document_title: Dogfight

question_text: where does the term dog fight come from

question_tokens: where does the term dog fight come from

root

text: Dogfight

text: Etymology[edit]

text: The term dogfight has been used for centuries to describe a melee: a fierce, fast-paced battle between two or more opponents. The term gained popularity during World War II although its origin in air combat can be traced to the latter years of World War I.[3] The first written reference to the modern day usage of the word comes from Fly Papers, by A. E. Illingworth, in 1919, “The battle develops into a ‘dog-fight’, small groups of machines engaging each other in a fight to the death.”[4]

tag: p

text: History[edit]

text: Mexican Revolution[edit]

text: The first instance of plane on plane combat and the first instance of one plane intercepting another during an aerial conflict occurred during the Mexican Revolution in November 30, 1913 between two American soldiers of fortune fighting for opposing sides, Dean Ivan Lamb and Phil Rader. Both men had orders to kill but neither pilot wanted to harm the other so they exchanged multiple volleys of pistol fire, intentionally missing before exhausting their supply of ammunition.[5][6][7][8]

text: World War I[edit]

text: Dogfighting first emerged in World War I. Aircraft were initially used as mobile observation vehicles, and early pilots gave little thought to aerial combat. The new airplanes proved their worth by spotting the hidden German advance on Paris in the second month of the war.[9]

text: Enemy pilots at first simply exchanged waves, or shook their fists at each other. Due to weight restrictions, only small weapons could be carried on board. Intrepid pilots decided to interfere with enemy reconnaissance by improvised means, including throwing bricks, grenades and sometimes rope, which they hoped would entangle the enemy plane's propeller. Pilots quickly began firing hand-held guns at enemy planes, such as pistols and carbines. The first aerial dogfight occurred during the Battle of Cer (August 15-24, 1914), when Serbian aviator Miodrag Tomić encountered an Austro-Hungarian plane while performing a reconnaissance mission over Austro-Hungarian positions. The Austro-Hungarian pilot initially waved, and Tomić reciprocated. The Austro-Hungarian pilot then fired at Tomić with his revolver. Tomić managed to escape, and within several weeks, all Serbian and Austro-Hungarian planes were fitted with machine-guns.[10] In August 1914, Staff-Captain Pyotr Nesterov, from Russia, became the first pilot to ram his plane into an enemy spotter aircraft. In October 1914, an airplane was shot down by a hand gun from another plane for the first time over Rheims, France. Once machine guns were mounted to the airplane, either on a flexible mounting or higher on the wings of early biplanes, the era of air combat began.

text: The biggest problem was mounting a machine gun onto an aircraft so that it could be fired forward, through the propeller, and aimed by pointing the nose of the aircraft directly at the enemy. French aviator Roland Garros solved this problem by mounting steel deflector wedges to the propeller of a Morane Saulnier monoplane. He achieved three kills, but was forced down due to engine failure down behind enemy lines, and captured before he could destroy his plane by burning it. The wreckage was brought to Anthony Fokker, a Dutch designer who built aircraft for the Germans. Fokker decided that the wedges were much too risky, and improved the design by connecting the trigger of an MG 08 Maxim machine gun to the timing of the engine.[9][11] The Germans acquired an early air superiority due to the invention of the synchronization gear in 1915, transforming air combat with the Fokker E.I, the first synchronized, forward firing fighter plane.[9][11] On the evening of July 1, 1915, the very first aerial engagement by a fighter plane armed with a synchronized, forward-firing machine gun occurred just to the east of Luneville, France. The German Fokker E.I was flown by Lieutenant Kurt Wintgens, earning the victory over a French two-seat observation monoplane. Later that same month, on July 25, 1915, British Royal Flying Corps (RFC) Major Lanoe Hawker, flying a very early production Bristol Scout C., attacked three separate aircraft during a single sortie, shooting down two with a non-synchronizable Lewis gun which was mounted next to his cockpit at an outwards angle to avoid hitting the propeller. He forced the third one down, and was awarded the Victoria Cross.[11]

text: Battles in the air increased as the technological advantage swung from the British to the Germans, then back again. The Feldflieger Abteilung observation units of the German air service, in 1914-15, consisted of six two-seat observation aircraft each, with each unit assigned to a particular German Army headquarters location. They had but a single Fokker Eindecker aircraft assigned to each "FFA" unit for general defensive duties, so pilots such as Max Immelmann and Oswald Boelcke began as lone hunters with each "FFA" unit, shooting unarmed spotter planes and enemy aircraft out of the sky.[9] During the first part of the war, there was no established tactical doctrine for air-to-air combat. Oswald Boelcke was the first to analyze the tactics of aerial warfare, resulting in a set of rules known as the Dicta Boelcke. Many of Boelcke's concepts, conceived in 1916, are still applicable today, including use of sun and altitude, surprise attack, and turning to meet a threat.

text: British Brigadier General Hugh Trenchard ordered that all reconnaissance aircraft had to be supported by at least three fighters, creating the first use of tactical formations in the air. The Germans responded by forming Jastas, large squadrons of fighters solely dedicated to destroying enemy aircraft, under the supervision of Boelcke. Pilots who shot down five or more fighters became known as aces. One of the most famous dogfights, resulting in the death of Major Hawker, is described by the Red Baron, Manfred von Richthofen,

text: I WAS extremely proud when, one fine day, I was informed that the airman whom I had brought down on the twenty- third of November, 1916, was the English [equivalent of] Immelmann.... First we circled twenty times to the left, and then thirty times to the right. Each tried to get behind and above the other. Soon I discovered that I was not meeting a beginner. He had not the slightest intention of breaking off the fight. He was traveling in a machine which turned beautifully. However, my own was better at rising than his, and I succeeded at last in getting above and beyond my English waltzing partner.... The impertinent fellow was full of cheek and when we had got down to about 3,000 feet he merrily waved to me as if he would say, "Well, how do you do?" The circles which we made around one another were so narrow that their diameter was probably no more than 250 or 300 feet. I had time to take a good look at my opponent.... When he had come down to about three hundred feet he tried to escape by flying in a zig-zag course during which, as is well known, it is difficult for an observer to shoot. That was my most favorable moment. I followed him at an altitude of from two hundred and fifty feet to one hundred and fifty feet, firing all the time. The Englishman could not help falling. But the jamming of my gun nearly robbed me of my success. My opponent fell, shot through the head, one hundred and fifty feet behind our line.[12]

text: Despite the German's early lead in combat tactics and their 'Dicta Boelcke', the Allies were not slow to adapt and develop their own tactics. The Royal Flying Corps' Albert Ball was one of a band of pilots who liked to fly solo and he developed 'stalking' tactics for going after enemy two-seaters. He even used his Lewis gun in its top wing adjustable Foster mounting to fire upwards into the underside of unsuspecting enemy aircraft. Other RFC pilots such as James McCudden and Mick Mannock emphasised mutual support and the advantages of attacking from height. Mannock expressed this in a list of aerial combat rules that were similar to Boelcke's.

text: During 1916, aerial reconnaissance patrols had most often been unaccompanied as there had been little if any aerial disputes, between the belligerents. However, just as the Sinai and Palestine Campaign ground war on the Gaza to Beersheba line came to resemble trench warfare on the western front, so too did the air war over southern Palestine come to resemble that being fought over France.[13] After the Second Battle of Gaza in April 1917 and during the Stalemate in Southern Palestine which followed, the concentration of Egyptian Expeditionary Force (EEF) and Ottoman Army forces holding established front lines grew, as associated supply dumps and lines of communications were developed. The need to know about these fuelled "intense rivalry in the air."[14] Aerial reconnaissance patrols were regularly attacked, so it was necessary for all photography and artillery observation patrols to be accompanied by escort aircraft.[15] These special EEF patrols which grew into squadrons, accompanied and protected the reconnaissance aircraft, attacking hostile aircraft wherever they were found, either in the air, or on the ground. However the technically superior German aircraft shot down numbers of EEF aircraft during dog fights.[14]

text: By the end of the war, the underpowered machines from just ten years prior had been transformed into fairly powerful, swift, and heavily armed fighter planes, and the basic tactics for dogfighting had been laid down.

text: Spanish Civil War[edit]

text: Airplane technology rapidly increased in sophistication after World War I. By 1936, dogfighting was thought to be a thing of the past, since aircraft were reaching top speeds of over 250 miles per hour (400 km/h).[16] The experiences of the Spanish civil war proved this theory was wrong.

text: At the beginning of the war, new tactics were developed, most notably in the Luftwaffe Condor Legion. Lieutenant Werner Mölders advised abandoning the standard “V” formation used in combat, and pairing fighters in twos, starting the practice of having a wingman at one's side. He advised that pairs of aircraft approaching a fight should increase the distance between them instead of holding tight formations, a precursor to the combat spread maneuver. He also started the practice of training pilots to fly at night, and with instruments only. Using the new tactics, and flying the newest Bf 109 fighters, the Germans shot down 22 Spanish Republican fighters within a five-day period, suffering no losses of their own.[17]

text: World War II[edit]

text: Main Article: Air warfare of World War II

text: Strategies for fighter development[edit]

text: During the 1930s two different streams of thought about air-to-air combat began to emerge, resulting in two different streams of monoplane fighter development. In Japan and Italy especially,[citation needed] there continued to be a strong belief that lightly armed, highly maneuverable single seat fighters would still play a primary role in air-to-air combat. Aircraft such as the Nakajima Ki-27 and Nakajima Ki-43 and the Mitsubishi A6M Zero in Japan, and the Fiat G.50 and Macchi C.200 in Italy epitomised a generation of monoplanes designed to this concept.

