HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: supersonic B-52's??
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
	<1992Sep9.114038.13429@walter.bellcore.com>
	<1992Sep10.214858.25447@mksol.dseg.ti.com> <BuE1Lp.EyL@ecf.toronto.edu>
	<1992Sep12.153811.10753@den.mmc.com>
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:27:13 GMT

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.
The picture of the tailless plane has been published in a lot of places.
They were still firmly subsonic when this happened.

I've heard that this happened somewhere around the D models and that
the reduced vertical surface on the Gs and Hs followed from the
demonstrated lateral stability with virtually no tail.

--
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: bdd0066@venus.tamu.edu (bryan duke)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Ram Jet
Date: 14 Sep 1992 19:47:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep9.165714.19721@wixer.cactus.org>, will@wixer.cactus.org (Bill Staniewicz) writes...
>My question is: Is/was the ramjet actually used for any
>extended period of time on any aircraft. 

Drones, cuise missles and such (rocket assisted take off or dropped 
from another plane) are probably the biggest users of them.

>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.

"The faster it goes, the faster it goes."

>Also, very few moving parts. 

None.  Rams (stovepipes) have no moving parts.  In fact, someone posted
here last year that he made/saw one that was only a pipe (i.e. cylinder)
with a fuel sprayer on the front that was entirely operational--although
I have not seen such a ram jet.

>I wonder how the fuel consumption
>compares to the ordinary jet engine and what are some other advantages
>and disadvantages.

Fuel consumption is considerably higher than other forms of jet engines.

Advantages
	No moving parts to fabricate
	No moving parts to replace
	Cheap enough to be expendable
	Fast, fast, fast
DisAds
	Can NOT accelerate from 0 airspeed.
		-must be launched or dropped already moving (fast!)
	Horrid efficiency.
	
There is more, but you get the picture.....

--
bryan
From: wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Ram Jet
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:07:27 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

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

>I was watching Wings last night and they mentioned the
>testing and development of the ram jet. I think they actually
>used it for some time on a F-80 (not sure if this is the right
>aircraft.). The jets were mounted on the tips of the wings.

	I think they had some mixed film segments there.  The scenes
where the ramjets were running I think were indeed all F80 stuff.
However, there were some shots of the tail end of a plane they
called an F80 which sure looked to me like an F94 Starfire......

>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.

	Oh boy, I almost hate to start this......

	I am not aware of any *manned* USAF or Navy aircraft which
were routinely powered by a ramjet.

(ignoring the SR71's J58 engine which even Kelly Johnson described
as functioning "like a ramjet" at high-mach speeds....)

	However, there were a number of drones and/or missiles which
had them.  One of those was the Lockheed GTD21A and B recon. drones.
See a discussion of the early Blackbirds, the A12 series, for more
details.

	If memory serves, the Boeing BOMARC (Boeing?  Is that right?)
may have used a pair of ramjets as post-launch propulsion.

	When you are talking ramjets you are frequently talking
Marquardt.....the GTD21's used their RJ43MA11.  You might also want
to look up the Lockheed X7 in Jay Miller's nifty book, 
"The X-Planes".

Duane
From: maddog@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Request for Control System Information
Date: 8 Sep 92 12:41:22 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

I am looking for some information on flight control systems.  Specifically,
I wish to know the specific components (and cost, if possible!) and any
other details used in commercial airliners.  I would prefer information on
the 747, or any other Boeing airliner, or McDD for that matter.  (I would ask 
for something like the A320, but I don't know the aerodynamic models as well.)

But, if anyone has information about flight control systems on business jets,
they would also be greatly appreciated.

. . .even a pointing finger in the right direction would be helpful.  :-)

I am going to use this information in a study on control system architectures.
I need a few standard implementations to compare with a new theory.  (It is
my hope to make a paper out of this.  Who knows?)  :-)  Replies in E-mail would
be the most helpful.  (If anyone else is wanting similar information, I would
be happy to redistribute it.)  Thanks in advance.

