HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "H.S. Doyle" <H.S.Doyle@newcastle.ac.uk>
Subject: Nuclear Powered Aircraft
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:40:12 GMT


From "H.S. Doyle" <H.S.Doyle@newcastle.ac.uk>


From "H.S. Doyle" <H.S.Doyle@newcastle.ac.uk>


With all this recent discussion on nuclear powered aircraft, I was wondering how
exactly could a plane by propelled by a reactor? My first thought was electric
propellers with the electricity being generated by the reactor, then I thought
of direct steam-turbine drive for the props, with the steam being provided by
heat from the reactor. Then finally I thought of a ramjet-type propulsion with
the air in the jet tube being heated directly by the reactor's heat, and thus
expanding with sufficient force to provide thrust. So which one is feasible? Or is
there another method? What system were they thinking of back in the 60s when the
idea  of nuclear propulsion was being researched seriously?
Post up any replies as I'm sure others will be interested.
Thanks.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                 ---- Harry ---                  +------------------------------
Give me a sleeping pill and tell me your troubles|        Email me at:-
He who hesitates is probably right.              |  H.S.Doyle@uk.ac.newcastle
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:00:29 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology


From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)

>From morlan@afit.af.mil (Bruce W. Morlan)
>... the type of reactor used in satellites is not the noisy type
>used in subs.  At least, as far as I know, the satellites use direct
>heat-to-power (thermoelectric) vice the usual heat-motion-power of a
>turbine system.  
>
>Such a system would be much more efficient in a sub with convective
>cooling than is possible in space...

Don't bet on it; the efficiency of thermoelectric conversion also depends
on how big the temperature difference is, and space is a lot colder than
seawater.  I don't know the numbers, but it's not obvious that the system
would do better underwater.

More to the overall point, though, the only reason thermoelectric systems
are used on satellites is that they have fewer moving parts and are thus
considered more reliable.  Their efficiency is *terrible*, grossly inferior
to a turbogenerator system.  There is a reason why subs continue to use
their "noisy type" of power system.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson)
Subject: Video Review
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:39:13 GMT


From pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson)

On a cable channel that shall remain nameless, a new series called "Secret
Weapons" showed up on the Fall Schedule.  I don't know about anyone else, but
I have foune most of the "sci.mil oriented" videos (Wings, Various WWII pieces)
fairly impressive.  Not so on this one:

	First Episode:
	Jet engines.  Only the first 5 minutes or so had involved the time
	when such engines were "secret".  Also, they totally gooed on a
	refernce to "Magnetic Pulse" as a threat to modern combat aircraft.
	That's "ELECTRO Magnetic Pulse", gents.  Large difference.  (DSC had a
	MUCH better history of the jet engine development in their recent Me262
	segment.)

	More recently:
	Manahattan Project:  Credited the Curies with the discovery of
	Plutonium at the turn of the century.  (!!!) Said that Megatons was a
	unit used to descibe fusion weapon yields, with kiloton reserved for
	fission weapons.  Said that the Enhanced Radiation Weapons (neutron
	bombs) functioned by turning the inside of tanks into (sic) "microwave
	ovens".  Words fail me.  Then went on to talk piously of the need for
	the public to understand the "facts" about nuclear weapons effects.

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
146 Main St			|I am the NRA.
Maynard, Mass		01754	pierson@msd27.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re: Neutral particle beams (was Re: Russia's OPERATIONAL Star Wars Defense System)
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:39:13 GMT


From dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)

In article <BvnF7G.JF7@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, d89-jsp@nada.kth.se (Arthur Sparrendahl) writes:
> 
> 
> From d89-jsp@nada.kth.se (Arthur Sparrendahl)
> 
> In article <BvCCAF.46q@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
> |> 
> |> From dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
> |> 
> |> In article <BvAsD1.AAv@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> |> ...The usual technique is to accelerate a beam of negative ions,
> |> then strip off some of the electrons by passing the beam through some
> |> sort of material (thin foil, say)...
> |> 	Paul F. Dietz
> |> 	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
> 
> 	There jas been a lot of talk about *neutron* beams for industrial
> 	use lately. How are they accelerated? I didn't actually understand 
> 	the process but I think they accelerasted protons and passed the
> 	proton beam through a beryllium foil. Anyone know anything about
> 	this?
> 
> 	Arthur Sparrendahl
> 
> 

They are called "neutron generators".  They create a beam of neutrons
by accelerating hydrogen ions into a lithium target (I'm not 100% sure of the
target material and I don't have my references handy).  You maybe right
about the beryllium foil since it also has a low atomic number - 4.  Shielding 
around the target stops those neutrons not going in the right direction.  The
neutrons come off the target with 14 MeV of kinetic energy.  So appropriate
thicknesses of poly sheets/blocks can be placed in the beam path to scatter
the neutrons down to the desired energy level for the application of interest.

