A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 16th 07, 04:54 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,us.military.army,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 72
Default VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION



Gordon wrote:
I can do better than that. ) I have the 3' long MiG 21 model from
the movie on a shelf over my desk. They only used one, set up among
mirrors to make it appear to be a small formation of jets. Watch them
bank in the movie - that formation is almost "magically" tight...


Speaking of being "magically tight", I once saw that model displayed up
on a wall in another movie...in a porn movie to be specific.
How and when exactly did you come into possession of it?

Neat model, lots of detail, however most of it is painted on.


That's what they used to say about Seka also.

Pat
  #12  
Old April 16th 07, 06:23 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,us.military.army,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Mike Kanze
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION

....And two holes' worth of smoke at that.

--
Mike Kanze

436 Greenbrier Road
Half Moon Bay, California 94019-2259
USA

650-726-7890

Mr. Johnson: "What's the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion?"
Evelyn: "Jail."

- The Elderberries (comic strip), 4/14/2007



"Bill Shatzer" wrote in message . ..
Mike wrote:
The F-14, F-15 MiG-29 and Su-27 series all look a LOT alike in motion
to most people. MiG-21 and the F-4 look virtually identical in
flight.


Nah, the F-4 is the one trailing copious amounts of smoke.

Cheers,
  #13  
Old April 16th 07, 07:32 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,us.military.army,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Gordon[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION

The man that built it donated it to the San Diego Aerospace Museum in
approximately 1982 -- I have a photo of myself with it in September
1983 in the library of the museum.

v/r
Gordon

Seka? Did you really just invoke the name of Seka?? You are talking
to a fan of KEISHA, a *real* woman!

  #14  
Old April 16th 07, 11:19 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,us.military.army,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
TJ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION

On 15 Apr, 17:00, "Mike" wrote:
The F-14, F-15 MiG-29 and Su-27 series all look a LOT alike in motion
to most people. MiG-21 and the F-4 look virtually identical in
flight.

OPEN THIS FILE AT HOME, NOT AT WORK!!!
MIKE

from Secrecy Newswww.fas.org

VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION (FOUO)
More than 160 U.S. and foreign military aircraft are catalogued in a
U.S. Army manual which describes their distinctive physical
characteristics in order to permit visual identification of the
aircraft in flight. The manual is nominally a restricted document,
marked "for official use only," and it has not been approved for
public release. But a copy was obtained by Secrecy News. Proper
identification of aircraft is obviously a matter of military
significance. Incorrectly identifying a friendly aircraft (such as an
F-15 Eagle) as an enemy aircraft (such as a MiG-29 Fulcrum) in wartime
"could cause fratricide," meaning the destruction of friendly
aircraft, the manual states. Conversely, incorrectly identifying an
enemy aircraft (a Su-24 Fencer) as a friendly one (such as a Tornado)
"might allow a hostile aircraft entry into, or safe passage through,
the defended area." On the other hand, mistaking one type of hostile
aircraft (a Su-17 Fitter) for another type of hostile aircraft (a
MiG-21 Fishbed) would generally have "no impact" -- except "if
friendly countries were flying some aircraft types that are normally
considered hostile." Likewise, mistaking one type of friendly aircraft
(an F-4 Phantom) for another (an A-4 Skyhawk) would normally not be a
great problem unless "a hostile country was using an aircraft type
that is normally considered friendly." The manual covers both well-
known and relatively obscure systems, but does not include classified
aircraft. Although an earlier edition of the manual was published
without access restrictions, the current edition (2006) was not
approved for public release. But as the government imposes publication
restrictions on an ever larger set of records, the control system
seems to be breaking down at the margins, permitting unauthorized
access with increasing frequency. In this case, contrary to the
restriction notice on the title page, the document does not reveal
sensitive "technical or operational information." See "Visual Aircraft
Recognition," U.S. Army Field Manual FM 3-01.80, January 2006 (413
pages in a very large 28 MB PDF file): http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-01-80.pdf


Who did the proof reading on that document. Some of the errors are
atrocious. I hope nobody was tested on 'user countries'

Jaguar

user countries

'Pakistan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, USA'

MiG-29 Fulcrum

User countries

'Bahrain, Belgium, Denmark, Egypt, Greece, Indonesia, Israel,
Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea,
Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Venezuela'

Same for the Mirage III/V and Orao user countries.

The imagery is generally good. The only glaringly obvious mistake was
that one of the images of the Su-15 Flagon is a J-8 Finback

Su-27 Flanker

User country

'Germany'

The old mistake of 'Tu-26' for Tu-22M

'TU-26 Backfire'

There is a lot of aircraft in that document that have retired or even
never entered service.

Yak-28
Su-15

They even have the Nimrod AEW3!

  #15  
Old April 16th 07, 12:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,us.military.army,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
qui si parla Campagnolo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION

On Apr 15, 1:14 pm, Bill Shatzer wrote:
Mike wrote:
The F-14, F-15 MiG-29 and Su-27 series all look a LOT alike in motion
to most people. MiG-21 and the F-4 look virtually identical in
flight.


Nah, the F-4 is the one trailing copious amounts of smoke.

Cheers,


Only the USAF ones...late models of USN had smokeless engines..flew
'em in VF-151-'S' model.

