HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pdb1@ra.msstate.edu (Philip D Bridges)
Subject: Re: Flying Car--Innovative Lift System?
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:20:31 GMT

01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer) writes:
>Lift is produced by the resulting static-pressure difference between the top of
>the wing (with the driven air flowing over it) and the bottom of the wing,
>where the air is still.

>Thrust is produced, too, becuase the air is being blown BACK, (action-reaction,
>ya know).

>Once you got going, you could retract the duct into the leading edge of the
>wing, and blow the air out some ducts in the very back, for thrust only (since
>you'll be getting lift naturally becuase you're moving)

>Please tell me whatever you think about it (if I'm a genius, an idiot, a
>plagariser, whatever..)

This concept was tried on the Ball Brothers JetWing about 20 years ago
as I recall. Ralph Kimberlin at the University of Tennesse Space
Institute flew it, and it was no joy to fly. The airplane was very
heavy due to the metal ducting to handle the hot exhaust gases 
distributed over the wings, and the handling characteristics varied
greatly, since the lift and pitching moment were thrust-dependent.
It was also interesting to land, since both lift and thrust were
lost simultaneously when power was reduced. There is a reason why
the sky is not filled with airplanes blowing hot air over the wings.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|      Philip Bridges                 |  "Strive for design simplicity:  |
|      Dept. of Aerospace Eng.        |   you never have to fix anything |
|      Miss. State University         |   you leave out."                |
|      (601) 325-3623                 |                                  |
|      pdb1@ra.msstate.edu            |           Bill Lear (1903-1978)  |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: k.h.goodrich@larc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Paul Moller/One in every garage
Date: 16 Dec 1992 19:04:19 GMT
Organization: NASA-Langley Research Center
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: b1298amac7.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1992Dec15.161648.13052@bsu-ucs> 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig
Meyer) writes:
>
>> Not to be a pessimist (I love the idea), but I think he gets a cover
>> article in PM about every 5-10 years and nothing seems to change.
>
>Well, at least he's got a prototype now.  Doesn't look nearly as cool at the
>pictures, though.
>

Has this protoype flown--in any realistic scenario.  I think its primary
use is to give jouralists and potential investors something to look at
and sit in.


>Something I've been churning in my mind--what about blowing air OVER the
>tops of large, stationary wings?  Some sort of huge blower on the inside--its
>output ducted over wings sticking out of the sides.  Wouldn't a good deal of
>lift be produced if the air below the wing was still, while the air over top
>would be be flowing quickly?

Many twin engine, prop aircraft have a signifcantly lower stall speed
with power on versus power off, demonstrating your concept.  The
problem is that you hate to depend on this kind of lift because
engines will fail and you'll have no way out.

K_G
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Paul Moller/One in every garage
Date: 16 Dec 1992 20:44:22 GMT
Organization: Sun
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <1992Dec15.161648.13052@bsu-ucs> 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer) writes:
>
>> Not to be a pessimist (I love the idea), but I think he gets a cover
>> article in PM about every 5-10 years and nothing seems to change.
>
>Well, at least he's got a prototype now.  Doesn't look nearly as cool at the
>pictures, though.
>
>Something I've been churning in my mind--what about blowing air OVER the
>tops of large, stationary wings?  Some sort of huge blower on the inside--its
>output ducted over wings sticking out of the sides.  Wouldn't a good deal of
>lift be produced if the air below the wing was still, while the air over top
>would be be flowing quickly?

The Custer Channel Wing did exactly that.

Picture a normal light twin (piston). Instead of the normal wing extending in
a straight (ignore the dihedral) line, the section immediately behind the
propellor arc is the bottom half of a ducted fan, but behind the prop.

Early tests showed that the outboard (normal-appearing) section of the wings
was not necessary to produce sufficient lift for flight, but it was left on
as being more useful for something to hang the ailerons from.

>Just curry us.

