HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lpssegel@susssys1.reading.ac.uk (Glen Segell)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: V/STOL fighters
Date: 21 Jan 93 08:58:00 GMT
Organization: University of Reading

It is with great interest that I take up the V/STOL fighter issue as it is
one which I have investigated historically.

First there was the BS53 engine developed by Bristol Siddeley Engines UK
in the early 1950's. They managed to get Mutual Development Weapons 
Programme (MDWP) funding around 1956/7. Around this engine was designed
the subsonic Hawker Siddeleye P.1127 to meet British Operational 
requirement OR.345 (a complementary OR to the OR.343/TSR.2) for close
army support up to 100 nautical miles behind enemy territory and tactical
recce. The BS53 engine used Vectored Thrust by swivelling the nozels. 

At the same time there was a Rolls Royce concept of many engines some for
vertical flight and some for level flight. This concept was incorprated 
into a Shorts Brothers (Belfast) Experimental Aircraft SC1.

In the  early 1960's a Tri-Partite (USA, UK and FR-Germany) set up a 30
aircraft squadron for the evaluation of the P.1127 Kestrel aircraft. Hawker
Siddeley in the meanwhile had come up with the P.1154 aircraft to meet a
joint RAF/RN staff target (replace Hunter and Sea Vixen) for interceptor
and ground attack. This aircraft would use the upgraded BS53 ie BS100. This
aircraft would have a range of 500 nm and be supersonic. It was offered for
tender competition to the Nato Basic Military requirement No.3 but NATO
dropped this requirement. Unortunately the P.1154 was cancelled in 1965 due
to a variety of political and financial considerations and the Phantom F-4
was procurred instead. (at the same time TSR.2 was also cancelled and an
option for F-111k taken out as well as the HS680 STOL transport where the 
C130 was procurred instead).

The P.1127 and BS53 engine were modified and reborn as the Harrier for the
Invincible class aircraft carrieres in 1968 and shortly afterwards the US
Marines took interest and procurred.

I do beleive that the concept of vectored thrust has been tested out in a 
much modified F-16 in a joint US/Israeli experimental aircraft. Israel has
since withdrawn finding hardening more preferential to dispersal. 

Technologically this modofoed F-16 had rather numerous air intakes and 
outlets all over the place.



Glen Segell    
g.segell@elm.cc.kcl.ac.uk
Department of War Studies Kings London
From: v053t8r8@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (DESMOND)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Stealth material
Date: 21 Jan 93 20:31:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Does anyone know what materials are used to enhance the stealth capabilities 
of the B-2 and F-117 ?  We're currently thinking of using composites, any
suggestions would be appreciated.  Please send e-mail directly to :

v053t8r8@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu 

Thanks!

Desmond Seow
(SUNY@Buffalo) 
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.research.careers,sci.space,soc.college.grad
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Orbital Mechanics--Careers?
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:43:48 GMT

In <1993Jan28.005309.674@chpc.utexas.edu> byab314@chpc.utexas.edu (Srinivas Bettadpur) writes:

>    * I know of UT-Austin, MIT, Stanford, UC-Boulder, VPISU, U. Mich-Ann
>Arbor, U. Ill.-UC, Purdue, Auburn U. as offering any significant 
>graduate programs in CM in the US.

Uh, that's CU-Boulder.  Yes, I know the school is called University of
Colorado, but we still abbreviate it CU.

[No, I know nothing about their curriculum wrt. CM; I just happened to
go to school there for something else.]

-- 
"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.
From: dsnyder@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Aurora Revealed
Date: 22 Jan 93 10:46:06 EST
Organization: USAF AL/CFH, WPAFB, Dayton, OH

In article <1993Jan18.212347.15566@news.weeg.uiowa.edu>, jagnow@al.weeg.uiowa.edu (Al Jagnow) writes:
> In article <1jc367INNs06@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John  
> Dill) writes:
>> 
>>  LAX to JFK in 20 minutes?  Altitudes of 200,000+ at speeds over
>> mach 8.....200,000-300,000 lbs. gtw external combustion (methane)
>>    Tell us more!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Question: If this technology is available, why is NASA still spending money to  
> develop a 'Aero-Space Plane' ?
> It would seem to be significant that there are no more millitary shuttle  
> missions scheduled. (Does Aurora have orbital capabilities?)
> It would also seem that Aurora became operational sometime before the SR-71 was  
> retired.   
> Perhaps NASA has been passed by in air/space technology. It would seem that a  
> re-thinking of funding priorities is in order. 