  #16  
Old April 16th 07, 12:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,us.military.army,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
John Carrier
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 85
Default VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION


"Gordon" wrote in message
ups.com...
Mistaking an F-4 for a Scooter or a MiG 21 is like mistaking an 18-
wheeler for a Hummer. Sure, a moron could do it.


Actually, an F-4 in planform at about 4-5 miles looks a lot like an A-4 at
3-4 miles. It's easy to VID when your looking at pictures in a book, not so
easy when the aircraft is near the limits of vision (sun position, clear sky
background or not, etc).

We altered the rules for an ACM derby a number of years back. A mistaken
VID and shot cost the shooters points. With a mixed F-5 / A-4 section (you
couldn't ask for more dissimilar aircraft), head-on VID ranges came down
from 3+ miles to less than a mile.

R / John


  #17  
Old April 16th 07, 02:42 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,us.military.army,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Ed Rasimus[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:14:56 -0700, Bill Shatzer
wrote:

Mike wrote:
The F-14, F-15 MiG-29 and Su-27 series all look a LOT alike in motion
to most people. MiG-21 and the F-4 look virtually identical in
flight.


Nah, the F-4 is the one trailing copious amounts of smoke.

Cheers,


Believe it or not, that was a huge advantage for us in SEA. It was a
quick clue whether or not a bogie was friendly. When you've got
numerical superiority you don't mind being visible and gaining a
little protection from an over-eager shooter.

But, the smoke pretty much went away from the F-4 fleet around 1980 as
I recall. The upgraded combustion section of the J-79 came around the
same time as the wrap-around camo pattern.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
  #18  
Old April 16th 07, 04:51 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,us.military.army,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
John[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION

On Apr 15, 3:06 pm, Ed Rasimus wrote:
On 15 Apr 2007 11:41:55 -0700, "Gordon"
wrote:

Mistaking an F-4 for a Scooter or a MiG 21 is like mistaking an 18-
wheeler for a Hummer. Sure, a moron could do it.


It's remarkably easy to mistake a Scooter for a MiG-21 from some
aspects. Been there, done that. Didn't shoot!

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com


Hey, hey, hey . . . just a minute . . . details, details, we want
details on this.

Seriously, I don't remember this particular war story. I am sure that
I am not the only one in the group would appreciate it if you could
tell us more about this experience.

Thanks and blue skies to all

John



  #19  
Old April 16th 07, 08:17 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,us.military.army,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Ed Rasimus[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION

On 16 Apr 2007 08:51:48 -0700, "John" wrote:

On Apr 15, 3:06 pm, Ed Rasimus wrote:
On 15 Apr 2007 11:41:55 -0700, "Gordon"
wrote:

Mistaking an F-4 for a Scooter or a MiG 21 is like mistaking an 18-
wheeler for a Hummer. Sure, a moron could do it.


It's remarkably easy to mistake a Scooter for a MiG-21 from some
aspects. Been there, done that. Didn't shoot!

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com


Hey, hey, hey . . . just a minute . . . details, details, we want
details on this.

Seriously, I don't remember this particular war story. I am sure that
I am not the only one in the group would appreciate it if you could
tell us more about this experience.

Thanks and blue skies to all

John


Stories that don't get told, are usually stories with not much to
tell. This one was simply a case of milling around over N. Vietnam and
finding myself directly below a suspicious silouhette--in those days,
the general rule that I followed was that you can't be too fast, and
you can almost never be too low.

Clearly defined black silhouette above of small aircraft with narrow
fuselage, fairly small delta wing and a distinct tail plane. All the
components of the MiG-21 silhouette. Single exhaust, no smoke.
Instantaneous analysis was enemy aircraft--three seconds later, the
bogie rolled and the humpbacked, stubby fuselage of an A-4 was clearly
indentifiable and my equally instantaneous analysis was "how could I
have ever thought it looked like a MiG?"

Fortunately the whole sequence took place too quickly for me to engage
mouth and broadcast my stupidity to the civilized (i.e. USAF) world.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
  #20  
Old April 17th 07, 11:42 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,us.military.army,sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION

A little aware of capabilities of both types, I don't think mistaking
Fishbed with Fitter would have "no impact" on the troops. Fighter
capabilities of Su-17 are poor, but MiG-21 cannot haul heavy air-to-
ground ordnance (like H-29 missile) or a nuclear bomb, though I don't
remember if the latter capability was well-advertised in the Warsaw
Pact forces...

Best regards,
Jacek

On the other hand, mistaking one type of hostile
aircraft (a Su-17 Fitter) for another type of hostile aircraft (a
MiG-21 Fishbed) would generally have "no impact" -- except "if
friendly countries were flying some aircraft types that are normally
considered hostile."


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
US aviation hero receives RP recognition [email protected] General Aviation 0 November 30th 06 02:14 AM
"Going for the Visual" O. Sami Saydjari Instrument Flight Rules 101 May 18th 04 05:08 AM
Face-recognition on UAV's Eric Moore Military Aviation 3 April 15th 04 03:18 PM
Visual Appr. Stuart King Instrument Flight Rules 15 September 17th 03 08:36 PM
Qn: Casein Glue recognition Vassilios Mazis Soaring 0 August 20th 03 10:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.