Don Palmrose
"I'd rather not serve on a ship designed to sink...."




========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Uzi SMG: Desert Performance
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:32:35 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder


From fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)

In article <Bw2JHM.AH5@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
>>Remember, the UZI SMG is NOT the main battle rifle for the Israeli army.  They
>>also use the Galil ( in 7.62 and 5.56 I believe ), which should be capable
>>of longer ranges ( i.e. ranges in open desert ).

>Actually the 5.56 is the only Galil officially issued by the Israelis.
>The 7.62 is not.

I thought they used 7.62 Galils as sniper rifles.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: B-70
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:46:08 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology


From Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>

>From chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)
>>>One of the prototypes was destroyed in testing when an inexperienced 
>>>chase pilot in an F-104 collided with it.
>>As I recall, there was no issue of pilot inexperience...
>
>A properly trained and experienced chase pilot would have known that the
>vortex would form off the tips of such a large wing at low speeds, and that
>with such a light plane (the F-104 weighed less than 40,000 lbs.) he would
>be sucked into that vortex like a dry leaf in a tornado.  

There is no question but that Joe Walker was a *very* experienced pilot;
one does not get to be NASA's senior test pilot without flying more than a
few aircraft along the way.  However, it's not clear that he had a lot of
experience flying formation with large aircraft.  Undoubtedly he was aware
of the hazard in theory, but he may not have given it enough respect in
practice.

Note, by the way, that the accident occurred after several minutes of
stable formation flight.  It wasn't an inevitable result of the combination
of aircraft.

>... it was a waste of taxpayer dollars to be flying such an expensive 
>plane solely so GE could get PR photos...

Had they done that, it would have been a waste, but they didn't.  The
XB-70 was already airborne for a test flight; the photography session was
an "if convenient" extra added to the end of a normal flight, as I recall.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: Cornell University
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:32:36 GMT


From wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)

In article <BvnELx.IDn@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes: 
> Here is my latest hair-brained idea.  From what I read, a modenr
> carrier has about 16 ASW helocopters aboard.  Why cannot we replace
> these with F-18's (there seem to be enough).  This woudl trade ASW
> strength for air power.
You read wrong.  The current carrier air wing has 6 SH-3G or SH-60F helicopters
which carry out ASW, planeguard, search and rescue, personnel and supplies
transfers, and a variety of sundry other missions.  It also has 10 S-3 Viking
fixed wing ASW planes which also carry out surface search, anti-shipping
strike, refuelling and other missions.  Both types  used extensively in the
Gulf where the submarine threat was nil.  In some ways these are the most
flexible assets in the air wing.  Getting rid of them makes sense only if you
are sure that your only mission will be land attack.  
 
> I think this is a good trade. The most obvious uses for American
> carriers is off the coast of third world nations.  Although many of
> these nations have sub fleets, it is much more common to have an air
> force.  Further, most nations (especially third world ones) put much
> more money into their air force than the sub fleet.  Finally, much of
> our ASW capacity was built to counter the soviet threat.  Now that
> this threat has dissapiated, we have room to cut the ASW capability.
Ask any destroyerman what he thnks about shallow water ASW 9the kind we're
most likely to encounter in a third world setting.  It's much harder than deep
water ASW that we built most of the fleet for.  Dispensing with the carriers
heavy ASW helos (the only ones with dipping sonar in a US battlegoup) would cut
into ASW forces just when hey are most needed.  Just a couple of heavyweight
torpedoes could seriously damage even todays carriers and destroy smaller
ships.  Doing without ASW capability is just asd bad as doing without
air defense.