text: The other stream of thought, which emerged primarily[citation needed] in Britain, Germany, the Soviet Union and the United States was the belief the high speeds of modern combat aircraft and the g-forces imposed by aerial combat meant that dogfighting in the classic WW I sense would be impossible. Fighters such as the Messerschmitt Bf 109, the Supermarine Spitfire, the Yakovlev Yak-1 and the Curtiss P-40 were all designed for high level speeds and a good rate of climb. Good maneuverability was not a primary objective.

text: Immediately following the Spanish civil war came World War II, during which dogfighting was most prevalent. It was widely believed that strategic bombing alone was synonymous with air power; a fallacy that would not be fully understood until Vietnam.[18] After the failings in Spain, a greater emphasis was placed on the accuracy of air-to-ground attacks. The need to stop bombers from reaching their targets, or to protect them on their missions, was the primary purpose for most dogfights of the era.[19]

text: Dogfighting over Europe[edit]

text: Dogfighting was very prominent in the skies over Europe. The air force in France, while a major force during World War I, was inadequate and poorly organized, and quickly fell to the German onslaught. As the first battles between the Germans and the British began, the power of the German’s anti-aircraft artillery became readily apparent, with 88 millimeter shells capable of firing 40,000 feet (12,000 m) in the air. General Wolfram von Richthofen noted that these guns were equally destructive when used for ground fire. Adolph Malan compiled a list of aerial combat rules that were widely taught to RAF pilots. The German Bf 109 and the British Spitfire were some of the most common fighters used in the European theater.[20]

text: A typical dogfight is described by an unnamed pilot,

text: Pulling up into his blind spot I watched his plane grow larger and larger in my sight. But this German pilot was not content to fly straight and level. Before I could open fire his plane slewed to the right, and seeing me on his tail, he jerked back on the stick into the only defensive maneuver his plane could make. I banked my 47 over to the right and pulled back on the stick, striving to get him once more into my ring sight. The violent maneuver applied terrific G’s to my body, and I started to black out as the blood rushed from my head. Fighting every second to overcome this blackness about me, I pulled back on the stick, further and further, so that the enemy would just show at the bottom of my ring sight to allow for the correct deflection.

text: We were both flying in a tight circle. Just a little more and I’ll have him. Pressing the [trigger] I waited expectantly for the 109 to explode. I’ve hit his wing. A section two-feet long broke loose from the right wing as the machine gun cut like a machete through it. Too low, a little more rudder and the bullets will find his cockpit. I could see occasional strikes further up the wing, but it was too late. The 109, sensing that I was inside him on the turn, slunk into a nearby cloud. Straightening my plane, I climbed over the top of the bank, and poised on the other side, waiting for him to appear. But the 109 did not appear, and not wishing to tempt the gods of fate further, I pushed my stick forward, entered the protective cover of the clouds, and headed home.[21]

text: Soviet fighters[edit]

text: During this time, three new Russian fighters, the LaGG-1, the Yak-1, and the MiG-3 were just coming off of the production line. The Soviet Air Defense Force had been fraught with problems since World War I.[22] The German Barbarossa offensive on June 22, 1941, destroyed more than 2000 Soviet aircraft on the first day, and more than 5000 before October. With great desperation, the Soviets fought in dogfights over Leningrad, Moscow, and the Ukraine for more than a year.

text: Fireteam, a triple of aircraft ("troika"), has been the main tactical unit used in battles since the beginning of World War II. The analysis and synthesis of fighting experience resulted in a conclusion that group tactics should have been rejected and replaced by action pairs.[23][24] However, ramming an opponent was still a common practice among the pilots of the Soviet Union.[22] Another successful maneuver was a "Sokolinnyi udar" (falcon punch) when a pilot got an advantage of power by swooping down on an opponent and using the sunlight conditions. This maneuver and many other tactical principles were introduced by Alexander Pokryshkin, one of the greatest tactician of the Soviet Air Force who showed his worth during World War II. His famous motto sounded as "Height, speed, maneuver, fire!". It became popular in the air armies and was adopted by pilots.[25]

text: Struggling with morale problems, the Soviets slowly and methodically began to regain air supremacy after the Battle of Stalingrad in 1943.[26] This theater is notable for including the only female fighter aces in history, Yekaterina Budanova and Lydia Litvyak.

text: USA and Japan[edit]

text: After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, in the Hawaiian Islands, the United States entered the war. The Japanese used the Mitsubishi A6M Zero, an extremely lightweight fighter known for its exceptional range and maneuverability.[27] The U.S. military tested out the Akutan Zero, a Mitsubishi A6M2 which was captured intact in 1942, advising — along the same lines that General Claire Chennault, commander of the Kunming-based Flying Tigers had already advised his pilots over a year before — "Never attempt to dogfight a Zero."[28] Even though its engine was rather low in power, the Zero had very low wing loading characteristics, a small turn radius, a top speed over 330 mph (530 km/h), and could climb better than any fighter used by the U.S. at that time, although it was poorly armored compared to U.S. aircraft.

text: A pilot who realized that new tactics had to be devised was Lieutenant Commander John S. "Jimmy" Thach, commander of Fighting Three in San Diego. He read the early reports coming out of China and wrestled with the problem of his Grumman F4F Wildcats being relatively slower and much less maneuverable than the Japanese planes. He devised a defensive maneuver called the "Thach Weave." Lieutenant Commander Thach reasoned that two planes, a leader and his wingman, could fly about 200 feet (61 m) apart and adopt a weaving formation when under attack by Japanese fighters.

text: Thach later faced the A6M Zero during the Battle of Midway, in June 1942, for the test of his theory. Although outnumbered, he found that a Zero would lock onto the tail of one of the fighters. In response, the two planes would turn toward each other. When the Zero followed its original target through the turn it would come into a position to be fired on by the target's wingman, and the predator would become the prey. His tactic proved to be effective and was soon adopted by other squadrons. The Thach Weave helped make up for the inferiority of the US planes in maneuverability and numbers, until new aircraft could be brought into service. The usefulness of this strategy survives even today.

text: Another effective maneuver used by the U.S. pilots was a simple break, which consisted of turning sharply across an attacker's flight path, which worked well in part because the large nose of the Zero tended to obstruct the pilot's view.[27] Still another good tactic was a high-side guns pass, which consisted of diving upon the Zero, shooting in one high-speed pass, and using the speed to climb back above the fight to dive again.[29] By 1943 the U.S. began to produce planes that were better matched against the Japanese planes, such as the Grumman F6F Hellcat, and the Vought F4U Corsair.[30]

text: Technology[edit]

text: Technology advanced extremely fast during World War II in ways that would change dogfighting forever. Jet propulsion had been demonstrated long before the war, by German engineer Hans von Ohain in 1934, and by British engineer Frank Whittle in 1937. The Messerschmitt Me 262 was the first jet fighter to be used in battle, with a speed over 500 mph (800 km/h), and began taking a toll on Allied bombing missions in 1944. The British were testing a jet that same year, the Gloster Meteor, which would later see action in the Korean War. Although U.S. General Hap Arnold test flew the XP-59A in 1942, the plane was never used in combat. Other prime inventions of the era include radar and air-to-air missiles.[31]

text: Propaganda[edit]

text: Enemy pilots were construed as weak and evil. For example, in World War II, describing the Soviet tactics, the Luftwaffe claimed that, "The characteristic feature of the average Soviet fighter pilot were a tendency toward caution and reluctance instead of toughness and stamina, brute strength instead of genuine combat efficiency, abysmal hatred instead of fairness and chivalry...."[22]

text: Korean War[edit]

text: After World War II, the question began to rise about the future usefulness of fighter aircraft. This was especially true for the U.S., where the focus was placed on small, fast, long-range bombers capable of delivering atomic bombs.[32] The Korean War began in June 1950, and the North Koreans were outmatched by the U.S. Air Force. The war was nearly over by October, with the occupation of North Korea when, on November 1, Chinese MiG-15s attacked. The Chinese began supplying North Korea with troops and provisions, and the war quickly resumed.

text: At 100 mph (160 km/h) faster, the MiG-15 was more than a match for the U.S. P-80 Shooting Star, using the same dive and shoot tactic that the Americans found so useful against Japan. The U.S. jets had inferior weaponry, and suffered from problems with production and parts. The U.S. resorted to using mainly the more maneuverable propeller driven fighters during the war, such as the P-51 Mustang which was carried over from World War II.[33] The P-47 Thunderbolt was not used in Korea. Used mainly in the close air support role, Mustangs were more vulnerable to being shot down (and many were lost due to anti-aircraft fire). Some former P-47 pilots suggested the more durable Thunderbolt should have been sent to Korea; however, the P-51D was available in greater numbers in the USAF and ANG inventories. (See footnote [27] under Wikipedia article on P-47 Thunderbolt.)