Ouch.
--
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: gopal@cirrus.com (Gopal Ramachandran)
Subject: Re: Flying Car--Innovative Lift System?
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:31:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.194714.13105@bsu-ucs> 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer) writes:
>
>
>             ------      LOW PRESSURE
>           /   <- air comes out here   Flows out t
> leading /      ------------------------------\    h
>  edge /                     / \                 \   i
>       \                      |        ------>      \   s
>         \                    |lift    thrust          \  w
>           \--------------------------------------------- \  a
>                        HIGH PRESSURE                          y
> 

This reminds me of the flap-blowing in the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter
and the scheme used by the DHC Buffalo converted by NASA into the
QSTOL aircraft.
	In the F104, which has very short wingspan (22 feet?) and high
wing loading (25000 lbs weight ?) they took bleed air from the jet
engine and blew it back over the flaps to keep the airflow attached at
high angles of attack. I hear the problem was the engine had to be at
80% RPM or more to keep landing speeds reasonable, and that the
scariest thing to practise was deadstick landings in an F104. No
engine, no BLC, and approach speeds were probably 190 KIAS + with the
nose pitched up so high the runway couldnt be seen on final (sort of
like a Pitts).
	In the NASA QSTOL, the engines are on top of the wing, and the
jet exhaust blows back over the top of the wings and flaps. The high
energy air stays attached even at very low aircraft IAS and this 50000
lb jet aircraft has operated off aircraft carriers with no problems
(no catapults or tailhooks needed).

So I guess your idea works.

Gopal
-- 

Gopal Ramachandran <gopal@cirrus.com>
UUCP:  uunet!cirrus.com!gopal
Cirrus Logic Inc, Fremont CA  PH: (510)-226-2138 FAX: (510)-226-2160
From: pauls@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Paul Stafford)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:26:52 GMT
Subject: Re: Speed of sound (Re: MACH 8)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics

 I'm sure I might be corrected by the more elite members of this net, but 
 from my old Fluid Mechanics book, the speed of sound in a medium is

 c = sqrt(kRt) where k is the specific heat ratio  Cp/Cv, R is the gas constant,
 and T is the temp.  For air, k = 1.4 at sea level, R is 53.3 ft-lb/lbm R

    T = 459+70 = 529 R
   so for sea level, c = sqrt(1.4*53.3 * 32.2 * 529) = 1126 fps

    in the stratosphere, where T = -67F, c = 971fps

  hope this helps...
From: unglenie@ford.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J Unglenieks)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Another "silent helo" theory. . .
Date: 15 Dec 92 00:38:24 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

maddog@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>One last shot on the "silent helo" thing.  Now, this was a few years back, and
>I have NO idea if anything became of it, but there was one additional theory.
>There for a while, they were toying with the idea of using accoustic drivers
>to offset the "hellacious" noise helos produce.  By utilizing the "wave 
>addition" principles, they were hoping to eliminate noise. . .or at least
>bring it to a minimum.
>
>They were going to have sensing mics in various places beneath the blades,
>sample the noise and create an "opposite" or inverted signal at the same
>amplitude.  Theoretically, anyway, it would significantly reduce the noise.
>(It can't eliminate it since the sources do not have the same point of
>origin.  But, it's a helluva lot better than nothing!)  :-)
>
>Sooooooo, anybody heard about this?  Or am I spewing hot air, as usual?

There's a project here at Purdue that would do active noise cancellation
of helicopter sound.  However, the system is a fixed set of speakers at
the airfield and not on the helicopter.  It has something to do with
appeasing the people who move into homes near an airport........

Rob U
--
-       Rob Unglenieks             REAL race cars DON'T wear BOWTIES       -
-  "It is the foreign element that commits our crimes.   There is no       -
-   native criminal class except Congress."  [Samuel Langhorne Clemens]    -
-  (Don't look at me, I DIDN'T vote for Clinton.  Will Engineer For Food)  -
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,rec.aviation
From: gpayne@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Gregory A. Payne)
Subject: Paul Moller/One in every garage
Followup-To: poster
Keywords: garage vtols
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 22:41:45 GMT

Has anyone heard any recent news on Paul Moller (sp?) and his vtol
aircraft.  They were 'small' 4-place vtol craft that had eight engines
and could fit in a garage.  They were also designed to be flown with
little or none piloting experience if I remember correctly. Last I
has heard was an article in Aviation Week and the cover article in Popular
Mechanics, but these were about a year or two ago.

