Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ssc-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!wanttaja
From: wanttaja@ssc-vax.UUCP (Ronald J Wanttaja)
Newsgroups: net.aviation
Subject: Sidewinder vs. 172
Message-ID: <182@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Oct-84 18:42:31 EST
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.182
Posted: Wed Oct 31 18:42:31 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Nov-84 03:46:00 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, WA
Lines: 31

<"Cessna 09 Tango, cleared to land, check gear down">
<"Roger, gear down and welded...">

Since it has been pretty quiet on net.aviation, I'm throwing out a question
to y'all.  Let's take, for instance, the Sidewinder Air-to-Air missile, or
its Russkie version, the Atoll.  How effective are these against a non-turbine
powered aircraft?  Apparently, the ground launched anti-aircraft missiles are
pretty non-discriminatory, i.e., they'll take off after any heat source.  I
would suspect, however, that the air launched kind have various anti-spoofing
features that may cut down on their effectiveness against cooler targets.
Maybe they wouldn't be so cool... but the major heat source, the cylinders,
is shielded by the cowling, and in aircraft like the P-51, further shielded
by the water cooling jacket.  To set the input parameters, I would state
two conditions:

1.  Sidewinder/Atoll against P-51 (after all, there is one Latin American
country that still operates F-51s)

2.  Sidewinder/Atoll against Cessna 172 (I may want to take an aerial tour
of Kamchatka Peninsula some day)

Please state if you are discussing the "old" Sidewinder or the "All Aspect"
missile.  Lets get some new discussion going here!  I'm tired of
"Re:re:re:re B-1 vs. B-52!"

				   Ronald J. Wanttaja, Lieutenant
				   Queens own Kamikazi Highlanders
				   (ssc-vax!wanttaja)

Flames will be dealt with by Redeye/SA-7.  Be warned.