a great followup
to that book, "Going Downtown: The War Against Hanoi and Washington."  It
is a must read for those who want to see just how far that brass would go
for "political expediency."

Col. Broughton also make an appearence in Chuck Yeager's autobio.  Yeager
presided over the court-marshal for Broughton and 2 of his pilots.  If you want
to know the story without buying/reading the books, e-mail me and I'll
summarize.

On another subject, does anyone have a reference for GD's Kingfisher project?

  --Mike

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  He lied, I knew he lied and he knew I lied.  That was
  diplomacy.

        ---Admiral William Kimball

                  mtissand@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mckinney@athena.mit.edu (Ethan L Mckinney)
Subject: Re: Finnish Defense
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 05:32:58 GMT

Well, top speed can make a difference.  An Iraqi MiG-25 outran a Sidewinder that
was fired from astern.  They were down low, and the Sidewinder motor is just
boost, no sustain.  It can also make a difference in initial, head-on radar and
all-angle IR shots, because a higher speed for the firing airplane gives the
missile a little speed boost -- so it will hit before the other guy's (slow down
after firing!).

					E
From: suhler@pollux.usc.edu (Paul Suhler)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Escape systems (Was: Aurora )
Date: 25 Dec 1992 21:53:05 -0800
Organization: USC Advanced Computer Architecture Laboratory
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

In article <725223366snx@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz> mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell) writes:
>Didn't they have little rockets mounted on the nose of the crew 
>capsules to pull them up and away in case of trouble?

Mercury and Apollo had escape rockets, but not Gemini.
From: erudnick@claudius.pica.army.mil (Edward J. Rudnicki )
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Info needed on Pzl 24
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:17:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: U.S. Army  Armament Research Development & Engineering Center, Dover NJ
Originator: erudnick@claudius

Susan Stout writes:
#>J. W. R. Taylor's book is very general.

True, but it is fairly accessible, and gives pretty decent coverage
of the Polish aircraft. This when many WW2 aircraft references don't
even mention them.........



#There is an excellent article in Air Enthusiast #28, 1985:
#"The Era of the Gulls, an Account of the PULAWSKI fighters
#from the Pzl 1 to the Pzl 24".

Could you get me a copy of this? I'll cover copying and postage.
As I told the original poster, my main interest is in the Polish
Army of the interwar years, for personal reasons, but all of the
indigenous weapon designs are of interest.



#Also, Profile Publications #170, The PZL P-24, Profile Publications,
#Ltd., 1969.

Another title for the search list. Damn :)



#One P-24 still exists and is preserved at the TUAF museum at
#Yesilkoy Airport, Istanbul, Turkey.

Very glad to learn that one survives.



Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
Organisation: European Space Operation Centre (E.S.O.C)
Date: Tuesday, 22 Dec 1992 00:25:34 CET
From: <PHAMER@ESOC.BITNET>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Gulf War Losses

Tornados were used by the RAF and Italian airforce during the Gulf war, I
thought that about 6 were lost by the RAF and 2 were lost by the Italians.
Since the Tornado was used in airfield attack most RAF Tornandos were lost
to ground fire.

Of particular interest here is the tatics used by the RAF. Britain being
rather small and having a small military have developed tatics that rely
on point defence of the aircraft, i.e. each aircraft defends itself and
does not rely on area defence suppression as USAF formations do. Part of
this defence is flying very low and very fast (under 150ft AGL and in excess
of 480 knots), this means very little room for recovery when any problem
arises and not suprisingly many losses were reported as accidents even though
ground fire was the most likely cause.

Paul.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Gulf War Losses
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:50:19 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.194719.14577@cs.cornell.edu> khan@cs.cornell.edu (Taimur H. Khan) writes:
>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.
>

	Only one Tornado was actually hit during a JP233 run.  I would guess
	that the AAA formed a shell over the field and once through it you
	had a clean run.  Most of the hits were taken after the run was
	complete.  Aircraft that fly into the ground have a tendency to
	run into it now and again, this explains the accidents.  The tactics
	used during these raids were developped for the wooded, hilly regions
	of N. Europe and not for flat, sandy places (pauses to note that
	Iraq is named for a series of cliffs).

	Alec Chambers
From: urf@icl.se (Urban F)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RAF Tornado losses in the Gulf
Date: 19 Dec 92 19:33:05 GMT
Organization: None. On USENET I speak only for myself.
X-Alt.reply-Address: n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk

The RAF lost 8 Tornadoes during combat operations in Operation
Granby (the Gulf war).

One had to be abandoned, since after take-off the control system
refused to turn to the left, and if you only can turn to the
right, you can't land.

Six was lost during conventional bombing missions, mostly during
the high phase of loft bombing to keep down air defences.

Only one was lost on a JP 233 mission, and as far as we know, it
flew into the ground. This is a good result, as most missions
were part of combined packages, and if you're going to lay down
area denial mines on the runway you have to be the last one in,
so that the bombs from the others set them off.