Thanks
Gregory Payne
gpayne@gn.ecn.purdue.edu

Xref: sparky sci.aeronautics:2569 rec.aviation.military:1193
From: cm9@prism.gatech.EDU (MCKEITHAN,CLIFFORD M.)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: SILENT HELICOPTER
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:41:37 GMT
Followup-To: sci.aeronautics
Distribution: na
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

>
If there is any info on this helo, I
would appreciate mail or postings.  The scrapbook, if it can be found, is
roughly 200 miles away so I can't check sources for a while.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >  
>

One of the helos of this type, the Hiller Hornet, is in the Army 
Aviation Museum at Ft. Rucker, AL.

Re using this to smooth the flow and reduce the blade vortex interaction,
I'm not too sure that you won't have as much or more net effect due to
chopping the high speed ramjet exhaust.  It is certainly more noisy
than the BVI (blade-vortex interaction) noise.

Cliff McKeithan
From: gt8303a@prism.gatech.EDU (The Great and Mighty Confused)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Talking to a mach 8 airplane
Date: 15 Dec 92 00:03:53 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

The shuttle can be communicated with at all points during its mission, except
for a period during re-entry when the air around it becomes ionized by the
heat being generated by the friction encountered by the shuttle.  Just thought
I'd add my two cents' worth.

Andy Entrekin

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: leonam@aix.rpi.edu (Marcus B. Leonard)
Subject: Re: Cd of  open "box" shape...
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:53:45 GMT

In article <921215012955@avistic.demon.co.uk> lorcan@avistic.demon.co.uk writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.234916.10094@retix.com> bmartin@retix.com writes:
>> Has anyone knoledge of the Cd value of an open box shape, with the
>> open side toward the airflow? Is it better/worse than a flat plate,
>>for example? 
>Worse (ie higher drag). If you've ever seen pictures of a Pelton wheel
>(a type of water turbine) the "paddles" are specially-shaped buckets
>[...]

I think the original question applied to a box without a "bottom".  i.e, a
length of rectangular duct aligned with the stream.  In a reasonably simple
analysis, the only difference in drag between the duct/box and an equivalent
area of flat plate will be due to boundary layer interference in the
interior corners.  If the box is large compared to the boundary layer
thickness, this effect could possibly be neglected.

It should be possible to make a reasonable approximation using standard data
for a rectangular duct for the interior flow, and use flat plate drag on the
outside of the box.  Try Fox & MacDonald or Schlichting for the data.

				Marc Leonard
				leonam@rpi.edu
From: gandalf@wpi.WPI.EDU (James Michael Sambrook)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Mach 1 is also density dependent
Date: 17 Dec 1992 16:22:56 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu

In article <1992Dec16.235224.27550@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth) writes:
			
>> 			{This stuff by me...}
>> What's REALLY neat about this equation is that it says that, in a totally
>> incompressible substance, the speed of the compression wave is INFINITE!!! 
>> This fact does make sense, in a manner of speaking.  If the medium cannot be
>> compressed, then each molecule will react to the disturbance at the same time,
>> and the entire substance will move at the EXACT same time!!!
>>
>
>Hmmm. So there are some compressible mediums where sound
>travels faster than light. Where is the mistake ?

The problem you are thinking of is similar to the Cerenkhov (sp?) Radiation
found in Nuclear reactors.  The electrons in the core are moving at speed close
to that of the speed of light in the medium of the core (assume it to be air:
c about= 3E+8 m/s)  As the electrons pass through the boundary of the core, and
enter the moderator (assume water) the electrons are moving FASTER THAN THE
SPEED OF LIGHT IN WATER!  This is allowed, believe it or not, and the result is
a really nice blue glow around the core.

