HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: F-23 Dead?
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:03:51 GMT

On 10 Sep 92 20:25:58 GMT, tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett) said:

Tom> In article <BuDGBo.GG2@ais.org>, draper@ais.org (Patrick Draper) writes:
> I thought that the F-15 could accelerate straight up. I read in a book once
> that it could actually surpass the speed of sound in a tru vertical climb,
> and if it was already airborne at ground level, it could beat the space
> shuttle to 50,000 feet in a vertical climb.
> 
> I read it in a book, so it *must* be true, right?

Tom> Of course it's true.  As long as no additional items are hung out on
Tom> the wings/fuselage, etc... .

Not quite true.  Some external stores don't have much effect.  For
example, loading out with Sidewinders and Sparrows doesn't give you
a lot more drag.  Centerline drop tanks and 500-lb bombs do.

Tom> Once you add drag and weight onto the aircraft it becomes considerably
Tom> more "dirty" and not as aerodynamically efficient.  An F-15 at gross
Tom> weight is not likely to have a thrust to weight ratio in excess of 1,
Tom> and therefore cannot climb vertically.  Additional degradation occurs
Tom> with added drag in the form of missles, fuel tanks allowing more than
Tom> an hours flight time, and so on.

An F-15 at gross weight has a T/W > 1.  I don't remember how much greater
(it's been a lot of years since I worked on the Cat I testing of the
F-15) but it's sufficient.  Slipper tanks don't add enough drag to
notice, either.

Tom> Also don't forget that the space shuttle is very heavy and it would
Tom> logically take awhile to accelerate sufficiently to overcome its mass,
Tom> hence I suppose under ideal conditions, maybe a fighter could out
Tom> climb it, but I doubt it.  Many fighter aircraft have incredible
Tom> initial climb performance (the F-104G climbed at 70K fpm according to
Tom> Jane's), but they slow down considerably as the altitude increases.

Both the F-15 and the F-104 can fly a Shuttle launch profile up to
about Mach 2.2.  We did this for some Shuttle tile tests.  Neither
were in MAX for the entire profile, indicating that they could have
outperformed it.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "There's no kill like a guns kill." LCDR "Hoser" Satrapa, gunnery instructor
                       "A kill is a kill."  Anonymous
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: F-23 Dead?
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 02:48:02 GMT

Tom> == Tom Pickett <tpickett@auspex.com> 

 Tom> actually, as I understand it, the sidewinders when mounted on the
 Tom> wingtips have an endplate effect and actually improve the drag
 Tom> of the wing don't they?

I didn't think the '15 had tip-mounts...
--
Christopher Davis   | ]CALL -151       
<ckd@eff.org>       | *300: 20 DD FB 60
System Administrator| *3D0G            
EFF +1 617 864 0665 | ]CALL 768
From: dd@doc.ic.ac.uk (Demetrius Dracopoulos)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: McDonnell Douglas and Neural Networks
Date: 8 Sep 92 10:11:57 GMT
Reply-To: dd@doc.ic.ac.uk (Demetrius Dracopoulos)
Organization: Department Of Computing, Imperial College, London UK
NNTP-Posting-Host: swan.doc.ic.ac.uk

I am looking for any references or information regarding work done in McDonell 
Douglas using Neural Nets.

Thanks in advance

Dimitris Dracopoulos
Dept. of Computing
Imperial College
180 Queens Gate
London SW7 2BZ
UK


-------------------------------------------------------
Don't mess with Texas
-------------------------------------------------------

*****     **    **   **    **   ******    *****      **
**  **    **    *** ***    **     **      **  **     **
**  **    **    ** * **    **     **      *****      **
*****     **    **   **    **     **      **  **     **
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: supersonic B-52's??
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:48:58 GMT
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Sep9.114038.13429@walter.bellcore.com> jem3@pyuxf.uucp (25312-mc killop) writes:

>The BUF (Big Ugly Fellow) is definitely subsonic. 