text: To combat the MiGs, the F-86 Sabre was put into production. The U.S. pilots had a number of major advantages over the Chinese, including the G-suit and the radar-ranging gunsight. Chinese fighters were often seen spinning off out of control during a hard turn because the pilot had lost consciousness. The Chinese were very competent in a dogfight, and large swirling battles were fought in the skies over Korea.[34] However, it was highly suspected by many U.S. pilots that some of the opponents they faced over Korea were in fact well-trained Soviet pilots, who the Americans referred to as "hanchos," (a Japanese word, meaning "bosses").[35][36] Major Robinson Risner recalls,

text: Seeing one another about the same time, the MiG flight and my flight dropped [our extra fuel] tanks.. He was so low he was throwing up small rocks. I dropped down to get him, but to hit him I had to get down in his jet wash. He'd chop the throttle and throw out his speed brakes. I would coast up beside him, wingtip to wingtip. When it looked like I was going to overshoot him, I would roll over the top and come down on the other side of him. When I did, he'd go into a hard turn, pulling all the Gs he could. This guy was one fantastic pilot.[37]

text: The war in the air, however, eventually came to a stalemate as fighting ceased between the two factions. Later after the fall of the Soviet Union, Soviet records showed that Russian pilots were indeed in the air. Some at times in the fury of combat reverted to the Russian language over the radio.

text: Vietnam War[edit]

text: The Vietnam War "was the first 'modern' air war"[38] in which air-to-air missiles were the primary weapons during aerial combat, and was the only confrontation between the latest aerial and ground defense technologies between the Soviet Union and the United States.[39] If U.S. air power could successfully conduct war against Soviet doctrine and equipment in the skies over North Vietnam, then it could expect to successfully operate against the Soviet Union during a massive war in Europe.[39] Over the skies of North Vietnam, U.S. aircraft would be attacking the "most formidable and most heavily defended targets in the history of aerial warfare."[40]

text: By this time, dogfighting techniques had fallen out of favor in U.S. training doctrines, as missiles were considered to be all that was necessary to shoot down the big bombers expected to be deployed by the Soviet Union. As a result, air combat methods known by fighter pilots since World War I became all but lost as veterans from WWII and Korea retired and didn't pass them on to succeeding generations. American fighter pilots would meet in the skies in secret to engage in mock combat[citation needed] to try and maintain some level of proficiency. It wasn't until TOPGUN was established for the Navy in 1969 and Red Flag was started for the Air Force in 1975 that pilots were formally trained in dogfighting again.

text: Both U.S. and Soviet-built jet fighters were primarily designed for intercepting bombers, and then shooting them down with air-to-air missiles. With possibly a few exceptions, such as the U.S. Navy's F-8 Crusader and the U.S. Air Force's F-100 Super Sabre, which each mounted four 20 mm cannons, jets were not designed for dog fighting other jet aircraft.[41] Soviet doctrine called for their interceptors to be strictly vectored towards their targets by Ground Control Intercept (GCI) operators. As a consequence, U.S. RF-101 Voodoo's conducting reconnaissance missions, or F-102 Delta Daggers, F-104 Starfighters performing MiGCAP duties, and the strike aircraft themselves, such as F-105 Thunderchiefs, A-4 Skyhawks, A-6 Intruders, F-4 Phantoms, and B-52's flying over North Vietnam were met by MiG-17s (or Chicom J-5s), MiG-19s (Chicom J-6s), and MiG-21s being vectored directly to them by GCI operators who worked in conjunction with surface-to-air missile (SAM) crews. U.S. aircraft which successfully made it through the NVAF MiGs were then confronted with the SAMs and AAA batteries.

text: This triad defense system of GCI-controlled MiGs, Missiles (SAMs), and AAA enabled the North Vietnamese MiGs to utilize their aircraft's design capabilities as their designers had intended,[42] that of, in the vernacular of the time, making "one pass, and then hauling ass",[43] which was, in practice, quickly firing at their targets and then speeding away. By 1967 the Soviets had supplied the NVAF with enough missile-firing MiG-21s to allow the North Vietnamese to routinely engage U.S. aircraft, and to rely less and less on their aged MiG-17s, although many North Vietnamese pilots still preferred the MiG-17s agility and easy maintenance. With the arrival of the additional MiG-21s, and by 1969 MiG-19s (J-6s) imported from Red China, engagements between U.S. and NVAF jets became generally divided into two arenas; MiG-21s engaged at higher altitudes, while MiG-17s and MiG-19s would try to give battle at lower altitudes where their cannons were more effective.[44]

text: At the conclusion of the air war in 1973, U.S. airmen had downed 202 communist MiGs, including two downed by B-52 tailgunners from their quad .50 caliber machine guns; this at a cost of 90 U.S. aircraft to NVAF MiGs.[45][46] The USAF claimed 137 MiGs while the USN/USMC brought down 65 in air-to-air combat. From these figures, the USAF had 40 gun kills, and the USN claimed eight cannon victories. This number approached parity with the NVAF MiG's 37 gun kill figures.[47][48]

text: Approximately 612 radar-guided AIM-7 Sparrow missiles were fired during the war, scoring 56 MiG kills, while 454 heat-seeking AIM-9 Sidewinders were launched achieving 81 aerial victories. During Operation Rolling Thunder 54 AIM-4 Falcon missiles were fired, obtaining five kills.[49] By contrast, NVAF MiG-21s obtained 53 air-to-air kills with their AA-2 "Atoll" missiles, from an unknown number of launchings. At least three MiG-21s, and all of the MiG-17s and MiG-19s (J-6s) made the remaining 37 kills, from their 90 total, with their 23 mm, 30 mm and 37 mm cannons.[50][51]

text: As part of the North Vietnamese triad system of defense, surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) had become an ever-increasing threat. U.S Air Force Brigadier General Robin Olds describes a typical encounter with surface-to-air missiles, which during a period of time in Vietnam was referred to as either a "MiG day" or a "Sam day", this was a Sam day.[52]

text: Here come the SAMs. The trick is seeing the launch. You can see the steam. It goes straight up, turns more level, then the booster drops off. If it maintains a relatively stable position, it's coming right for you and you're in trouble. You're eager to make a move but can't. If you dodge too fast it will turn and catch you; if you wait too late it will explode near enough to get you. What you do at the right moment is poke your nose down, go down as hard as you can, pull maybe three negative Gs at 550 knots and once it follows you down, you go up as hard as you can. It can't follow that and goes under.[53]

text: This passage from a USAF booklet explained a MiG day:

text: "If you know a MiG-21 is in your area or you lose sight of one and want to find it again: Roll out wings level for 15 seconds, then look in your 6 o'clock about 1.5 miles. It will be there. Probably you'll see mach 2 Atoll (air-to-air missile) smoke trail first before you see the MiG. But remember that's where the MiG-21 is! Just ask one of the 20 aircrews shot down during Linebacker that never knew they were under attack."[54]

text: Arab–Israeli conflicts[edit]

text: The Arab–Israeli conflicts were a series of wars between the country of Israel and its surrounding Arab neighbors. Those that involved dogfighting occurred between 1948 and 1985. The wars escalated on May 14, 1948, the day Israel declared its sovereignty from Britain. The War of Independence was followed by the Suez-Sinai War in 1956, the Six-Day War in 1967, the War of Attrition, the Yom Kippur War in 1973, and the First Lebanon War in the early 1980s.

text: The wars began with both sides using propeller planes, such as Spitfires, Avia S-199s, and P-51s, then progressed to older jets like MiG-15s, Dassault Mysteres and Dassault Mirages. In the latter wars dogfighting ensued between modern aircraft, like F-15s and F-16s against MiG-21s and MiG-25s. Although usually outnumbered, the Israelis managed to defeat the air forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria in dogfights, often achieving kill ratios ranging from 10:1 to over 20:1, which is usually attributed to better training of the Israeli pilots and a technological advantage.[55][56][57]

text: Indo-Pakistani War of 1965[edit]

text: The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 saw the Indian and Pakistani Air Forces engaged in large-scale aerial combat against each other for the first time since the independence of Pakistan in 1947. The war took place during the course of September 1965 and saw both air forces conduct defensive and offensive operations over Indian and Pakistani airspace. The aerial war saw both sides conducting thousands of sorties in a single month.[58] Both sides claimed victory in the air war; Pakistan claimed to have destroyed 104 aircraft against its own losses of 19, while India claimed to have destroyed 73 enemy aircraft and lost 35 of its own.[59] Despite the intense fighting, the conflict was effectively a stalemate.[60]

text: Indo-Pakistani War of 1971[edit]

text: By late 1971, the intensification of the independence movement in erstwhile East Pakistan lead to the Bangladesh Liberation War between India and Pakistan .[61] On November 22, 1971, 10 days before the start of a full-scale war, four PAF F-86 Sabre jets attacked Indian and Mukti Bahini positions at Garibpur, near the international border. Two of the four PAF Sabres were shot down and one damaged by the IAF's Folland Gnats.[62] On December 3, India formally declared war against Pakistan following massive preemptive strikes by the PAF against Indian Air Force installations in Srinagar, Ambala, Sirsa, Halwara and Jodhpur. However, the IAF did not suffer significantly because the leadership had anticipated such a move and precautions were taken.[63] The Indian Air Force was quick to respond to Pakistani air strikes, following which the PAF carried out mostly defensive sorties.[64]