Nearly all of the substances with a compressibility factor which are even
1/100% as high as would be needed for the sound to move as fast (or faster)
than light are solids.  For example, copper has a bulk modulus of 132 MPa at
300 K.  (The bulk modulus is a value used in calculating the speed of sound in
a solid.  B = Rho * (dP / d (rho)) _s).  This translates to a speed of sound
equal to 3840 m/s, whiere the speed of sound = sqr(B / Rho).  If someone has
the speed of sound in a diamond (which is the most incompressible substance I
know of...), and compare it with the speed of light, I'd really appreciate it.
I'd like it even better if you could E-Mail me at GANDALF@WPI.WPI.EDU, because
I'm leaving on term break soon...and won't be back for QUITE some time :^)

Until next time...

*******************************************************************************
*                                                                             *
*                              This Space For Rent                            *
*                        Call 1-800-FOR-RENT for details                      *
*                                                                             *
*              James Michael Sambrook, Aerospace AND Nuclear Engineer         *
*                  "Are you nuts?"           "Nope, just insane!"             *
*                                                                             *
*******************************************************************************
From: cm9@prism.gatech.EDU (MCKEITHAN,CLIFFORD M.)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: "silent" helicopters
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:27:14 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

Devon, (aka Senior Gofer)

The noise problem can be solved by not building noisy
helicopters and instead building tiltrotors, right?

Cliff McKeithan

From: robink@hparc0.aus.hp.com (Robin Kenny)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 05:39:17 GMT
Subject: Re: Mach 8+ Space/Spy Plane?
Organization: HP Australasian Response Centre (Melbourne)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.space
Distribution: na
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

AUJAM@ASUACAD.BITNET () writes:
: In article <1992Dec11.002726.712137@locus.com>, rich@locus.com (Rich (the Wiz)
: Silva) says:
: >
: >    Apparently reported in some English Aeronautic Journal was
: >    a story claiming that the US has a new spy plane capable of
: >    Mach 8+ (at least) in test.  Apparently said plane has a
:      [ ... ] 
: I was in Joshua Tree national forest last May when I saw a plane in the upper
: atmosphere fly across the sky about as fast as metors do I didn't here any
: sonic booms but I't couldn't have been a jet airliner it was moving too fast
: I did notice it's contrail was lumpy like -+-+-+-+-+-+ like a pulse.
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Popular Science magazine had a photograph of a "mysterious" contrail that
looks like -+-+-+-+-+-+, and very thin compared to other trans-sonics.
This was ?September 1992 (this year anyway)
: 
: >--
: >Rich Silva
: >Locus Computing Corporation                rich@LOCUS.COM
: >                  {uunet,ucivax,trwrb}!lcc!rich
: >       {randvax,ucbvax,trwspp}!ucla-se!lcc!rich

Robin Kenny - nope; nothing to do with where I work and completely my own
              opinions (not my employer's)  Couldn't you tell by the content?
              --------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: gopal@cirrus.com (Gopal Ramachandran)
Subject: Re: Speed of sound (Re: MACH 8)
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:09:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.101747.25799@cactus.org> rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes:

>The speed of sound is hinged on *temperature*, not altitude.  On a cold
>day, the speed of sound will be lower; on a warm day, it will be higher.

I remember reading about when North American/USAF wanted to retake the
world speed record from Douglas/USN's F4D Skyray. They had to fly the
F100 Super Sabre at least 1% faster for it to count. This was in the
fall of 1953. They waited for an especially hot day in the Mojave
desert, so the Hun could go faster without running into transonic drag
rise. I believe they made it by just a couple of mph. The interesting
thing is that they were not allowed to gain any altitude during the
two runs (in opposite directions) and since they flew low to get
maximum TAS, the pilot had to make a 270 degree turn at just under
Mach 1 flying about 50-100 feet above the ground over the desert. 

Now that must have been a hell of a ride, especially in the choppy
desert air. I read they used burning piles of tires to mark the
course.

Gopal

-- 

Gopal Ramachandran <gopal@cirrus.com>
UUCP:  uunet!cirrus.com!gopal
Cirrus Logic Inc, Fremont CA  PH: (510)-226-2138 FAX: (510)-226-2160
From: 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu (Craig Meyer)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Paul Moller/One in every garage
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:16:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ball State University, Muncie, In - Univ. Computing Svc's


> Not to be a pessimist (I love the idea), but I think he gets a cover
> article in PM about every 5-10 years and nothing seems to change.