Catch me later!

					Maddog
			  Always with the inquisitive mind. . . .
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: Bruce.Hoult@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: Questions About SUPERGUPPY
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 10:08:52 GMT

In article <65828@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
> As I recall, there were only a few Superguppies produced (two, I think)
> in support of Project Apollo.  They were used to ferry Saturn V boosters
> from the Congressional district in which they are produced to the
> Congressional district in which they are launched.


So delicately and non-judgmentally put!!
-- 
Bruce.Hoult@bbs.actrix.gen.nz   Twisted pair: +64 4 477 2116
BIX: brucehoult                 Last Resort:  PO Box 4145 Wellington, NZ
"Cray's producing a 500 MIPS personal computer with 256MB RAM and 8 GB
hard disk that fits in your pocket!"   "Great!  Is it PC compatible?"
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: F-23 Dead?
From: jbatka@desire.wright.edu
Date: 14 Sep 92 08:07:19 EST
Organization: Wright State University 

In article <SHAFER.92Sep13213312@ra.dfrf.nasa.gov>, shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
> 	<CKD.92Sep13224759@loiosh.eff.org>
> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 04:33:16 GMT
> Lines: 26
> 
> 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.
                       ^^^^^^^^
Actually, the recessed fuselage mounts hold sparrow (soon to be AMRAAM)
missiles.  The sidewinders are small IR missiles.  The sparrow is a
medium sized semi-active (I believe) missile.

> 
> 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.

Actually, the F-14 does not have swivel racks (although the F-111
does).  The F-14's wing rack is on the wing glove, which does not
swivel.  The pylon for this hard point cants out at an angle away
from the fuselage.
-- 

   Jim Batka  | Always remember ...                        | Buckaroo
   Modemman   |    No matter where you go, there you are!  |   Bonzai
--------------+--------------------------------------------+--------------
It is very    | Work Email:  BATKAJ@CCMAIL.DAYTON.SAIC.COM | Elvis is
often easier  | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU      |   DEAD!
to get for-   +--------------------------------------------+--------------
giveness then | 64 years is 33,661,440 minutes ... and a   | Beatles:
permission    | minute is a LONG time [Includes Leap Days]!|   Yellow Submarine
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: Michael F. Kamprath <kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Small windtunnel Info needed
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 18:38:56 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan, Aerospace Engineering
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A6D7EA198902C4FC@sprl-mac2016.sprl.umich.edu>
X-Xxdate: Sat, 12 Sep 92 18:40:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.233104.14956@news.arc.nasa.gov> David Doshay, doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov
writes:
>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.
>

This is true.

========================================================================
| 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"                |
========================================================================
From: megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: F-23 Dead?
Date: 14 Sep 1992 04:57:25 GMT
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu

In article <SHAFER.92Sep13213312@ra.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>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-15 standard armament is 4 Sparrows mounted semi-recessed on the coners
of the inlets/FAST packs and 4 Sidewinders two on each innr pylon, mounted on
horizontal arms on the plyon sides to leave the pylon open. (Plus one Vulcan
cannon in the right wing root.)

>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.

The F-14 normally carries 6 Sparrows, 4 semi-recessed in the tunnel between
the engines and one on each pylon on the wing route. Plus 2 sidewinders, one
on each pylon on a horizontal arm. The tunnel mounted Sparrows can be replaced
with up to 4 pallet mounted Phoenix missiles as can the pylon mounted Sparrows.
The sidewinder racks are for 'winders only. The pylons do not swivel as they
are mounted on the wing root and not the wing itself. The F-111 however does 
have up to 4 swiveling pylons and 2 additional fixed pylons can be fitted 
with the wing fixed in a swept forward position.

The F-16 normally carries 2 Sidewinders, one per wingtip. It is also possible
to mount Sparrows on the gear doors, but this has never been done in active
duty. The 16 can also carry aditional missiles on pylons sacrificing load. 