text: Within the first two weeks, the IAF had carried out almost 12,000 sorties over East Pakistan and also provided close air support to the advancing Indian Army.[65] IAF also assisted the Indian Navy in its operations against the Pakistani Navy and Maritime Security Agency in the Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea. On the western front, the IAF destroyed more than 20 Pakistani tanks,[66] four APCs and a supply train during the Battle of Longewala.[67] The IAF undertook strategic bombing of West Pakistan by carrying out raids on oil installations in Karachi, the Mangla Dam and a gas plant in Sindh.[68] Similar strategy was also deployed in East Pakistan and as the IAF achieved complete air superiority on the eastern front, the ordnance factories, runways, and other vital areas of East Pakistan were severely damaged.[69] By the time Pakistani forces surrendered, the IAF destroyed 94 PAF aircraft[70] The IAF was able to conduct a wide range of missions – troop support; air combat; deep penetration strikes; para-dropping behind enemy lines; feints to draw enemy fighters away from the actual target; bombing; and reconnaissance. In contrast, the Pakistan Air Force, which was solely focused on air combat, was blown out of the subcontinent’s skies within the first week of the war. Those PAF aircraft that survived took refuge at Iranian air bases or in concrete bunkers, refusing to offer a fight.[71] Hostilities officially ended at 14:30 GMT on December 17, after the fall of Dacca on December 15. India claimed large gains of territory in West Pakistan (although pre-war boundaries were recognised after the war), and the independence of Pakistan's East wing as Bangladesh was confirmed. The IAF had flown over 16,000 sorties[65] on both East and West fronts; including sorties by transport aircraft and helicopters.[65] while the PAF flew about 30 and 2,840. More than 80 percent of the IAF's sorties were close-support and interdiction, and according to neutral assessments about 45 IAF aircraft were lost while, Pakistan lost 75 aircraft.[72] Not including any F-6s, Mirage IIIs, or the six Jordanian F-104s which failed to return to their donors. But the imbalance in air losses was explained by the IAF's considerably higher sortie rate, and its emphasis on ground-attack missions. On the ground Pakistan suffered most, with 9,000 killed and 25,000 wounded while India lost 3,000 dead and 12,000 wounded. The loss of armoured vehicles was similarly imbalanced. This represented a major defeat for Pakistan.[73] Towards the end of the war, IAF's transport planes dropped leaflets over Dhaka urging the Pakistani forces to surrender, demoralising Pakistani troops in East Pakistan.[74]

text: Falklands War[edit]

text: The Falklands War (Spanish: Guerra de las Malvinas) began on April 2, 1982, when Argentina invaded the Falkland islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas), and then the island of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, which were small disputed British dependencies. Because Britain had no military bases nearby, and few aircraft carriers, the Argentinians did not expect a response from Britain, but on April 5, the British sent carriers sailing to the Falklands with Sea Harrier 'Jump-jets' on board. The Sea Harrier, being initially designed as a ground-attack fighter, was equipped not for dogfighting but for Soviet bomber interception; thus the aircraft had to undergo many modifications, and the pilots needed extra training.

text: The Argentinians had superior numbers, but their forces mainly consisted of older jets from the 1960s, such as Dassault Mirage IIIs and Israeli Daggers. The Argentinians were also handicapped by the long distance from mainland airfields and a lack of refuelling tankers. Neither side was ready for war, but both prepared all through April as diplomacy failed. The fighting started on May 1, and was to become the largest naval and air conflict since World War II. By the end of the war, Argentina lost 20 fighters in dogfights, while Britain only lost one Sea Harrier to ground fire. The Americans supplied late model Sidewinder missiles to the British; this and the analysis of French Mirage combat tactics made the difference.[75]

text: Iran–Iraq War[edit]

text: In the Iran–Iraq War of 1980–1988 (also known as first Gulf War) many dogfights happened between Iranian Air Force and Saddam Hussein's Iraq Air Force. At early years of the war IRIAF had the superiority (see for example Operation Sultan 10 and Operation Morvarid); however, at the end of the war, Iranian Air Force lost its superiority due to the lack of their western made aircraft spare parts and outdated equipment, while Iraq was introducing new French and Soviet weapons in its air force.

text: The Iran–Iraq War also saw the only confirmed helicopter dogfights in history, with Iranian Army Aviation's AH-1J Internationals (usually the TOW-capable ones) entering combat against Iraqi Army Air Corps' Mil Mi-24 Hind gunships. Hinds are stronger and faster, while AH-1Js are more agile. The result of the skirmishes are disputed. There were even engagements between Iranian AH-1J and Iraqi fixed-wing aircraft: the AH-1Js scored three confirmed kills against MiG-21s, claimed a Su-20, and shared in the destruction of a MiG-23—all using their 20 mm calibre canon.[76]

text: Persian Gulf War[edit]

text: In the Gulf War of 1990–91, dogfighting once again proved its usefulness when the Coalition Air Force had to face off against the Iraqi Air Force, which at the time was the fifth largest in the world. By the second day of the war, the Coalition achieved air superiority. Many dogfights occurred during the short conflict, often involving many planes. By the end of January, 1991, the term "furball" became a popular word to describe the hectic situation of many dogfights, occurring at the same time within the same relatively small airspace.[77] By the end of the war, the U.S. claimed 39 Iraqi aircraft in air-to-air victories to the loss of only one F/A-18 and one drone. Of the 39 victories, 36 were taken by F-15 Eagles.[78]

text: Balkans conflict[edit]

text: During the Balkans conflict, in 1999 (the Kosovo War), five MiG-29s of the Yugoslav Air Force were shot down in dogfights with NATO aircraft. The first was on March 24, by a Dutch F-16AM Falcon, and two were downed on the same night by U.S. F-15s. A day later two more MiG-29's were shot down by an F-16 and F-15.[79][80]


document_title: Nala (Disney)

question_text: who played simba and nala in the lion king

text: Nala (Disney)

text: Development[edit]

text: Conception and writing[edit]

text: Film critic James Berardinelli identified Nala as The Lion King's "sole significant female character." Screenwriter Linda Woolverton conceived Nala "as part of a gradual progression ... which have driven recent public conversation about what young girls should be able to expect from their cinematic role models."[1] In early versions of the screenplay, Nala has a younger brother named Mheetu, who enjoys accompanying his sister and her best friend Simba on their adventures.[2] Pronounced "me too", the character's name alludes to this personality trait.[2] At one point, Simba was supposed to save the cub from a wildebeest stampede,[3] and Nala would eventually become responsible for protecting Mheetu from Simba's tyrannical uncle Scar.[2] Nala also had a fox friend named Bhati.[3] According to Woolverton, Mheetu and Bhati were eventually written out of the film because their stories were beginning to distract from Simba's, in addition to the Mheetu-Scar subplot making the film too dark when combined with the death of Simba's father Mufasa.[2] At one point, Nala also had a father; the character was similarly abandoned.[4]

text: Because The Lion King was originally conceived as a much more mature and adult-oriented film, Nala was supposed to have been banished from the Pride Lands as punishment for rejecting Scar's romantic advances.[4] This idea was to have been further explored in Scar's song "Be Prepared (Reprise)", during which Scar demands that Nala become his queen,[5] but the musical number was ultimately cut from the final film because the scene was considered too "creepy."[5] Matthew Roulette of TheFW believes that the scene was abandoned because of the characters' significant age difference.[6]

text: Nala means "gift" in Swahili.[7] The character has a mother, whose name is never mentioned in the film;[8] however, she is credited as Sarafina during the film's end credits.[8] Candice Russel of the Sun-Sentinel believes that Nala contributes to the film's love story – "an indispensable factor in Disney cartoon features" – in addition to convincing Simba to return to Pride Rock.[9][10] It has been observed that, unlike Disney's three previous animated efforts (The Little Mermaid (1989), Beauty and the Beast (1991) and Aladdin (1992), the romantic relationship between Nala and Simba is not main plot of the film. Ella Ceron of Thought Catalog observed that "At [Simba's] return, she's not exactly the friendliest little kitten, either ... but is willing to overlook her own hurt ego in the spirit of their friendship. She believes in Simba, and doesn’t understand why he wouldn’t want to fight for his right to rule."[11]

text: Voice and music[edit]

text: The speaking voice of adult Nala is provided by American actress Moira Kelly.[12] Kelly was first informed that Disney was scheduling auditions for the role of Nala by her agent.[13] Despite not having been the directors' first choice for the role initially, Kelly was allowed to audition nonetheless because the filmmakers had been longing to hear different voices.[14] Kelly believes that the directors were searching for a specific "quality of voice ... a sort of authoritative voice but with a lot of warmth" to compliment Nala's sensible yet nurturing personality.[13] After a series of callbacks, during which Kelly returned to Disney several times to read the character's lines, the final decision eventually came down to be between Kelly and one other actress.[13] It was not until several months after her audition that Kelly would finally be contacted and offered the part;[14] Disney's initial first choice for the role remains undisclosed.[14] Actor Matthew Broderick, voice of Simba, had already begun recording alongside another actress who had been cast as Nala before that actress was eventually replaced with Kelly.[15] Broderick was not informed about his original co-star being recast, and only learned that Nala was actually voiced by Kelly at the film's premiere.[15]