  I'm sure NASA doesn't leak out information just like the military doesn't.  
I do know that the NASP project was for a vehicle (not necessarly military)
that was capable of speeds between mach 16 and 26.  The NASP project is 
currently having funding problems.  Our work on high speed flight simulation
has been curtailed to only a small amount of our overall support and rumor 
has it that the vehicle is being redesigned to a smaller configuration.  
Flight characteristics are interesting.  California to Florida in 35 minutes.
Now that would make a gulf weekend fishing trip doable.  David-- 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
David B. Snyder                     Logicon Technical Services Inc.
dsnyder@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil   Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
513-255-7557                        Dayton, Ohio USA
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It is said that GOD doesn't subtract from ones' time on earth, those
hours spent flying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1946 Cessna 140 N76234 "The lady in waiting" Owner/Operator
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are my own and not those of Logicon or the USAF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU (Charles F Fitzgerald)
Subject: Re: Want information of Foward swept wing
Reply-To: cffitzge@IASTATE.EDU (Charles F Fitzgerald)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:51:52 GMT

Takuya Kitamura writes:
>Does anyone know about Foward swept wing? I just know some 
>experimental airplane exist such as X-29A. What is advantage 
>and disadvantage? Could you tell me about it?

I am by no means an expert, but I will attempt an answer.

The only forward swept aircraft I have heard of is the X-29.
It was a proof-of-concept aircraft built to prove that a
forward swept wing could fly (at least that is what I have heard).

The advantage to forward sweeping is the same as the advantage
of backward sweeping (but it looks neater :-)), _ie._ the velocity
perpendicular to the wing is reduced in magnitude thus delaying
the point at which the wing encounters its critical Mach number.

One major disadvantage to forward sweeping is it leads to 
dynamic instabilities, thus requiring a lot of computer control
during flight to be implemented.

Hope most of this is correct and helps.

--
Charles F. Fitzgerald | '...it's a tale, told by an idiot,
Iowa State University | full of sound and fury,
cffitzge@iastate.edu  | signifying nothing.'
                      | _MacBeth_, by W. Shakespeare.

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: pt@geovision.gvc.com (Paul Tomblin)
Subject: Re: More facts about Arora...
Reply-To: pt@geovision.gvc.com
Organization: Not officially GeoVision Systems Inc., Ottawa, Ontario
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:15:42 GMT

ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) writes:
>The only place this baby can safely (secretly) operate from is the
>very secluded and protected Tonapah range in Nevada. It only flies
[etc]

This thread should more appropriately be titled `The same old speculation
about Aurora'', since there is nothing new or factual about anything I've
seen here.

-- 
Paul Tomblin (I don't make or state policy for this company)
"Well, this looks absolutely brilliant and completely unmarketable."
"Thanks.  I'm technology driven" - Dilbert
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: jbii@HDFS1.acd.com ( John O. Bell II )
Subject: Re: V/STOL fighters
Summary: Jets are nice, but what if...
Keywords: CAS, Harrier, STOVL, V/STOL, VTOL
Organization: Applied Computing Devices, Inc., Terre Haute IN
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:10:31 GMT

It's too bad the Osprey project is being jerked around... it would make one
_hell_ of a CAS platform.

What is the latest status on the V-22 Osprey, anyway? Are they going to let
the engineers do their job, or is Congress going to redesign the plane
by committee?

Suddenly, I have a sinking feeling it is the latter... *sigh*

John Bell
Applied Computing Devices, Inc.
jbii@hdfs1.acd.com
From: iglesias@draco.acs.uci.edu (Mike Iglesias)
Subject: Books for kids on aeronautics
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 25 Jan 93 03:27:04 GMT


For his school science project, my son has chosen a topic about how the
size and shape of a wing affects how a paper airplane flies.  Does anyone
have any suggestions on books that cover wing shape, how wings work, etc
that an 11 year old can understand (possibly with some help)? 