The F-18 carries 2 Sidewinders, one per wingtip, and 2 Sparrows, semi-recessed
along the inlet walls. The 18 can also carry addtional missiles on the wing
pylons for a sacrifice in load.

All of the aircraft which carry Sparrow are supposed to be fitted for AMRAAM
as more missiles are produced.

###############################################################################
# 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: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: F-23 Dead?
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:48:30 GMT
Reply-To: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.  Engineering

In article <SHAFER.92Sep10180355@ra.dfrf.nasa.gov>, 
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
> 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.
 
actually, as I understand it, the sidewinders when mounted on the
wingtips have an endplate effect and actually improve the drag
of the wing don't they?

> 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.

Are you sure this thing still puts out an T/W>1 at gross?  I had been told this wasn't the case.
If it is then what is it that the Soviet a/c has over our a/c?

> 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.

I think this is amazing.  I imagine that as the shuttle burns fuel and becomes lighter it must 
begin to accelerate much faster, it would have to in order to achieve orbit.  I guess it
goes to show the F-104 is really "a missle with a man in it," huh? :-)


Tom Pickett 
tpickett@auspex.com
SHO  GOZE
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: jem3@pyuxf.uucp (25312-mc killop)
Subject: Bird strikes
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 11:45:55 GMT

The following is from the USAF News Service.


697.  T-38 accident
				   &    &    &
				   &    &    &
				   &    &    &
697.  T-38 accident
     DYESS AFB, Texas (AFNS) -- An Air Force T-38 instructor pilot was 
killed during a training flight September 3 when a bird crashed through 
the windshield of his aircraft.
     First Lieutenant David A. Wyatt, 90th Flying Training Wing, 
Sheppard AFB, Texas, died from massive head injuries and possibly a 
broken neck, Sheppard officials said.
     First Lieutenant Richard S. Groggel, also an instructor pilot from 
the 90th FTW, was in the rear seat of the T-38 and was not injured.  He 
safely landed the aircraft at Dyess.
     The Air Force is investigating.
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Jet Engines
From: tcombs@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Tim Combs)
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:27:58 GMT
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Urbana Design Center

I am looking for information about Jets ( could be any kind).  Is there a set of general procedures for restarting jet engines while flying and what usually
causes this condition.


Thanks.
Tim
From: chas@castle.ed.ac.uk (C Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Questions About SUPERGUPPY
Date: 14 Sep 92 12:40:34 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

I think Airbus use one - trying to manufacture an aeroplane in several
different places involves some transport of large pieces.


-- 
Chas Spencer			email :	Chas@ed.ac.uk
User Support, EUCS
University of Edinburgh
From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Questions About SUPERGUPPY
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 00:21:18 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

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.  I was shocked!  We haven't
sold these things to the Japanese, have we?

As I recall, there were only a few Superguppies produced (two, I think)
in support of Project Apollo.  They were used to ferry Saturn V boosters
from the Congressional district in which they are produced to the
Congressional district in which they are launched.

My questions are:
when were they made
who made them
what engines did they have
what are the dimensions of its cargo bay
how many were produced
who owns them now
are they derivative from any earlier airframe
are any airframes derivative from them
what world records do they hold
do you have any amusing anecdotes (like stories about inverted flight, etc.)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: cohler@vxcrna.cern.ch (Mike Cohler)
Subject: Re: Ram Jet
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 10:05:00 GMT

In article <swindley.716191961@s1.elec.uq.oz.au>, swindley@elec.uq.oz.au (Robert Swindley) writes...
>will@wixer.cactus.org (Bill Staniewicz) writes:
>limitless.  For a better engine, go for the SCRAMJET.