-- 
Tom Schoene
wwo@cornella.cit.cornell.edu  -or- wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Whenever you're holding all the cards why does everyone else turn
out to be playing chess?"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Johan Kihlstr|m <johankih@etek.chalmers.se>
Subject: B-70 plans,pictures ??
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, SWEDEN
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:36:27 GMT


From Johan Kihlstr|m <johankih@etek.chalmers.se>


From Johan Kihlstr|m <johankih@etek.chalmers.se>

Hi there!
I'm planning to build one of these things in 1/48th scale
and I wonder if there are anyone out there who can help
me find drawings,interior pictures and so on.
If you have anything please let me know.(mail address below)

Thanks in advance

Johan

johankih@etek.chalmers.se

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     Eugene Heiss (GWD) <heiss@brl.mil>
Subject:  LeMat revolver
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:43:09 GMT


From     Eugene Heiss (GWD) <heiss@brl.mil>


From     Eugene Heiss (GWD) <heiss@brl.mil>



>From "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>


MODERATOR writes:
#[mod note: -- I believe you are referring to the LeMat revolver -- 6 pistol
#shots, and one shotgun shell in a barrel mounted under the revolver barrel


>Didn't the Le Mat have 9 .44 chambers in its cylinder? Also, the shot 
>barrel, like the chambers in the cylinder, were percussion fired and
>muzzle loaded.

The LeMat revolver had a 9-shot cal.40 cylinder surrounding a huge central
bore taking a 16-gauge buckshot charge.  Only about 450 revolvers were
accepted Confederate government.  The pistol was designed by Confederate 
Colonel Jean Alexander Francois LeMat

Reference: Civil War Guns by William B. Edwards
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:35:47 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology


From Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>

>From stxtnt@rs733.gsfc.nasa.gov (Nigel Tzeng)
>As far as I remember anyway the Vulcan raid was as much politically
>motivated as anything else...the damage done was very minimal.

They did put one crater into the Port Stanley runway.  The Argentines did
repair it, but evidently not well enough for fast-jet operations, since
they stopped trying that.  The practical effects were mostly due to the
scare thrown into Argentine Air Force command, rather than to the actual
bomb damage.

Actually, there were several (six?) Vulcan raids, but the effects from
the later ones were even less significant.

>one US carrier would have been far more dangerous than the two the
>Brits had...just with the AEW capability alone.  The Brits certainly
>had lots of guts to go into land based air coverage sans early
>detection capability...

They planned to use ships for radar-picket duty, and did (that's what
the Sheffield was doing when it took its Exocet hit).  This didn't work
very well against low-flying aircraft, as they found out.  Mind you,
had the war lasted another month, the first radar helicopter would have
been operating with the fleet, and that would have made quite a difference.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: asj@maths.uq.oz.au (Alan Jones)
Subject: Piston engine experiments
Organization: Maths, University of Queensland
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:36:53 GMT


From asj@maths.uq.oz.au (Alan Jones)


From asj@maths.uq.oz.au (Alan Jones)

 I have a vague memory, based on reading "Power for Flight" by LJK
 Setwright many years ago, that as well as the Sabre, Napier produced an
 H-configuration turbocharged diesel with afterburners -- a sort of
 semi-jet. This may be the "turbo-prop" which someone saw fitted.

 Incidentally, the RR Vulture was an X-configuration "double Merlin", of
 which the less said the better.

 Alan Jones

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: hes@ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Catalog of books on Military History
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:32:08 GMT


From hes@ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)


Q. M. Dabney & Co., Inc. Booksellers
P. O. Box 42026
Washington, DC  20015
301 881 - 1470

just sent me a 272 page catalog of

Old, Rare, Used and Out-of-Print Books on 
Military History

Part 1 - WW II
Part 2 - General Military: American Revolution; Boer War; Custer and the
 Battle of Little Bighorn; Korean War; Mexican War; Napoleonic Wars:
 Spanish-American War: Vietnam War; War of 1812; WW I; Indian Wars;
 Ordnance; Naval; Manuals; Ancient Wars: Foreigh Wars; Etc., Etc.
Part 3 - Aviation History (Including WWI and WWII)
Part 4 - American Civil War

  Just thought somebody might be interested.