There is no way the wings (or the skin, for that matter) of a B-52
would take supersonic flight.  When did we start calling it BUF
instead of BUFF?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
Subject: Re: F22 Air Force purchases.
    <cshotton-010992112048@oac2.hsc.uth.tmc.edu> 
    <1992Sep02.111237.649@bmerh85.bnr.ca> <117@newave.mn.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 06:16:44 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences

john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes:

>In article <1992Sep02.111237.649@bmerh85.bnr.ca> viking@bmerh66.bnr.ca writes:
>> What caught my eye was a statement that the Air Force is buying about 600
>> F22 Lightning II's.  Anyone know the time frame for when they go
>> operational?  Also, considering the high-tech nature of these beasties, will
>> they be sold to "friendly nations" as an export item?

>I doubt that any allied nations will fly the F-22.  It will simply be too
>expensive for anyone but the US.

I bet someone does, but not many.  It's DAMN expensive.

>> What's happening with Naval air now that the A12 has been cancelled?  Last
>> I heard, they were thinking of Hornet/Tomcat upgrades but has the F23 been
>> definitely ruled out as a successor?

The F-14 upgrade has been canceled.  It's expensive, and the resulting
plane requires two pilots (not one) and more maintanace than the navy
would like.

The F-22 will never be naval-ized.  For one thing, the wings don't
fold.  You could probably strengthen the landing gear, but this wing
thing kills it.

The F-23 is dead.  Just dead.  The designers chose to put more
emphesis on stealy and less on aerodynamics than the air force wanted.
Of course, the air force decided this after the plane was built ...

What the navy *WILL* do is the new F-18.  They are calling it a new
model of the old F-18, bt in fact it is almost a new airplane.  It
will have the same shape, and the same engines, but will be about 20%
larger, and carry more, and go 50% farther, and such.  It should cost
almost as much as the F-22, not be stealthy, bet be able to land on
carriers.  Also, it't won't fly as far.  As for speed, most people
don't care about top speed in fighters anymore.  In fact, it's been
declining since the F-15/Mig-25 days.

Why are we talking about this in this newsgroup?

If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them as well as I can.

-Randy
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: F-23 Dead?
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
	<CKD.92Sep13224759@loiosh.eff.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 04:33:16 GMT

On Mon, 14 Sep 1992 02:48:02 GMT, ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) said:

Tom> == Tom Pickett <tpickett@auspex.com> 

 Tom> actually, as I understand it, the sidewinders when mounted on the
 Tom> wingtips have an endplate effect and actually improve the drag
 Tom> of the wing don't they?

CD> I didn't think the '15 had tip-mounts...

They don't.  The standard carry is four (I believe) on the "corners"
of the fuselage, with more possible on racks on the wing hard points.
The fuselage-mounted 'Winders are partially recessed.

The F-14 mounts on the fuselage, too.  The F-18 and F-16 each carry
missiles on the wingtips.  These latter can also carry missiles on
racks.  I vaguely remember that the F-14 has or had swiveling racks
because of the wing sweep, but will not make any claims about what
they actually use because I don't really know.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "There's no kill like a guns kill." LCDR "Hoser" Satrapa, gunnery instructor
                       "A kill is a kill."  Anonymous
From: megazone@planet10.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: F-23 Dead? Nahh....
Date: 15 Sep 1992 15:31:35 GMT
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
NNTP-Posting-Host: planet10.wpi.edu

In article <1992Sep15.102113.8569@pages.com> bruce@pages.com(Bruce Henderson) writes:
>In article <19962@fritz.filenet.com> scotth@felix.filenet.com (Scott Hopson)  
>writes:
>Northrop builds beautiful Aircraft.  Lockheed hasn't done that for a while.
>The reason I like the B-2 and the F-23 is that they look absolutely badass!
>(OK, technology wise they are also works of art)

I don't know, the B-2 is just sort of bland to me. I admit the F-23 is one
hell of a good looking aircraft, but I like the F-22's agressive looks too.
Sort of like the Diablo and Countach, they're both awesome, but in different
ways...