text: The film's entire recording process took approximately three years to complete, during which Kelly's sessions were held in both the United States and Canada, while her co-stars Broderick and Jeremy Irons, voice of Scar, were recording in the United States and England, respectively.[14] Each main cast member recorded their dialogue separately,[14] which took Kelly some time to get used to because she had grown accustomed to working with several other actors at a time on the sets of live-action films.[13] For The Lion King, a director would often take the place of another actor for Kelly to act opposite of.[13] Vocally, Kelly decided to approach the role as though she were reading to a child, explaining, "it's kind of fun to play with different voices and try to color the lines for the child so they can imagine it more fully", which she admitted is different than how the actress would approach a live-action role.[14] Because Nala is a "very straight character", determining what kind of voice she would use for her was not a particularly challenging task.[13] Additionally, the filmmakers would also film Kelly's performances in order to incorporate her own facial expressions into her character's design, the process of which impressed the actress.[14] In her film debut, actress Niketa Calame voices young Nala.[16][17] According to Calame's official website, Nala remains the actress' "biggest role to date".[18] A classically trained pianist and chorister, Laura Williams provides the singing voice of young Nala, which can be heard in the song "I Just Can't Wait to Be King";[16] the singer was 15 years old at the time.[16] Meanwhile, singer-songwriter Sally Dworsky provides the singing voice of adult Nala, which is heard during the song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight".[16] The film's love theme, "Can You Feel the Love Tonight"'s lyrics were re-written approximately 15 times, according to lyricist Tim Rice, who wrote the song alongside composer Elton John.[16] At one point, the producers wanted the song to be a comical duet performed by supporting characters Timon and Pumbaa,[4][19] despite the fact that John had originally composed the song with Nala and Simba in mind.[20] However, John lobbied in favor of "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" being a love song performed as a duet by Nala and Simba, with which the filmmakers ultimately agreed.[16]

text: When asked by Disney if she was interested in reprising her role as Nala in The Lion King II: Simba's Pride, Kelly immediately accepted, joking, "Sure, you wanna do a third, fourth, fifth? I'm right there".[14] In the case of The Lion King 1½, it took the actress only a few days to record her character's dialogue due to Nala's comparatively smaller role in the film; much of Nala's footage from the first film was simply reused accordingly.[14] Elton John's official website cites Kelly among the film's cast of actors who "would grace any red carpet."[21] Kelly's performance as Nala is responsible for introducing the actress to a younger audience. Previously, she had been better known for appearing in more adult-oriented live-action films at that time.[22] In 2011, Kelly revealed that fans of the film rarely recognize her speaking voice as the voice of Nala,[23] although Robert DeSalvo of NextMovie.com claims that the actress "has a ... distinctive voice that The Lion King fans will instantly recognize as the voice of adult Nala."[24]

text: Characterization and themes[edit]

text: A straight woman character, Kelly described Nala as a sensible and nurturing yet authoritative character,[13] while Amber Leab of Bitch Flicks described her as strong, independent and intelligent.[25] According to Oh My Disney, Nala serves as "the proverbial glue that keeps The Lion King together", from whose perspective the audience watches the film because she "says EXACTLY what we’re thinking".[26] Occupying the role of the film's female lead, Nala is The Lion King's most important female character,[27] who contributes to the film's "small romance element".[28] Often identified as the film's deuteragonist,[29][30][31] Taylor Orci of The Atlantic felt that "Nala is really the agent of change in The Lion King", dismissing Simba as a "rich, lazy boyfriend."[29] Leab observed that The Lion King's male characters tend to "take the center stage" while "female characters take a backseat to the action."[25] Lenka Křivánková of Masaryk University wrote in her thesis "1990s Hollywood Break-Away Hits: A Feminist Perspective" that she was not particularly surprised by the film's lack of strong roles for women because of its Shakespearean source material, dubbing the film "an old traditional fairy tale with all its traditional features", including patriarchy and monarchism.[27] Writing for the University of Waterloo's Kinema, Vicky Wong believes that Nala reinforces the film's "take your place" motif, reminding main character Simba of his responsibilities.[32] In his book Retelling Stories, Framing Culture: Traditional Story and Metanarratives in Children's Literature, author John Stephens credits Nala with teaching Simba about responsibility – "the lesson the hero must learn before he can become an adult".[28]

text: Including Nala, The Lion King has only three major female characters in comparison to the film's total of nine male ones.[27] Shepherd University's Emmylou Allen observed that Nala is introduced "as a dominating young girl" who ultimately matures into "a strong woman" by the film's conclusion.[33] Mouse Morality: The Rhetoric of Disney Animated Film author Annalee R. Ward wrote that Nala's role in The Lion King reflected "a 1990s feminist reversal".[34] In her book Biblical Allusions, author Lindsay Bacher acknowledged that Nala is often depicted as a stronger and more responsible character than Simba, despite observations that The Lion King's female characters lack agency.[35] Leab identified Nala as Simba's "equal" who is "a more naturally sound leader throughout the film, while Simba tends to be comparatively a bit more immature and in need of multiple characters propelling him into responsible/rightful action."[25] Physically, Nala is also a stronger and more skilled fighter than Simba, proven by the character's ability to overwhelm him in battle,[35][36] which is reminiscent "of the physical power of lionesses in the real nature."[27] However, as strong as she is, Nala has little impact elsewhere;[27] author Brian K. Pennington wrote in his book Teaching Religion and Violence that "Nala's assertions of gender equality are clearly groundless, since only a male lion can stop Scar."[37] New York's David Denbey dismissed Nala's athleticism as nothing more than Disney's attempt to "disguise [the film's] essential boss-daddy ethos."[38] Bacher believes that had The Lion King featured Nala as the Pride Lands' hero as opposed to Simba, the film could have avoided having a "patriarchal structure."[35] Leab concluded that "the main and most problematic aspects of the film" remain that The Lion King "boils down to the fact that an entire group of strong female characters are unable to confront a single male oppressor; to do so, they need to be led by a dominant male." Leab continued, "It almost sucks more that Nala is such a strong ... female character and still ends up constrained by this plot device", accusing the film of depicting women as weak.[25]

text: Alongside Faline from Bambi (1942) and Maid Marian from Robin Hood (1973) added, Nala belongs to a trio of Disney heroines who, after having been separated from their love interests for several years, eventually reunite with them.[39] Stephens believes that Nala and Simba's separation allows the characters to fall in love "properly" upon reuniting as young adults.[28] Because The Lion King is loosely based on William Shakespeare's tragedy Hamlet,[40][41][42] Nala is considered to be the film's "representative" of the Hamlet character Ophelia, Hamlet's love interest.[43] Both characters' relationships with and opinions of their love interests are similar,[44] however, there are several differences between the two women.[33] While identifying Nala as "the closest character in The Lion King to Ophelia," Shepherd University's Emmylou Allen acknowledged in her article "Shakespeare in the Pride Lands" that "their similarities are not as great as their contrasts."[33] Unlike Ophelia, Nala does not succumb to insanity, nor does she eventually die. Instead, Nala establishes herself as "a physically powerful ally"[45] by encouraging Simba to return to Pride Rock, and helping the character overthrow Scar.[43] Additionally, Nala is a more stubborn character than Ophelia, the latter of whom is quite passive and obedient.[44] While Ophelia is raised by a single father, Nala is raised solely by her mother, which inspired Allen to believe that Nala is a manifestation of how Ophelia would have turned out had she been raised by a woman instead of a man, concluding, "Nala is able to show the potential that Ophelia could have had.".[33]

text: Appearances[edit]

text: Film and television[edit]

text: A young Nala debuted in The Lion King (1994) as the daughter of Sarafina and the best friend of Simba, who she often accompanies on his adventures throughout the Pride Lands. Simba invites Nala to visit the forbidden Elephant Graveyard with him, despite his father Mufasa's orders. The cubs are soon ambushed by Shenzi, Banzai and Ed, a trio of hyenas chosen by Simba's treacherous uncle Scar to kill Simba in order to improve his own chances of becoming king, but are ultimately rescued by Mufasa. The following day, however, Nala is devastated to learn from Scar that both Simba and Mufasa have perished during a wildebeest stampede. With both Simba and Mufasa dead, Scar usurps the throne and becomes king. Several years into Scar's tyrannical rule, which has left the kingdom barren and starving, a desperate Nala ventures into the jungle in search of help, where she attempts to eat a warthog named Pumbaa; little does she know that the warthog is actually a friend of Simba's, who is in fact alive and well. While defending Pumbaa from Nala, Simba recognizes Nala, and the two finally reunite only to argue over why Simba is refusing to face his responsibilities and return to Pride Rock. Upon learning that Simba has eventually decided to return to Pride Rock and face Scar, Nala travels back to the Pride Lands to assist him. Surprised to find Simba alive, Scar forces his guilt-ridden nephew to "admit" to the pride that he is responsible for Mufasa's death, which was in fact caused by Scar himself by throwing Mufasa off a cliff into the stampede. Upon learning the truth, Simba forces his uncle to admit his crime to the pride, and a battle ensues between the pride and Scar's army of hyenas. Simba eventually defeats Scar and becomes king, with Nala ultimately becoming his queen.[46]