As you can't take people who've been bombed for 10-20 min by
surprise, in my opinion it was their low level high speed tactics
that made JP 233 missions possible at all. They accelerated on
afterburner, turned it off so they wouldn't make as good targets
before they entered the airfield, climbed to reach the minimum JP
233 release altitude of 20 m and egressed often below 10 m.
--
 Urban Fredriksson  urf@icl.se  
 Asteroids: It's probably one we don't see that will get us.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: CAS: Fixed vs Rotary (was: The A-10)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 08:55:55 GMT

In <1992Dec22.210107.34743@watson.ibm.com> wjc@dss1.austin.ibm.com writes:

>I think you'll find that costs will rise astronomically when $10,000
>shoulder fired missiles start dropping a few $10,000,000 helicopters.
>Don't forget the cost in crew lives, either.

	Then why do we still have APC's running around when LAWs are so
popular, and helo's when Stingers are so cheap?  While I agree that the
loss of any machinery is never cheap, let alone the human losses, the
cost of production is going to be a factor that cannot be ignored.  It
is doubtful that there is any weapon system that cannot be defeated by
a cheaper weapon system.  Playing the odds and costs is all we're doing.
We still spend thousands training a man who can be killed with a $0.20
bullet, and hence I don't see cost as the absolute criterion.

>Americans have always been willing to trade treasure for lives. Are 
>you suggesting that we reverse this trend?

	Not at all.  I'm just after the most bang for the limited bucks
we have to spend.  There is little doubt defense will take a hit, and
since "jobs" is the operative word these days new production will be
hard to ignore.  A cheaper weapon system makes sense if it can survive,
and hence I'm just looking to see what is cheap, expedient, and reliable.
I'd never send a B-1 over Panama since it's a waste of resources.  Why
send an AH-64 or F-16 for CAS work?  Sure it could do it, but there has
to be a better solution in many cases, and I believe we can find one.

< 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: urf@icl.se (Urban F)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Yakovlevs: Flashlight/Firebar/Brewer
Date: 30 Dec 92 07:25:31 GMT
Organization: None. On USENET I speak only for myself.
X-Alt.reply-Address: n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk


First generation:
Yak-25	Flashlight A	Interceptor
Yak-25R	Flashlight B	Attack version
Yak-26	Mangrove	Tactical reconnaissance

Second generation, with details from both Yak-25 and Yak-25R:
Yak-27	Flashlight C	Interceptor
Yak-??	Mandrake	Strategic high-altitude reconnaissance

Third generation, with wings move up and other changes:
Yak-28	Firebar A, B, C	First thought to be interceptors, but 
			A and C were really bombers:
Yak-28P	Firebar		Interceptor
Yak-28	Brewer A, B, C	Bombers
Yak-28	Brewer D	Reconnaissance
Yak-28	Brewer E	Armed ECM

(Source: Bombers in service, Kenneth Munson)
--
 Urban Fredriksson  urf@icl.se
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:18:18 EST
From: <TLT101@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Aircraft beauty: B-17
 <1992Dec28.193629.29335@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>

Just my 2cents worth but I do like the looks of the B-17.
Really a great airplane, I'm still partial to the P-51, yeah I know,
little kids dream of being a ace fighter pilot in one but hey they
look good and sound great.

As for Modern day stuff I like the Mig-29.


Tim Thompson PPSEL   TLT101@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: American kill...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:51:02 GMT

In article <65510003@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates) writes:
>The nightly news reported the downed aircraft as MiG 23 (flogger) type.
>
>But then, the news screws up everything a lot of the time.

   Yes, it was a MIG Su-27 Foxbat equipped with twelve SS-20
air-to-air missiles.  The Iraqi aircraft was shot down by a Navy F-16
possibly flown from the USS Kitty Hawk, which fired an AMRAAM
heat-seeking missile from a range of 20 miles.

   Well, maybe they aren't _that_ bad.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jfb200@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (joseph.f.baugher)
Subject: Re: F-86 question...
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 21:18:14 GMT
Summary: McConnell was Number One.

In article <BOWERS.92Dec24111553@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov>, bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) writes:
> 
> Just who was the high scoring ace in F-86s?  I have seen info that
> says it was Major James Jabara (16.5) and other sources claim it was
> Captain Joseph McConnell (16).
> 
> Looking at it, I'd say Jabar is it, but why the controversy?
> 

According to Ray Wagner's book on the North American Sabre, Captain 
Joseph McConnell, Jr. was indeed the top-scoring Sabre ace of the 
Korean War with 16 kills.  Major James Jabara (the world's first 
jet-vs-jet ace) scored 15 kills to make him the second-highest scoring 
ace.  Major Jabara had been credited with 3 1/2 German planes 
destroyed in World War 2, and perhaps some lists are adding these 
planes to his total.  

Hope this helps.  


Joe Baugher			**************************************
AT&T Bell Laboratories		*  "Round up the usual suspects."    *
2000 North Naperville Road	**************************************
P. O. Box 3033
Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033		
(708) 713 4548				
ihlpl!jfb                     Who, me?  Speak for AT&T?  Surely you jest!	
jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: wjc@dss1.austin.ibm.com
Subject: Re: CAS: Fixed vs Rotary (was: The A-10)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 21:01:07 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: wjc@dss1.austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

In <viking.725007372@vincent2.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>	Given that we're facing budget cuts in the military, and yet
>are supposed to respond to these brushfire wars around the world, the
>cost criterion is probably going to gain in importance.  So, what do
>we get to use now?