>I am personally surprised that no one has mentioned that Northrop aircraft win
>the cosmetics hands down!

Well, Northrop has had some losers, and of course Lockheed still has the
legacy of the Constellation and the most beautiful aircraft ever, IMHO, the
Blackbird.

>I hope that the Navy USMC pick up the YF-23 program (Like the YF-17) and turn 
>it into another winner. 

There are many who would argue the F-18 being a winner... but.....

It is unlikely. The Marines are committed to the F-18E/F and they are still
looking at Harrier derivatives/replacements. The reason they turned down the
Tomcat 21 was that it was too big and too complex. And the F-23 is right up 
there with the 14, smae reason the Marines are unlikely to operate the F-22.

Check out the September issue of Proceedings, there's a pretty critical article
on the F-18E/F and an article encouraging the adoption of a naval F-22 since
the 18 can't fill the 14s shoes. Plus it is felt that since the F-22 project is
funded by the AF, it would be cheaper than starting up the F-23 programme.

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Subject: Re: Small windtunnel Info needed
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:31:04 GMT

When I went to Oshkosh a few years ago I went to a seminar on a small
windtunnel. I have the stuff at home. Complete plans, etc.

As designed it takes a 3/4 hp motor, but I do not recall the wind
speeds generated.

I am not an expert, somebody else on the net please verify, but I think
that you want to test the scale model at the same Renyolds number that the full
scale wing would be at at the speed you care about. Thus, the wind might need to 
be faster than you thought.

David		doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

The thought police insist I tell you:
my thoughts, not NASA's
From: john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Questions About SUPERGUPPY
Date: 15 Sep 92 05:01:44 GMT
Organization: Newave Communications, Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN

In <65828@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
> I recently saw a PBS show on the aircraft industry which showed one of
> our foreign competitors (either Airbus or Mitsubishi) receiving a hull
> which was being delivered by a Superguppy.

> My questions are:
> when were they made

The modifications were carried out in the 1960's.

> who made them

Boeing made the original aircraft, Aero Spacelines carried out the Guppy
conversions.

> are they derivative from any earlier airframe

They were modified from Boeing B-377 Stratocruisers (commercial passenger
plane) and Boeing C-97 (Air Force cargo plane), which are derivatives
of the B-29 Superfortress bomber of WWII fame.

> what engines did they have

The earlier versions have the corncob piston engines (R-4360), while some
of the later have Allison 501-D22C turboprops or Pratt & Whitney T34-P-7WA
turboprops.

> what are the dimensions of its cargo bay

Between 19'9" and 25' in diameter, and a cargo bay length of up to about
100'.

> how many were produced

13 (see Jane's for a complete record).  There were several different types.
The Pregnant Guppy, Super Guppy, and Mini Guppy appear to be one-offs, while
the Guppy-101 and Guppy-201 are production models similar to the Mini Guppy
and Super Guppy, respectively, with a production run of 7 and 3, respectively.

> who owns them now

NASA has two (Pregnant Guppy and Super Guppy), Aeromaritime has two (both
Guppy-201's), and the rest are privately owned.  The two owned by Aeromaritime
are based in Europe and are used to ferry parts of the Airbus airlines between
factories.  In the past, they were also used in the Concord program.

> are any airframes derivative from them

No.

> what world records do they hold

No clue.

> do you have any amusing anecdotes (like stories about inverted flight, etc.)

There is a Wings episode that talks about the derivatives of the B-29, which
includes a few minutes of footage of the Guppies.  The comment that is made
in the Wings show is that the B-29 was designed to be the ultimate in
streamlining, and the B-29 exterior was as perfect as 1944 would allow.  It
is then very ironic that a B-29 derivate like the Guppy, which is anything
but streamlined, would ever have evolved considering the original object of
the B-29 program.

A Guppy played a key role in the construction of the Mall Of America in
Bloomington Minnesota.  A large helicoptor crane was used to lift the
airconditioning units to the roof of the mall.  This chopper was brought
into the twin cities inside of a Guppy.