text: In the film's first direct-to-video sequel The Lion King II: Simba's Pride (1998), Nala appears in a less prominent role as Queen of the Pride Lands and mother of Kiara, the spirited daughter of her and Simba. Nala observes that Kiara, of whom Simba is very protective, has inherited her father's rebellious personality and love of adventure. When Kiara befriends Zira's son Kovu, a young lion from an exiled pride of Scar's followers known as the Outsiders, Nala is much more tolerant of their relationship than Simba, and convinces him to offer Kovu a chance to prove himself trustworthy.[47]At the end of the film, Nala gains Kovu as her son-in-law after he marries Kiara. In The Lion King 1½ (2004), which focuses instead on Timon and Pumbaa's friendship, Nala's role is virtually identical to that of her appearance in The Lion King because filmmakers reused most of the character's footage from the first film.[14][48]

text: Voiced by actress Gabrielle Union,[49] Nala reprises her role as Queen of the Pride Lands in the television series The Lion Guard, the 2016 premiere of which was preceded by the made-for-television film The Lion Guard: Return of the Roar (2015). Set within the time gap in The Lion King II: Simba's Pride,[50] the show revolves around Nala and Simba's son Kion who, being their second-born cub after Kiara, has been tasked with forming the next Lion Guard, a group responsible for protecting the Pride Lands.[51] Although a fan of the Lion King franchise, Union avoided watching previous Lion King films in preparation for the role because she wanted to "put [her] own stamp" on the character.[52]

text: On November 1, 2017, it was confirmed that Beyoncé would voice adult Nala in Jon Favreau's The Lion King, which is expected to be released in July 19, 2019.[53] The same day Shahadi Wright Joseph was cast as young Nala in the film.[54]

text: Musical[edit]

text: In the Broadway musical adaptation of The Lion King, the role of Nala was originated by Trinidadian-American singer Heather Headley. Her Broadway debut,[55] at first auditioning for the role proved a challenge for the singer due to her Ragtime contract, which her agent was eventually successful in getting her released from.[56] Director Julie Taymor felt that Nala's journey in the film was underdeveloped and among the story's weaker elements, and thus decided to "strengthen" the character's narrative for Broadway.[57]

text: Reception[edit]

text: Critical reception towards Nala has been generally mixed; both film and feminist critics have accused the film of lacking empowering roles for female characters, including Nala.[25][27][58] James Berardinelli of ReelViews appreciated the fact that "after three animated motion pictures centered upon the love of two people from different worlds", the love story between Nala and Simba has been relegated to that of "a subplot."[59] Desson Howe of The Washington Post advised parents to remind their daughters that despite the fact that Nala "pads in the supportive shadows, awaiting her inevitable marriage to Simba, it doesn't mean human girls can't grow up to be monarchs too."[60]

text: Nala's role and demeanor during the film's romantic "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" sequence has drawn criticism in regards to her "submissive behaviour".[27] The New York Times' Janet Maslin cited the film's lack of a strong heroine among its weaknesses, dismissing Nala and Simba's interaction throughout "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" as "obligatory" and "gratuitous".[58] Joel W. Martin wrote in the Journal of Religion and Film, "One song later, [Nala and Simba] have fallen in love. Playing one day, they literally tumble down a hillside in the jungle, and he ends up on top of her. This time, she does not bear her teeth, but instead, shows 'bedroom eyes'". Martin ultimately accused the scene's "reversal of positions" of "establish[ing] male dominance."[36] Criticizing the film for "being merely distracting when it could have been both meaningful and instructive", Robert Humanick of Slant Magazine wrote, "Small potatoes, then, when Simba's former childhood friend and betrothed queen Nala ... unexpectedly reappears in his duty-free, protein-rich life, demanding he return to his kingly responsibilities and coaxing the lion to sleep tonight with arguably the most blatant 'fuck me now' face to ever appear in a PG-rated film."[61]

text: However, the character has garnered positive reviews as well. Sara Franks-Allen of ScreenCrush wrote that "If being a Disney princess is about being a good role model for little girls, then Nala has a lot in her favor", elaborating, "She's strong enough to take down Simba, ventures out on her own to find help for her pride and calls Simba out for ignoring his responsibilities."[62] Meanwhile, Ella Ceron of Thought Catalog ranked Nala 14th on her list of "The 16 Most Awesome Female Characters From Disney Movies".[11] Responsible for introducing the seasoned actress to a younger audience,[22] Kelly's vocal performance as Nala has garnered critical acclaim. Writing for The Washington Post, Desson Howe hailed Kelly's voice acting as "terrific."[60] Jeremy Gerard of Variety commended Kelly for voicing the character "beautifully".[63] PopSugar ranked Kelly among the website's "Favorite Animated Voices", writing, "there are a lot of great voices in Disney's The Lion King ... but Moira Kelly has a unique quality to her voice, and I remember reveling in it as a youngster anytime the adult Nala was on the screen."[64] Official Disney Blogs published an article entitled "We All Thought it… But Nala Actually Said It", which cites the character's most revered quotes.[26] The blog also ranked Nala eighth on the website's "Definitive Ranking of Disney Cats" list.[65] In a 2014 interview, actor Eddie Redmayne admitted that Nala was his first "celebrity crush",[66] having been specifically attracted to the character's "sweet" face and singing voice,[67] referring to the experience as his "sexual awakening".[68]


document_title: Central Mountain Air

question_text: where does central mountain air land in vancouver

text: Central Mountain Air

text: History[edit]

text: The airline was established and started operations in 1987; it is wholly owned by 580741 BC.[3] In 1997 Central Mountain Air placed an order for additional Raytheon Beech 1900D Airliner aircraft and began operating as an Air Canada connector, replacing Air BC operating several routes within Alberta and British Columbia, latterly under the Air Canada Express banner. In October 2011, Central Mountain Air ceased a Capacity Purchase Agreement (CPA) with Air Canada. The agreement was for flights from Calgary to Lethbridge, Medicine Hat and Cranbrook, flights are now being operated by Air Georgian. Central Mountain Air continues to be an Air Canada Code Share partner.

text: In late 2005 the first of two Dornier 328 were delivered to the airline, for use on chartered and scheduled flights. In 2014 they received their third Dornier 328. In March 2010, 580741 BC, the parent company of Central Mountain Air, purchased fellow British Columbia-based airline Hawkair.[4] On November 18, 2016, Hawkair declared bankruptcy, had all assets seized for liquidation, and permanently suspended operations.[5]

text: Central Mountain Air is the sister company of Northern Thunderbird Air, which operates charter and cargo services from Prince George.

text: Destinations[edit]

text: Central Mountain Air operates services to the following domestic scheduled destinations (as of March 2017):[6]

text:
British Columbia

Campbell River (Campbell River Airport)
Dawson Creek (Dawson Creek Airport)
Fort Nelson (Fort Nelson Airport)
Fort St. John (Fort St. John Airport)
Kamloops (Kamloops Airport)
Kelowna (Kelowna International Airport)
Prince George (Prince George Airport)
Quesnel (Quesnel Airport)
Smithers (Smithers Airport)
Terrace (Northwest Regional Airport)
Vancouver (Vancouver International Airport)
Williams Lake (Williams Lake Airport)

Alberta

Calgary (Calgary International Airport)
Edmonton (Edmonton International Airport)
High Level (High Level Airport)
Lloydminster (Lloydminster Airport)

tag: ul

text: Prior to October 1, 2011, Central Mountain Air operated Air Canada Express flights from Calgary to Cranbrook, Lethbridge and Medicine Hat.

text: Fleet[edit]

text: The Central Mountain Air fleet includes the following aircraft (as of January 2017):[1][7]

text:
Aircraft
Total
Variants
Notes

Beechcraft 1900
14
1900D
18 passengers, 2 Pratt and Whitney PT6A-67D Turboprop

Bombardier Dash 8
1
DHC-8-311
50 passengers

Dornier 328
3
328-100
30 passengers

Bombardier Dash 8
2
DHC-8-100
37 passengers

tag: table

text: The Transport Canada web site also shows a de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver and a Piper PA-31 Navajo both with cancelled certificates.[1]


document_title: History of the battery

question_text: when was the first dry cell battery invented

text: History of the battery

text: Experiments[edit]

text: In 1749, Benjamin Franklin, the U.S. polymath and founding father, first used the term "battery" to describe a set of linked capacitors he used for his experiments with electricity. These capacitors were panels of glass coated with metal on each surface.[1] These capacitors were charged with a static generator and discharged by touching metal to their electrode. Linking them together in a "battery" gave a stronger discharge.  Originally having the generic meaning of "a group of two or more similar objects functioning together", as in an artillery battery, the term came to be used for voltaic piles and similar devices in which many electrochemical cells were connected together in the manner of Franklin's capacitors.  Today even a single electrochemical cell, e.g. a dry cell, is commonly called a battery.

text: Invention[edit]

text: There is a disputed claim for a very early battery, the Baghdad Battery.[2] If it was real, it was soon forgotten.

text: In 1780, Luigi Galvani was dissecting a frog affixed to a brass hook. When he touched its leg with his iron scalpel, the leg twitched. Galvani believed the energy that drove this contraction came from the leg itself, and called it "animal electricity".

text: However, Alessandro Volta, a friend and fellow scientist, disagreed, believing this phenomenon was caused by two different metals joined together by a moist intermediary. He verified this hypothesis through experiment, and published the results in 1791. In 1800, Volta invented the first true battery, which came to be known as the voltaic pile. The voltaic pile consisted of pairs of copper and zinc discs piled on top of each other, separated by a layer of cloth or cardboard soaked in brine (i.e., the electrolyte). Unlike the Leyden jar, the voltaic pile produced a continuous electricity and stable current, and lost little charge over time when not in use, though his early models could not produce a voltage strong enough to produce sparks.[3] He experimented with various metals and found that zinc and silver gave the best results.