I'll summarize the responses if there's interest.


Mike Iglesias                        Internet:    iglesias@draco.acs.uci.edu
University of California, Irvine     BITNET:      iglesias@uci
Office of Academic Computing         uucp:        ...!ucbvax!ucivax!iglesias
Distributed Computing Support        phone:       (714) 856-6926
From: buxduac@dct.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Estimateing hieght speed.
Date: 25 Jan 93 11:05:53 GMT
Organization: Dundee Institute of Technology

Does any body know of studies into lay persons ability to estimate hieght
/speed of aircraft ?

I am lloking for papers from reputible sources that investigate the 
acuracy of the average person in the street abilty to estimate how 
high and how fast an aircraft is and is travelling.


Andy C 
acobley@uk.ac.dundee.mic

University Of Dundee
Dundee
Scotland
.
From: doi@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Daniel Kuan Li Oi)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: V/STOL fighters
Date: 22 Jan 1993 09:55:34 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: tartarus.uwa.edu.au
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.4.19 #1

chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss) writes:
>The biggest combat problem of a VTOL aircraft is that of heat-seeking missiles.
>In any aircraft where the engine thrust is used to lift the plane, the exhaust 
>nozzles must be arranged around the CG (Center of Gravity).  Since the engines
>are the major heat source in an aircraft that is flying at sub-sonic speeds, 
>this is where the missiles will most likely hit.  With the engines amidships 
>(around the CG), even a relatively small blast, such as that of a shoulder-
>launched SAM, will cause catastrophic engine, control and structural damage.  
>A larger missile like the Sidewinder will cut the plane in half.  (All right, 
>maybe an exaggeration, but it will more than likely rupture fuel and hydraulic 
>lines, cut power systems and flight control systems, and turn the engine into 
>a large number of high-speed fragments, which will then cut the aircraft in 
>half from the inside.)  

>Chad Wemyss
>Worcester Polytechnic Institute

	Wouldn't the four nozzles of a non-afterburning turbofan have a
much smaller IR signature than two nozzles of a twin engined
afterburning plane? The exhaust of the Harrier would have greater
diffusion and for much of the upper hemisphere, the nozzles are hidden
by the wing.
	If there is a direct strike by an AAM, there would be alot of
catastrophic damage anyway whereever the engine is located. Most missile
hits would be proximity blasts(?) in a manoeuvering engagement.(This is
conjecture on my part). 
	Most of the designs for ASTOVL planes are high(by jet fighter
terms) bypass turbofans so the IR signature of these engines should be
inherrently less than the current generation of low-bypass engines.{I
think the pegaseus has bypass ratio of 1.2 compared to the f100 of the
f15 ratio 0.7}


					Daniel Oi
					University of Wesyern Australia

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: bphillip@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Brent R Phillips)
Subject: ***Help w/ aero HW(hodograph problem)***
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 04:20:24 GMT

Hello, I am a undergraduate student in the aerospace program here at Ohio
State.  I am in the second quarter aero class and I am having a problem will a
assingment question.

Here's the problem
I have a high aspect ratio, high altitude, powered sailplane.  I need to
construct a Hodograph(Vv vs. Vh).  I am given that the THP = 600 HP at
50,000ft.  The problem I am running into is that I have a equation to use for
lbs. of thrust but, none for THP.  I do not know a V(infinity) for a
convertion. Nor do I know enough about the A/C to calculate R/C(max) for a
given V(infinity).

Please contact me!  at  bphillips@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu  or  on the net.

Thanks!!!!!(a frustrated student)
From: tekiya@IASTATE.EDU (Takuya Kitamura)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Want information of Foward swept wing
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:58:11 GMT
Reply-To: tekiya@IASTATE.EDU (Takuya Kitamura)
Organization: Iowa State University

Does anyone know about Foward swept wing? I just know some experimental air
plane exist such as X-29A. What is advantage and disadvantage? Could you tell me
about it?