Well, at least he's got a prototype now.  Doesn't look nearly as cool at the
pictures, though.

Something I've been churning in my mind--what about blowing air OVER the
tops of large, stationary wings?  Some sort of huge blower on the inside--its
output ducted over wings sticking out of the sides.  Wouldn't a good deal of
lift be produced if the air below the wing was still, while the air over top
would be be flowing quickly?

Just curry us.

CM

-- 
       Craig Meyer                 01CRMEYER@LEO.BSUVC.BSU.EDU
       Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humaities.
       Muncie, IN  47306                          317-285-7433

       Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not necessarily
       shared by the Indiana Academy.
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Subject: Re: Mach 1 is also density dependent
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 05:05:09 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.010211.22175@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth) writes:
>In article <1gq9h0INN7ld@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, gandalf@wpi.WPI.EDU (James Michael Sambrook) writes:
>> 			
>> to that of the speed of light in the medium of the core (assume it to be air:
>> c about= 3E+8 m/s)  As the electrons pass through the boundary of the core, and
>> enter the moderator (assume water) the electrons are moving FASTER THAN THE
>> SPEED OF LIGHT IN WATER!  This is allowed, believe it or not, and the result is
>> a really nice blue glow around the core.
>>
>
>I have difficulty believing it. Since electrons have non-zero

Believe it.  The radiation is called "Cherenkov radiation", and is well
known experimentally.  Note that the speed of light in a material medium
is less than, and in the instance of water, substantially less than, the
speed of light in vacuo.

>rest mass, their motion in any medium at the speed of light 
>should (may) produce enough heat to locally ionize the medium.
The electrons ionize the medium by virtue of their charges.
>Wouldnt the electrons be lost in recombination ? The other

Eventually, but many collisions are required.  We are talking about keV or
MeV electrons;  ionization energies are of the order of eV's.
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: todamhyp@unlv.edu (Brian M. Huey)
Subject: Tire burn-out on landings
Originator: todamhyp@cash.isri.unlv.edu
Organization: University of Nevada at Las Vegas, College of Engineering
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 18:09:33 GMT

I realize this a relatively basic question (I think) nevertheless:

	I am neither a pilot nor an airliner engineer. However,
everytime I watch a airliner land, a cloud of smoke is produced when
the wheels come in contact from the ground due to friction. Couldn't
this cloud and the effect of friction be lessened by inducing a
angular velocity upon the wheels to match the airliners speed with
respect to the runway?

-- 
_D_I_S_C_L_A_I_M_E_R_: I can neither confirm nor deny any opinions
expressed in this article directly reflect my own personal or
political views and furthermore, if they did, I would not be at
liberty to yield such an explanation of these alleged opinions.
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: jim@specialix.com (Jim Maurer)
Subject: Re: Tire burn-out on landings
Organization: Specialix Inc.
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:54:57 GMT

todamhyp@unlv.edu (Brian M. Huey) writes:

>I realize this a relatively basic question (I think) nevertheless:

>	I am neither a pilot nor an airliner engineer. However,
>everytime I watch a airliner land, a cloud of smoke is produced when
>the wheels come in contact from the ground due to friction. Couldn't
>this cloud and the effect of friction be lessened by inducing a
>angular velocity upon the wheels to match the airliners speed with
>respect to the runway?

This has been tried.  It did reduce tire wear, but it did cause
some problems.  How would you like to try landing a 747 with a
bunch of gyroscopes attached?  It adversely affects handling qualities
of the aircraft.  :-)
From: rade@next05wor.wam.umd.edu (Robert Evans)
Subject: Re: Mach 8 airplane
Organization: Workstations at Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:43:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.183234.9428@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>  
mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman) writes:
> aerbgam@vmsa.technion.ac.il writes:
> 
> >I heard that the USAF has a Mach 8 airplane.
> >Any information will be weell apriciated.
> 
> 
> I would not doubt it one bit. AFTER hiding the F-117a from us for 
> 
> a great deal of years... who knows...


i heard it used some sort of pulse jet engine, is it true i don't know.