text: Volta believed the current was the result of two different materials simply touching each other—an obsolete scientific theory known as contact tension—and not the result of chemical reactions. As a consequence, he regarded the corrosion of the zinc plates as an unrelated flaw that could perhaps be fixed by changing the materials somehow. However, no scientist ever succeeded in preventing this corrosion. In fact, it was observed that the corrosion was faster when a higher current was drawn. This suggested that the corrosion was actually integral to the battery's ability to produce a current. This, in part, led to the rejection of Volta's contact tension theory in favor of electrochemical theory. Volta's illustrations of his Crown of Cups and voltaic pile have extra metal disks, now known to be unnecessary, on both the top and bottom. The figure associated with this section, of the zinc-copper voltaic pile, has the modern design, an indication that "contact tension" is not the source of electromotive force for the voltaic pile.

text: Volta's original pile models had some technical flaws, one of them involving the electrolyte leaking and causing short-circuits due to the weight of the discs compressing the brine-soaked cloth. A Scotsman named William Cruickshank solved this problem by laying the elements in a box instead of piling them in a stack. This was known as the trough battery.[4] Volta himself invented a variant that consisted of a chain of cups filled with a salt solution, linked together by metallic arcs dipped into the liquid. This was known as the Crown of Cups. These arcs were made of two different metals (e.g., zinc and copper) soldered together. This model also proved to be more efficient than his original piles,[5] though it did not prove as popular.

text: Another problem with Volta's batteries was short battery life (an hour's worth at best), which was caused by two phenomena. The first was that the current produced electrolysed the electrolyte solution, resulting in a film of hydrogen bubbles forming on the copper, which steadily increased the internal resistance of the battery (this effect, called polarization, is counteracted in modern cells by additional measures). The other was a phenomenon called local action, wherein minute short-circuits would form around impurities in the zinc, causing the zinc to degrade. The latter problem was solved in 1835 by William Sturgeon, who found that amalgamated zinc, whose surface had been treated with some mercury, didn't suffer from local action.[6]

text: Despite its flaws, Volta's batteries provided a steadier current than Leyden jars, and made possible many new experiments and discoveries, such as the first electrolysis of water by Anthony Carlisle and William Nicholson.

text: First practical batteries[edit]

text: Daniell cell[edit]

text: A British chemist named John Frederic Daniell found a way to solve the hydrogen bubble problem in the Voltaic Pile by using a second electrolyte to consume the hydrogen produced by the first. In 1836 he invented the Daniell cell, which consisted of a copper pot filled with a copper sulfate solution, in which was immersed an unglazed earthenware container filled with sulfuric acid and a zinc electrode. The earthenware barrier was porous, which allowed ions to pass through but kept the solutions from mixing.

text: The Daniell cell was a great improvement over the existing technology used in the early days of battery development and was the first practical source of electricity. It provided a longer and more reliable current than the Voltaic cell. It was also safer and less corrosive. It had an operating voltage of roughly 1.1 volts. It soon became the industry standard for use, especially with the new telegraph networks.

text: The Daniell cell was also used as a working standard for definition of the volt, which is the unit of electromotive force. [7]

text: Bird's cell[edit]

text: A version of the Daniell cell was invented in 1837 by the Guy's hospital physician Golding Bird who used a plaster of Paris barrier to keep the solutions separate.  Bird's experiments with this cell were of some importance to the new discipline of electrometallurgy.

text: Porous pot cell[edit]

text: The porous pot version of the Daniell cell was invented by John Dancer, a Liverpool instrument maker, in 1838. It consists of a central zinc anode dipped into a porous earthenware pot containing a zinc sulfate solution. The porous pot is, in turn, immersed in a solution of copper sulfate contained in a copper can, which acts as the cell's cathode. The use of a porous barrier allows ions to pass through but keeps the solutions from mixing.

text: Gravity cell[edit]

text: In the 1860s, a Frenchman named Callaud invented a variant of the Daniell cell called the gravity cell. This simpler version dispensed with the porous barrier. This reduced the internal resistance of the system and, thus, the battery yielded a stronger current. It quickly became the battery of choice for the American and British telegraph networks, and was used until the 1950s.

text: The gravity cell consisted of a glass jar, in which a copper cathode sat on the bottom and a zinc anode was suspended beneath the rim. Copper sulfate crystals would be scattered around the cathode and then the jar would be filled with distilled water. As the current was drawn, a layer of zinc sulfate solution would form at the top around the anode. This top layer was kept separate from the bottom copper sulfate layer by its lower density and by the polarity of the cell.

text: The zinc sulfate layer was clear in contrast to the deep blue copper sulfate layer, which allowed a technician to measure the battery life with a glance. On the other hand, this setup meant the battery could be used only in a stationary appliance, else the solutions would mix or spill. Another disadvantage was that a current had to be continually drawn to keep the two solutions from mixing by diffusion, so it was unsuitable for intermittent use.

text: Poggendorff cell[edit]

text: The German scientist Johann Christian Poggendorff overcame the problems with separating the electrolyte and the depolariser using a porous earthenware pot in 1842.  In the Poggendorff cell, sometimes called Grenet Cell due to the works of Eugene Grenet around 1859, the electrolyte was dilute sulphuric acid and the depolariser was chromic acid. The two acids were physically mixed together eliminating the porous pot. The positive electrode (cathode) was two carbon plates, with a zinc plate (negative or anode) positioned between them. Because of the tendency of the acid mixture to react with the zinc, a mechanism was provided to raise the zinc electrode clear of the acids.

text: The cell provided 1.9 volts. It proved popular with experimenters for many years due to its relatively high voltage; greater ability to produce a consistent current and lack of any fumes, but the relative fragility of its thin glass enclosure and the necessity of having to raise the zinc plate when the cell was not in use eventually saw it fall out of favour. The cell was also known as the 'chromic acid cell', but principally as the 'bichromate cell'. This latter name came from the practice of producing the chromic acid by adding sulphuric acid to potassium dichromate, even though the cell itself contained no dichromate.

text: The Fuller cell was developed from the Poggendorff cell. Although the chemistry was principally the same, the two acids were once again separated by a porous container and the zinc was treated with mercury to form an amalgam.

text: Grove cell[edit]

text: The Grove cell was invented by Welshman William Robert Grove in 1839. It consisted of a zinc anode dipped in sulfuric acid and a platinum cathode dipped in nitric acid, separated by porous earthenware. The Grove cell provided a high current and nearly twice the voltage of the Daniell cell, which made it the favoured cell of the American telegraph networks for a time. However, it gave off poisonous nitric oxide fumes when operated. The voltage also dropped sharply as the charge diminished, which became a liability as telegraph networks grew more complex. Platinum was also very expensive.

text: Dun cell[edit]

text: Alfred Dun 1885, nitro-muriatic acid (aqua regis) - Iron & Carbon

text: In the new element there can be used advantageously as exciting-liquid in the first case such solutions as have in a concentrated condition great depolarizing-power, which effect the whole depolarization chemically without necessitating the mechanical expedient of increased carbon surface. It is preferred to use iron as the positive electrode, and as exciting-liquid nitro muriatic acid, (aqua regis,) the mixture consisting of muriatic and nitric acids. The nitro-muriatic acid, as explained above, serves for filling both cells. For the carbon-cells it is used strong or very slightly diluted, but for the other cells very diluted, (about one-twentieth, or at the most one-tenth.) The element containing in one cell carbon and concentrated nitro-muriatic acid and in the other cell iron and dilute nitro-muriatic acid remains constant for at least twenty hours when employed for electric incandescent lighting. (p. 80 at Google Books)

text: Rechargeable batteries and dry cells[edit]

text: Lead-acid[edit]

text: Up to this point, all existing batteries would be permanently drained when all their chemical reactions were spent. In 1859, Gaston Planté invented the lead–acid battery, the first-ever battery that could be recharged by passing a reverse current through it. A lead acid cell consists of a lead anode and a lead dioxide cathode immersed in sulfuric acid. Both electrodes react with the acid to produce lead sulfate, but the reaction at the lead anode releases electrons whilst the reaction at the lead dioxide consumes them, thus producing a current. These chemical reactions can be reversed by passing a reverse current through the battery, thereby recharging it.

text: Planté's first model consisted of two lead sheets separated by rubber strips and rolled into a spiral.[8] His batteries were first used to power the lights in train carriages while stopped at a station[citation needed]. In 1881, Camille Alphonse Faure invented an improved version that consisted of a lead grid lattice into which a lead oxide paste was pressed, forming a plate. Multiple plates could be stacked for greater performance. This design was easier to mass-produce.

text: Compared to other batteries, Planté's was rather heavy and bulky for the amount of energy it could hold. However, it could produce remarkably large currents in surges. It also had very low internal resistance, meaning that a single battery could be used to power multiple circuits.[6]

text: The lead-acid battery is still used today in automobiles and other applications where weight is not a big factor. The basic principle has not changed since 1859. In the early 1930s, a gel electrolyte (instead of a liquid) produced by adding silica to a charged cell was used in the LT battery of portable vacuum-tube radios. In the 1970s, "sealed" versions became common (commonly known as a "gel cell" or "SLA"), allowing the battery to be used in different positions without failure or leakage.