--------------------------------
Takuya Kitamura
College of Engineering at Iowa state University.
From: Michael F. Kamprath <kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Controlling Airship Lift
Date: 23 Jan 1993 21:18:22 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan, Aerospace Engineering
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: sprl-mac2016.sprl.umich.edu
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
X-XXMessage-ID: <A7872133D401C4FC@sprl-mac2016.sprl.umich.edu>
X-XXDate: Sat, 23 Jan 93 22:22:11 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.074446.15421@nuscc.nus.sg> Perry Morrison,
swkmorri@nuscc.nus.sg writes:
>Some time back I posted a query about dirigible/blimp control surfaces.
>Now I have another query- could a helium filled airship control its
>lift by having some internal heat delivering device such as an electric
>radiator.
>
>I'm aware hot air balloons generate lift by heating the enevelope with
>LPG flame. Could sufficient expansion be delivered by an electric/non
>combustion method?
>
>cheers
>Perry Morrison
>

Lift is not a good choice of words to describe why hot air/helium balloons and 
dirigibles "fly" -- try buoyancy.

Anyways, yes they can, but an electric heater would weigh temendous amount.
It would probably weigh less just to bring more helium along for the ride.

======================================================================
|Michael F. Kamprath                   | The University of Michigan  |
|  kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu |      Aerospace Engineering  |
|  kamprath@engin.umich.edu            |      Graduate Student       |
======================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: drela@athena.mit.edu (Mark Drela)
Subject: Re: Controlling Airship Lift
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:09:44 GMT

In article <kkobayas.727919759@husc.harvard.edu>, kkobayas@husc8.harvard.edu (Ken Kobayashi) writes:
|> kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu (Michael F. Kamprath) writes:
|> 
|> >Anyways, yes they can, but an electric heater would weigh temendous amount.
|> >It would probably weigh less just to bring more helium along for the ride.
|> 
|> 
|>    And thtow away expensive helium when you want to go down?  I think the
|> point of the original poster is that if heaters are used the dirigible can
|> go up or down without loss of helium.  But if electric heaters are too
|> heavy, how about gas burners, like the ones used on hot-air balloons? 
|> Those should be light enough, and it shouldn't be too hard to construct a
|> safe heat-exchange system...

Heating the helium in a balloon doesn't buy you very much.  If the absolute 
temperature of the helium were doubled (from 0F to a rather toasty 490F, say), 
the He density would be decreased by a factor of two, but the balloon's lift 
would increase only 7%.  Any of the common plastic balloon envelopes like Nylon 
would probably combust before then.

  Mark Drela                          First Law of Aviation:
  MIT Aero & Astro          "Takeoff is optional, landing is compulsory"

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst)
Subject: Re: V/STOL fighters
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:18:03 GMT

In article <1jogamINNiua@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> doi@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Daniel Kuan Li Oi) writes:
>chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss) writes:
>>The biggest combat problem of a VTOL aircraft is that of heat-seeking missiles.
>>In any aircraft where the engine thrust is used to lift the plane, the exhaust 
...
>
>	Wouldn't the four nozzles of a non-afterburning turbofan have a
>much smaller IR signature than two nozzles of a twin engined
>afterburning plane? The exhaust of the Harrier would have greater
>diffusion and for much of the upper hemisphere, the nozzles are hidden
>by the wing.
>	If there is a direct strike by an AAM, there would be alot of
>catastrophic damage anyway whereever the engine is located. Most missile
>hits would be proximity blasts(?) in a manoeuvering engagement.(This is
>conjecture on my part). 
>	Most of the designs for ASTOVL planes are high(by jet fighter
>terms) bypass turbofans so the IR signature of these engines should be
>inherrently less than the current generation of low-bypass engines.{I
>think the pegaseus has bypass ratio of 1.2 compared to the f100 of the
>f15 ratio 0.7}
>
	Recalling AW&ST articles on battle damage in the Gulf, most of
the missile near hits on conventional fighters produced empennage damage
and not much else.  Also, the time a fighter is in afterburner is not
very great.  Even with a high bypass, the hottest spot for a Harrier
will still be nearly amidship, and since if an IR seeker locks it WILL
go for the hottest spot...blooey.  Actually, payload and range are
probably the biggest reasons not to use Harrier tech.  If you are
doing CAS, then the forward basing is good, but it looks like most of
the real CAS was w/ choppers in the Gulf, while the planes penetrated
behind the lines.  Loiter time over the theater also proved valuable,
which will almost always be less for a V/STOL (assuming a V/STOL
takeoff).  And having an abundance of munitions allows a plane to
accomplish more per sortie.
-- 