I think you'll find that costs will rise astronomically when $10,000
shoulder fired missiles start dropping a few $10,000,000 helicopters.
Don't forget the cost in crew lives, either.

I would rather see us spend additional money on weapons systems if it
means that we no longer need to endager quite so many lives to 
accomplish a given goal. (N.B.: I make no argument defending the 
the military, political, or social value of any given "goal", or 
wether accomplishing said "goal" is worth the required cost in money 
or lives). 

Americans have always been willing to trade treasure for lives. Are 
you suggesting that we reverse this trend?

-------------
Bill Collum
wjc@dss1.austin.ibm.com
From: zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Dr. Strangelove)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: American kill...
Date: 30 Dec 1992 19:11:44 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <C032x3.ABC@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>In article <65510003@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates) writes:
>>The nightly news reported the downed aircraft as MiG 23 (flogger) type.
>>
>>But then, the news screws up everything a lot of the time.
>
>   Yes, it was a MIG Su-27 Foxbat equipped with twelve SS-20

 Well a Foxbat is a Mig-25.
 A Mig-27 is suppose to be a ground attack version of Mig-23.
 SU is a designation of a different aircraft company in Russia.

According to NY Times is was a Mig-25 Foxbat.
And the TV has has illustrations of Mig-21's,
and called it a Mig-23.


>air-to-air missiles.  The Iraqi aircraft was shot down by a Navy F-16

I kinda doubt it was a Navy F-16,seeing as they are for their Aggresor
squadrons.

>possibly flown from the USS Kitty Hawk, which fired an AMRAAM
>heat-seeking missile from a range of 20 miles.
>
>   Well, maybe they aren't _that_ bad.

Thanks to all those who replied, you pointed out where I
could get the info. Either way Saddam sure doesn't learn fast does he?

>-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
>Steve Creps, Indiana University
>creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu


-- 
 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.
From: jfb200@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (joseph.f.baugher)
Subject: Re: What happened to the Blackjack?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:57:32 GMT
Summary: Tupolev Tu 160
Keywords: none

In article <1hps63INN8a6@agate.berkeley.edu>, greg@perry.berkeley.edu (Greg Anderson) writes:
> 
> For some reason or another, I was wondering about this last night.  Does
> anyone out there know what ever happened to the (then-)Soviet "Blackjack"
> bomber?  As I vaguely recall, it was supposed to be a sort of super-Backfire,
> but I don't remember having heard much about it after about the late '80s.
> 
> Any thoughts, ideas, vague memories, etc.?

I think you may be referring to the Tupolev Tu 160 four-engined swing-wing
long-range strategic bomber.  It looks sort of like the Rockwell B-1B's big
brother, having much the same geometry but somewhat larger.

The NATO code name of this aircraft is *Blackjack*.  The aircraft is, in
fact, in squadron service with the Russian Air Force.  Some 55 are believed
to have been built by the end of 1992, against a total of 100 expected to
be on order.

Power is provided by four Kuznetsov NK-321 turbofans of 30,865 lb. st. each
(55,115 lb. st. with afterburning).  Maximum dash speed is Mach 1.9 
at 35,090 feet (1254 mph).  Maximum continuous speed is Mach 1.6 (1056 mph).
Maximum  unrefueled range is 7456 miles.  Maximum takeoff weight is 600,000
pounds.  There are two weapons bays with rotary dispensers capable of carrying
a total of 25,900 pounds of ordinance.  Loads can include a mix of cruise
missiles and short-range attack missiles.

Hope this helps.

Source:
  Observers Aircraft, William Green and Gordon Swanborough, Warne 1992.

Joe Baugher			**************************************
AT&T Bell Laboratories		*  "You see, something's going to    *
2000 North Naperville Road	*   happen.  Something wonderful!"   *
P. O. Box 3033			**************************************
Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033		
(708) 713 4548				
ihlpl!jfb                   Who, me?  Speak for AT&T?  Surely you jest!	
jfb200@cbnewsd.att.com
From: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Air missions in Viet Nam (was: Re: A10 Re:AF career types)
Date: 21 Dec 92 21:58:34 GMT
Reply-To: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <105390@bu.edu> conan@northeastern.edu writes:
> 
>"... although in Nam
>the brass, whom everyone loves to criticize, had made things so safe for the
>flyboys that some missions were milk runs. Same was more evident in the Gulf
>conflict.
> 
Well, I was only in the surface Navy, not in the air over Nam. I don't 
believe I have ever heard the term "milk run" applied to that situation in
any broad sense. I would accept that there probably were individual 
missions that were undemanding. 

But in the gulf, we earned and soon got control of the air in a way that 
we never had
in North Nam. Read "Thud Ridge" for a gripping, but sad account by an F-105
jock that was there. The most revolting and shameful aspect of the story is
the the way "the brass", acting for political expedience, vastly multiplied
and extended the aircrew hazard to suicidal levels. This, too, was something
we did not see in the Persian Gulf, thank God.