-john-

-- 
==============================================================================
John A. Weeks III		(612) 942-6969		    john@newave.mn.org
Newave Communications, Ltd.			    ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john
From: sharma@nrcphy1.phy.nrc.ca (Rohit Sharma)
Subject: Re: supersonic B-52's??
Organization: National Research Council of Canada
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 19:06:30 GMT

 On the subject of B-52s, I saw one of the beasties at the CNE airshow in
Toronto on Saturday and it was one of the most intimidating sights - 
watching the B-52 sweep down from the clouds just next to the CN tower

 and I think the annoucer mentioned that it was a subsonic craft.

- rohit
From: megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: F-23 Dead?
Date: 14 Sep 1992 04:26:54 GMT
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu

In article <CKD.92Sep13224759@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
>Tom> == Tom Pickett <tpickett@auspex.com> 
> Tom> actually, as I understand it, the sidewinders when mounted on the
> Tom> wingtips have an endplate effect and actually improve the drag
> Tom> of the wing don't they?
>I didn't think the '15 had tip-mounts...

It doesn't. The F-15 has it's tips cut off at a sharp angle for flutter
control.

(To show how much of a techie I am, I noticed that the F-15 model on the wall
in the 'Tasha Yar' Playboy layout was an early one, before the modification)

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################
From: mtk3@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew T. Kenner)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Live Fried Chicken (Was: Re: Birds getting sucked.)
Date: 9 Sep 1992 22:18:27 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: mtk3@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew T. Kenner)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, spaceman@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu () says:

>My question is, why does it have to be a live chicken?

As I understand it, the use of a dead chicken is just not as realistic.
A live chicken will react differently than the body of a dead chicken
which will, for lack a better way to say this, be a little stiff.  This
apparently makes a difference.  I remember this from something I read
about the testing of B-1 windshields with live chickens.  The reason it
was in the news?  It was protested by animal rights activists and
stopped.  I think Rockwell went with fresh kills (to try to keep some of
that realism, I guess) after that.  
-- 
^ ^~~~~~~~~~ | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__|__~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | ~~~~~~~~~^ ^
 ^        ---|---                *---o0o---*                 ---|---        ^ 
^ ^        _(0)_                 Matt Kenner                  _(0)_        ^ ^
*---------(|_*_|)---------*    mtk3@po.CWRU.edu    *---------(|_*_|)---------*
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Re: Aurora propulsion
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 05:19:56 GMT

jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
 >I've started hearing rumors that Aurora's propulsion may not be Pulse
 >Detonation Engines (PDEs) after all, and that it might simply be
 >a scram jet with the PDE being another vehicle.

The problem is that we now seem to have several "Auroras".  I still think 
of the original "pulser" as Aurora though, which is the one most likely to
be using PDWE propulsion, and also producing the "donuts on a rope"...

This new Valkyrie/Blackbird aircraft i'd guess could be using something
closer to an advanced scramjet type propulsion system.

BTW, AW&ST has had several interesting articles on scramjet engines recently.

-{ DA }-

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: towolt@bigbird.lerc.nasa.gov (John Wolter)
Subject: Re: supersonic B-52's??
Summary: I dunno, but I want to make a point here
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center [Cleveland, Ohio]
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:05:33 GMT

In article <SHAFER.92Sep12102715@ra.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>Regarding the possibility of supersonic B-52s--it's not structurally
>possible.  There was a very well-known incident when they slightly
>exceeded the maximum speed in the course of flutter testing one of the
>variants and lost almost all of the vertical tail, including the rudder.

This does not prove that the B-52 cannot survive a supersonic flight.  
It could be that the speed at which the above mentioned '52 lost its 
tail corresponds to a harmonic frequency in the tail.  Above or below 
this speed, the tail will be okay.  If you pass through this speed pretty
quickly, the tail will survive.  