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.
Xref: sparky sci.aeronautics:2804 sci.research.careers:1789 sci.space:19708 soc.college.grad:2329
From: mjones@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (mark jones)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.research.careers,sci.space,soc.college.grad
Subject: Orbital Mechanics--Careers?
Date: 23 Jan 1993 04:52:12 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: mjones@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (mark jones)
NNTP-Posting-Host: grumpy.cc.utexas.edu
Originator: mjones@grumpy.cc.utexas.edu

C

After u.g. major in math with lots of physics I'm trying to decide on masters/Ph.d in math or orbital mechanics.  What are the opportunities in orbital mechanics and will they still be there in 5 or 6 years.  Any advice is greatly appreciated.  Reply via net or directly mjones@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
From: kkobayas@husc8.harvard.edu (Ken Kobayashi)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Controlling Airship Lift
Date: 24 Jan 93 23:55:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc.kkobayas.727919759

kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu (Michael F. Kamprath) writes:

>In article <1993Jan21.074446.15421@nuscc.nus.sg> Perry Morrison,
>swkmorri@nuscc.nus.sg writes:
>>Some time back I posted a query about dirigible/blimp control surfaces.
>>Now I have another query- could a helium filled airship control its
>>lift by having some internal heat delivering device such as an electric
>>radiator.
>>
>>I'm aware hot air balloons generate lift by heating the enevelope with
>>LPG flame. Could sufficient expansion be delivered by an electric/non
>>combustion method?
>>
>>cheers
>>Perry Morrison
>>

>Lift is not a good choice of words to describe why hot air/helium balloons and 
>dirigibles "fly" -- try buoyancy.

>Anyways, yes they can, but an electric heater would weigh temendous amount.
>It would probably weigh less just to bring more helium along for the ride.


   And thtow away expensive helium when you want to go down?  I think the
point of the original poster is that if heaters are used the dirigible can
go up or down without loss of helium.  But if electric heaters are too
heavy, how about gas burners, like the ones used on hot-air balloons? 
Those should be light enough, and it shouldn't be too hard to construct a
safe heat-exchange system...
   I also heard of a design that uses a hydrogen-filled gas-bag nested
inside a helium gas chamber.  Buoyancy is controlled by inflating (from a
tank?) or deflating (releasing into atmosphere) the hydrogen.  No helium
is lost, and since the hydrogen is surrounded by helium it's not as
dangerous as the Zeppelin.  I don't think it's ever been actually used though.
From: megazone@coal.WPI.EDU (MegaZone)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Aurora...lurking....
Date: 23 Jan 93 23:17:24 GMT
Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal
NNTP-Posting-Host: coal.wpi.edu

In article <1jqkqoINN9bt@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) writes:
>able in the press if you look for it. But I'm trying to get some other
>people involved and maybe, just maybe, we can learn something new.

best plan: lurk on sci.aero, rec.aviation.military, sci.military, and the
skunk-works mailing list... 'Aurora' has been popping up for years now... 
it is starting to get old...

>I do think it is worth the effort....Jesus, this thing will be the 
>SR71 of the next two decades!! Imagine....mach 8, and world circling

Eris! If it exists!

That's one thing that bothers me, everyone seems to think it does exist.
Won't you be a bit disappointed if it doesn't? Yes, I think the govt. is
hiding something, more than one project sure. But the assumption seems to
be that it is a Mach 6+ air-breathing manned recon aircraft. Maybe it isn't.
Maybe there is a high speed propulsion testbed. A low-speed stealth
penetrator. Drones, two-stage vehicles. (the 'B-70 like' sighting) Don't
put blinders on, it makes it harder to spot the truth when/if we get a
glimpse.

###############################################################################
# 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