Can someone enlighten me... I would like to know what a SCRAMJET is, 
and how it works, in principle ??  Is it a supersonic ramjet ??
Thanks in advance 
Mike

==============================================================
|                                                            |
|        Mike Cohler -  preferred email address:             |
|                       MDC1@VAXA.YORK.AC.UK                 |
|                   ie  MDC1%VAXA.YORK.AC.UK@UKACRL.BITNET   |
|                                                            |
|        UK PPL and Glider Pilot                             |
|                                                            |
==============================================================
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: draper@ais.org (Patrick Draper)
Subject: Re: F-23 Dead?
Organization: UMCC
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:54:58 GMT

In article <BOWERS.92Sep9122323@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov> bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) writes:
>
>The one area _EVERYONE_ continues to forget is that thrust to weight
>is still potentially more important.  the SU-27 and the MiG-29 both
>have combat gross take-off thrust-to-weight ratios in the 1.1 to 1
>range (yes, at combat gross both can accelerate going straight up,
>something not a single US plane can do).
>
>--
>"But the fact that a 1938 touring bodied Alfa Romeo I once had is
>worth $1 million sometimes bothers the hell out of me.  It's a
>personal problem."                                     -Phil Hill
>Al Bowers                                 bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov
>Iaido   Takamine   Hobie   Rossignol   Alfa Romeo  Ducati (DOD #900)

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?


------------------////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\------------------
| Patrick Draper           Disclaimer:  I can't control my fingers,        |
| draper@umcc.ais.org                   I can't control my toes! - Ramones |
| University of Michigan                                                   |
| Computer Club                We are a nation of laws, not people         |
------------------\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////////////////------------------
From: wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: F-23 Dead? Nahh....
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:28:35 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

bruce@pages.com (Bruce Henderson) writes:

>Let's get right down to it.  

	Indeed.

>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 think the B2 looks badass at all.  To me it looks like
an aviation engineers work of absolute artistry.  But then I thought
that about the XB35 and XB49....didn't get them into real production,
did it?

	Beauty is, as many have observed, in the eye of the beholder.
What is beautiful? Skin deep? Not for me when it comes to airplanes.
An F117A is beautiful to me, because I have an idea of what it can do and
it does it well.  It isn't supposed to be superficially pretty - the
taxpayers don't need "pretty" airplanes.  Likewise with either the YF22 or
YF23.  On the battlefield "pretty" just doesn't cut the mustard.  
In terms of pure aesthetics, perhaps the YF23 is a better LOOKING airplane.
In terms of what they are supposed to DO, I suspect that any differences
could be minimal - although there are some tech-geeks who have, are and will
argue that aspect ad-infinitum....  :-)

>I am personally surprised that no one has mentioned that Northrop aircraft win  
>the cosmetics hands down!
>I hope that the Navy USMC pick up the YF-23 program (Like the YF-17) and turn  
>it into another winner. 

	I hope that the USMC continues to use its brains to pick GOOD
aircraft, not just those that are "pretty" or "politically correct".
I think it really took some balls to pick the Harriers when you
consider that it wasn't originally a US design.

	All in all, if there is a use for the YF23 then someone should
and possibly WILL buy it, budgets notwithstanding......

Duane
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: manuelp@ecf.toronto.edu (MANUELPILLAI Gerald Nishanthan)
Subject: Re: supersonic B-52's??
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 00:34:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.214858.25447@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>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?
>

I was just wondering the same thing!  (BUFF = Big Ugly Fat F.....er)
TW, I was at the (same) CNE airshow, and it was indeed a sight to
behold.  It did take quite a while to make its second pass, though.
I think by the time it finished its turn, it was over Buffalo :) !!

Gerald M


Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: bruce@pages.com(Bruce Henderson)
Subject: F-23 Dead? Nahh....
Organization: Banzai Research Institute
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 10:21:13 GMT

In article <19962@fritz.filenet.com> scotth@felix.filenet.com (Scott Hopson)  
writes:
[..Lots of stuff about Northrop being a cutting edge place]
> Scott Hopson   (scotth@filenet.com)


Let's get right down to it.  

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

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

Bruce
(bruce@pages.com)
[Harbinger of the Doomed Rat]