Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.218.94.129; envelope-from=tomtugan@yahoo.com
Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  b=pzn+aEC+vDSa1v+ODjD6q+TL5a0upgUZOr/1QwRzQyIpxd8l0MbaWhx9xD06VR/aNgVBE3ODzHzznvrpHwbUoTMQOftF4JcO8wygoY+GrvmKQUPyFPHHwjSW2SAlLkzXuafthlhDC3D1s/CP0GkapAqCBg2HQjKLK1+Z3scWb3g=  ;
Message-ID: <20041221013422.18518.qmail@web41522.mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 17:34:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Tom <tomtugan@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Perelli power
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-574697@logan.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Well Lynn you almost got me going there.  I was starting to edge from "I know
this is just creative writing" to "nobody can make this much up".       
1) I also noticed the canopy frame didn't fit too well, especially for a new
Mach 3+ thing. That's more than untidy, it's a pending canopy loss.
2) The combination of stealth and swing-wing or stealth and Mach 3+ doesn't
look reasonable.   It's likely the swing-wing would add reflective
opportunities.  Swing-wing is passe,  today their looking for more simplicity
in the airframe.  I can't see they would want it enough to figure out how to
make it stealthy.    As for Mach 3+, I've heard often enough that simple radar
could always pick-up the ionization trail of the SR-71.   No stealth there.    

3) Come to think of it, too many curved features on top the airframe for
look-down radar to work with, including her cockpit dash.  
4) Notice her stylin helmet doesn't seem to have a visor mechanism and nobody
flys during the day without being able to wear shades.  They wouldn't make her
wear sunglasses. By the way Hollywood, where's her microphone? or does R2D2 do
her comm work from the hump behind her? 

Yes I was disappointed the YF-23 didn't get the job.  I really liked it's
configuration and lines.   Hopefully it was close-in flyability and other good
concerns and not political considerations and pay-offs.  Read "Tokyo
Underworld",  think Boeing tanker deal,  and you'll see the possibilities as
not being so unique to other governments.   

As for those balsa-flyers, good articulation, good info.  I ran the 60mph
scenario thru my mental aerodynamics estimator and it agreed.  But this is more
appropriate to full-scale vehicles.  For balsa-flyers I suggest that you should
slow that car down to realistic operational speeds, say 10mph or less and I
believe the drag difference between the engine-siezed or broken tranny scenario
may not be as it is at 60mph.     Having many flights myself on the more
cost-effective red-propped rubber-powered Gillows balsa-flyers and seeing the
props freely spin after rubber-out,  I'd suggest the Gillows engineering team
intentionally chose free-spinning for glide durations.  They always fly with
turns anyway. I can always test this.   As for rubber-powered Wakefields, I'm
sure folding props are the only reasonable solution. .

Tom
> 
> 
> The rubber band airplane has the prop turn free when the rubber has run out, 
> because the prop is more than 1/3 of the wing span. (Not unlike WWII
> fighters).
> If the prop is not free to turn, it becomes a very powerful full right 
> aileron input. 
> Making for an unhappy child, of 62 years in my case. 
> 
.


__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250