--henry schaffer  n c state univ


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dennisn@comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: V-1s with nerve-gas warheads?
Keywords: V-2 V-1 rocket missile
Organization: Motorola
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:38:46 GMT


From dennisn@comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)

>From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>
>>From bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey)
>>Slater claims that the V-1s were being prepared for launch in a subterranean
>>tunnel, parked nosecone to tail and fully fueled...
>
>existing sites wouldn't have been suitable.  Even the normal sites didn't
>go in for anything as elaborate as underground tunnels.

But then there were storage sites too... Maybe this is garbled history.  
The book below reports that at the Nucourt V-1 storage site NE of Paris 
(one of 3 cave sites used for V-1 storage after February/March 1944) 
was bombed by the RAF trapping 2-300 V-1's in the cave in damaged 
sections.  That cave could store up to 3000. The author thought they 
were still in there, but as a storage site the missiles would be 
unfuelled until ready for transport to the launch site.

>
>>From bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey)
>>... I would think that if Hitler had decided to
>>use it against us, he would certainly also have ordered it used against the
>>Soviets...
                                          
The book also addresses the subject of chemical/nuclear warheads 
and in one passage says that the German thinking was along these lines:
  "in the event of conventional explosives proving inadequate
   nuclear or chemical warheads would be produced only if 
   (a) there was no chance of similar warheads being used 
   against Germany, or (b) the threat of their use would be a
   sufficient deterrent to obtain the required result without
   actually using them." p. 119
                        
For anyone interested in the subject I suggest the following book: 
"Hitler's Rocket Sites" by Philip Henshall, Robert Hale Pub. London, 
1985, 200 pp. (I got a copy a few years ago from one of those mail
order discount book companies for $4-5)
  As its title suggests, this book describes in great depth the 
strategy, launch sites, storage sites, and infrastructure for V-1 and
V-2 weapons used in Western Europe. Not much on missile development, 
testing, or results of their use. Included are a few nice photos and 
drawings of the sites now used by local farmers, etc.. including sites 
built but unused like V-2 missle silos in France and large launch sites 
for V-1 and V-2 (Watten, etc..). 

Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: liats3@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au (LIANG TIAN)
Subject: Re: : How good is the Mig-29 VS the F16/F18 ?
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:36:02 GMT


From liats3@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au (LIANG TIAN)

wilderbj@ss1.sews.wpafb.af.mil (Bruce J. Wilder) writes:

>From wilderbj@ss1.sews.wpafb.af.mil (Bruce J. Wilder)

>Differences between the Mig 29 & F-16/F-18 or not so cut and dry as you
>seem to imply below.

>ooi@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Jeffrey K Ooi) writes:

>>From ooi@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Jeffrey K Ooi)

>>4) The Mig-29 can 'flip-up' in combat for a brief period, an angle of 80 degrees   to sight a target well above it's target window.

>What is 'flip-up?'  If you mean pop up or a similar manoeuvre, aircraft
>have been doing this since...since maybe WWI.  80 degrees is
>particularly impressive; it's how long you can maintain it.

  I think what Jeffrey meant is the 'Cobra' manoeuvre.  The -29 can
point its nose about 80 degrees above its flight path while still 
moving forward on its original vector. It can hold this for a 
moment(?not sure?) before it has to snap the nose down in the direction
of flight. The -27 can do this for about 100 degrees, it was the one
credited for the 'Cobra', but I think the -29 can do it to a lesser
degree.
  It is said that this can give the a/c an advantage in ACM as it can
do the manoeuvre, and acquire a target above it and maybe pop an
AAM off. With helmet mounted sights and an AAM that can be fired 
off-boresight(like the AA-11 Archer???), the pilot can do the manoevre,
tilt his head back and acquire a target that was on his six and shoot
at it and then revert to normal flight. (Firepower 41)
  Does anyone know  how long can the -29 or -27 hold the 'Cobra'
position? i.e. how long can the a/c maintain the nose up position
before having to revert to normal flight. And is this really of any
significant dogfighting advantage or is it a lot of hype? I would
assume that the a/c would lose a lot of airpeed doing the 'Cobra'.

/***********************************************************/
Disclaimer: Above are my _personal_ thoughts and blabbing
	    and is not the view, policy, etc of any 
	    organisation[s] I am/was/will be in. 
Liang Tian Soon
liats3@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au
/***********************************************************/