text: Today cells are classified as "primary" if they produce a current only until their chemical reactants are exhausted, and "secondary" if the chemical reactions can be reversed by recharging the cell. The lead-acid cell was the first "secondary" cell.

text: Leclanché cell[edit]

text: In 1866, Georges Leclanché invented a battery that consisted of a zinc anode and a manganese dioxide cathode wrapped in a porous material, dipped in a jar of ammonium chloride solution. The manganese dioxide cathode had a little carbon mixed into it as well, which improved conductivity and absorption.[9] It provided a voltage of 1.4 volts.[10] This cell achieved very quick success in telegraphy, signalling and electric bell work.

text: The dry cell form was used to power early telephones—usually from an adjacent wooden box affixed to the wall—before telephones could draw power from the telephone line itself. The Leclanché cell could not provide a sustained current for very long. In lengthy conversations, the battery would run down, rendering the conversation inaudible.[11] This was because certain chemical reactions in the cell increased the internal resistance and, thus, lowered the voltage. These reactions reversed themselves when the battery was left idle, so it was good only for intermittent use.[6]

text: Zinc-carbon cell, the first dry cell[edit]

text: Many experimenters tried to immobilize the electrolyte of an electrochemical cell to make it more convenient to use. The Zamboni pile of 1812 was a high-voltage dry battery but capable of delivering only minute currents. Various experiments were made with cellulose, sawdust, spun glass, asbestos fibers, and gelatine.[12]

text: In 1886, Carl Gassner obtained a German patent[13] on a variant of the Leclanché cell, which came to be known as the dry cell because it did not have a free liquid electrolyte. Instead, the ammonium chloride was mixed with plaster of Paris to create a paste, with a small amount of zinc chloride added in to extend the shelf life. The manganese dioxide cathode was dipped in this paste, and both were sealed in a zinc shell, which also acted as the anode. In November 1887, he obtained U.S. Patent 373,064 for the same device.

text: Unlike previous wet cells, Gassner's dry cell was more solid, did not require maintenance, did not spill, and could be used in any orientation. It provided a potential of 1.5 volts. The first mass-produced model was the Columbia dry cell, first marketed by the National Carbon Company in 1896.[14] The NCC improved Gassner's model by replacing the plaster of Paris with coiled cardboard, an innovation that left more space for the cathode and made the battery easier to assemble. It was the first convenient battery for the masses and made portable electrical devices practical, and led directly to the invention of the flashlight.

text: The zinc–carbon battery (as it came to be known) is still manufactured today.

text: In parallel, in 1887 Wilhelm Hellesen developed his own dry cell design. It has been claimed that Hellesen's design preceded that of Gassner.[15]

text: In 1887, a dry-battery was developed by Yai Sakizō (屋井 先蔵) of Japan, then patented in 1892.[16][17] In 1893, Yai Sakizō's dry-battery was exhibited in World's Columbian Exposition and commanded considerable international attention.

text: NiCd, the first alkaline battery[edit]

text: In 1899, a Swedish scientist named Waldemar Jungner invented the nickel–cadmium battery, a rechargeable battery that had nickel and cadmium electrodes in a potassium hydroxide solution; the first battery to use an alkaline electrolyte. It was commercialized in Sweden in 1910 and reached the United States in 1946. The first models were robust and had significantly better energy density than lead-acid batteries, but were much more expensive.

text: 20th century: new technologies and ubiquity[edit]

text: Nickel-iron[edit]

text: Jungner had invented a nickel–iron battery in 1899, the same year as his Ni-Cad battery, but found it to be inferior to its cadmium counterpart and, as a consequence, never bothered patenting it. It produced a lot more hydrogen gas when being charged, meaning it could not be sealed, and the charging process was less efficient (it was, however, cheaper). However, Thomas Edison picked up Jungner's nickel-iron battery design, patented it himself and sold it in 1903. Edison wanted to commercialise a more lightweight and durable substitute for the lead-acid battery that powered some early automobiles, and hoped that by doing so electric cars would become the standard, with his firm as its main battery vendor. However, customers found his first model to be prone to leakage and short battery life, and it did not outperform the lead-acid cell by much either. Although Edison was able to produce a more reliable and powerful model seven years later, by this time the inexpensive and reliable Model T Ford had made gasoline engine cars the standard. Nevertheless, Edison's battery achieved great success in other applications such as electric and diesel-electric rail vehicles, providing backup power for railroad crossing signals, or to provide power for the lamps used in mines.[18][19]

text: Common alkaline batteries[edit]

text: Until the late 1950s the zinc–carbon battery continued to be a popular primary cell battery, but its relatively low battery life hampered sales. In 1955, an engineer named Lewis Urry, working for Union Carbide at the National Carbon Company Parma Research Laboratory, was tasked with finding a way to extend the life of zinc-carbon batteries, but Urry decided instead that alkaline batteries held more promise. Until then, longer-lasting alkaline batteries were unfeasibly expensive. Urry's battery consisted of a manganese dioxide cathode and a powdered zinc anode with an alkaline electrolyte. Using powdered zinc gave the anode a greater surface area. These batteries hit the market in 1959.

text: Nickel-hydrogen and nickel metal-hydride[edit]

text: The nickel–hydrogen battery entered the market as an energy-storage subsystem for commercial communication satellites.[20][21]

text: The first consumer grade nickel–metal hydride batteries (NiMH) for smaller applications appeared on the market in 1989 as a variation of the 1970s nickel–hydrogen battery.[22] NIMH batteries tend to have longer lifespans than NiCd batteries (and their lifespans continue to increase as manufacturers experiment with new alloys) and, since cadmium is toxic, NiMH batteries are less damaging to the environment.

text: Lithium and lithium-ion batteries[edit]

text: Lithium is the metal with lowest density and with the greatest electrochemical potential and energy-to-weight ratio.  The low atomic weight and small size of its ions also speeds its diffusion.  So theory suggests it would make an ideal material for batteries. Experimentation with lithium batteries began in 1912 under  G.N. Lewis, and in the 1970s the first lithium batteries came onto the market.  Three volt lithium primary cells such as the CR123A type and three volt button cells are still widely used, especially in cameras and very small devices.  Energizer and other brands market 1.5 volt lithium primary cells, with advantages for some applications over alkaline cells.

text: Three important developments marked the 1980s. In 1980 an American chemist, John B. Goodenough, disclosed the LiCoO2 cathode (positive lead) and a Moroccan research scientist, Rachid Yazami, discovered the graphite anode (negative lead) with the solid electrolyte. In 1981, Japanese chemists Tokio Yamabe and late Shizukuni Yata discovered a novel nano-carbonacious-PAS (polyacene,) [23] and found that it was very effective for the anode in the conventional liquid electrolyte. [24] [25] This led a research team managed by Akira Yoshino of Asahi Chemical, Japan, to build the first lithium-ion battery prototype in 1985, a rechargeable and more stable version of the lithium battery; Sony commercialized the lithium-ion battery in 1991. [26]

text: In 1997, the lithium polymer battery was released by Sony and Asahi Kasei. These batteries hold their electrolyte in a solid polymer composite instead of in a liquid solvent, and the electrodes and separators are laminated to each other. The latter difference allows the battery to be encased in a flexible wrapping instead of in a rigid metal casing, which means such batteries can be specifically shaped to fit a particular device. This advantage has favored lithium polymer batteries in the design of portable electronic devices such as mobile phones and personal digital assistants, and of radio-controlled aircraft, as such batteries allow for more flexible and compact design. They generally have a lower energy density than normal lithium-ion batteries.


document_title: Malchus

question_text: who cut the ear of the high priest's servant

question_tokens: who cut the ear of the high priest 's servant

text: Malchus

text: This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Malchus /ˈmælkəs/ is the servant of the Jewish High Priest Caiaphas who participated in the arrest of Jesus as written in the four gospels. According to the Bible, one of the disciples, Simon Peter, being armed with a sword, cut off the servant's ear in an attempt to prevent the arrest of Jesus.

text: Simon cutting off Malchus' ear is related in all four canonical gospels, in Matthew 26:51, Mark 14:47, Luke 22:50-51, and John 18:10–11, but Simon and Malchus are named only in the Gospel of John. Also, Luke is the only gospel that says Jesus healed the servant. This was Jesus' last recorded miracle prior to His resurrection.

text: The relevant passage in the Gospel of John, KJV, reads:

text:
10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.
11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

text: Although rejecting biblical inerrancy, James F. McGrath suggests that this account reflects an event that did happen, in that early Christians would hardly have invented a story portraying themselves as violent.[2]

text: Later in Chapter 18, John records that a relative of Malchus witnessed Peter's assault in the Garden of Gethsemane, and identified Peter as a follower of Christ. Peter denied this.

text: Thornton Wilder wrote a short play entitled, "The Servant's Name Was Malchus". It appeared in the collection The Angel That Troubled the Waters and Other Plays.

text: Malchus was portrayed by Paul Brightwell in the 2013 TV miniseries The Bible.

text: "Malchus" is a book by W. G. Griffiths published in 2002 by RiverOaks Publishing.