I seem to remember from Chuck Yeager's autobiography that they ran into 
this kind of thing with the X-1 at around Mach .95.  The plane started 
virbrate terribly, and Chuck was afraid to take it any faster.  Of course
in the end they took the gamble, flew faster, and the rest is history.

I'm not saying that the B-52 *can* fly supersonically.  I don't know, but
it might be possible.

-- 
================> John D. Wolter    NASA Lewis Research Center <===============
===================> (216) 433-3941    towolt@lerc.nasa.gov <==================
=======================> "You can always pull the plug" <======================
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: swindley@elec.uq.oz.au (Robert Swindley)
Subject: Re: Ram Jet
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 06:12:41 GMT

will@wixer.cactus.org (Bill Staniewicz) writes:

>Newsgroups: rec.aeronautics
>Subject: Ram Jet
>Distribution: world
>Organization: Real/Time Communications

   (edited a bit)

>My question is: Is/was the ramjet actually used for any
>extended period of time on any aircraft. Wings did mention
>some advantages of the ramjet, one being that it could generrate 
>almost limitless power, only limited by the strength of the airframe.
>Also, very few moving parts. I wonder how the fuel consumption
>compares to the ordinary jet engine and what are some other advantages
>and disadvantages.

>-- 
>Bill
>will@wixer.cactus.org

    The ramjet (named because the americans figured that if you ram air
into it you must therefore call it a 'ramjet') usually operates at
mach numbers of greater than one.  This is because the major principal
behind the design is that a normal shock wave occurs at the inlet to the
combustion chamber. I'm not sure what the level of tech knowledge is at this 
group, but a normal shock wave causes a dramatic increase in both the pressure
and temperature of the airstream entering the combustion chamber. This then
eliminates the need for a compressor as is usual in a jet engine.
    Hopefully the pressure and temperature increase is enough to ignite the
fuel.
    So, ramjets have the advantage of not having so many moveing parts, and since
the turbine doesn't have to run a compressor it is more efficient in providing
thrust.
    Normal shocks however a pain in the butt, and at about mach 4 the temperatures
encountered are getting near the material limits.  So the power is nowhere near
limitless.  For a better engine, go for the SCRAMJET.
    sorry i can't help with planes that have used them as i'm not really into
aircraft.  Any further discuss on scramjets or the aurora would be nice
    Sorry for raving on

  The Chengster
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: Michael F. Kamprath <kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Small windtunnel Info needed
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 18:38:11 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan, Aerospace Engineering
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A6D7E9EC0101C4FC@sprl-mac2016.sprl.umich.edu>
X-Xxdate: Sat, 12 Sep 92 18:39:40 GMT

In article <po0adlc@fido.asd.sgi.com> Thad Beier, thad@lever.asd.sgi.com writes:
>Rutan, among others, has used his van or truck as a wind
>tunnel.  Simply mount the object to test pretty far above or
>to the side of the vehicle, and drive it down the road at high
>speed.  It may not be as easy to instrument, but it does have
>a lot of advantages.  The biggest is that the airflow is fairly
>smooth, smoothing the air coming into a wind tunnel is
>a big job, and generally is not done very well.


Mount pretty far up _and_ forward.  This way you will not get the boundary
layer and updraft (from the air moving up over the vehicle) effects.  Probaly
the best thing to do is to create a mount that allows the model to hit the 
oncoming air "first."  But the biggest problem I can see with the car approach
is when you are trying to measure forces.  The aerodynamic forces that your
model creates could quite possibly in in the noise level when compared to the
vibrations and jars created by the road.  Unless, of course, your model is huge.

========================================================================
| Michael F. Kamprath                   | The University of Michigan   |
|   kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu |      Aerospace Engineering   |
|   kamprath@engin.umich.edu            |                              |
|---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
|       And if a man can't change the world these days,                |
|       I still believe he can change his own destiny.                 |
|                                 --Michael Peters (The Alarm)         |
|                                   "The Spirit of '76"                |
========================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics