Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 15:31:37 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rudnicki, Edward J." Subject: RE: Technology in MKC >And you might want to look at other designs than the Harrier (which is quite unique), especially the >Yak-141, which has a rear nozzle much further back than on a Harrier, and forward lift engines >equally far forward of the center of mass. The Harrier, OTOH, has the nozzle pairs close together >because of its unique and unconventional engine design; the Russian engines are more >conventional. > >I agree with you about the position of the nozzles, just not >where they get their power from (and I concede that redirecting >it from another engine is certainly possible with Razor building >it -- I'm the one that thinks that bird has a basic disregard for >physics at best). I was only joking about ducting the exhaust from the engines forward to the front intakes/nozzles. Even if you allow for the semi-infinite internal volume of the TurboKat, the thermal problems are just too much. A 180 degree bend in an exhaust duct wouldn't last long. It's not so much a disregard for physics as it is a suspension of disbelief. Few 'toon technologies would work in the real world. But I suppose we expect more from SK because that world is so much better thought out than most. >The Yak VTOL's are a difficult set of craft to get much info on >(if you know of any sites, could you send them to me?), but from >what I have they are not much different from the Harriers with >how the exhaust exits (namely it does not do a 180 on the way >out). I think this may be where we agree to disagree on how >likely an option is. Oh, I know the exhaust doesn't do a 180. The Yaks do differ from the Harrier in using separate lift engines for the front rather than using fan exhaust. The weight penatly is there, of course, but it does allow putting the nozzles farther apart around the CG, which improves stability in VTOL mode, whereas the Harrier nozzle pairs must be closer together (not a disadvantage in practice, obviously). The TurboKat is different from all of the above; my comparison with the Yak-141 was mainly a comment on how much farther apart the nozzles are on both the Kat and the Yak compared to the Harrier. No disagreement at all. > >>> I suspect you're familiar with work not yet complete, on AI systems that will "fight" the aircraft >for brief periods should the pilot black out from g-loads, until he/she recovers. Not implemented >yet, but not very far over the horizon either. The intent of the system is to monitor the pilot's vitals >and take action only if blackout occurs, so there's not too much risk of the aircraft making its own >decisions when uncalled for . > >I can't recall hearing about this, but on the same count, I have >few doubts it is under research (how far it gets and in what form >it comes out in is very debatable). Do you know where you heard >about it? (I want to look it up -- if it's real, any info could >be useful as I use several AI's of varying complexity levels). I suspect I found it in AW&ST, the only publication I read religiously, as I have for 22 years :). It'd be a good source of info on the Yak-141 as well. Perhaps search amazon.com for books on the Yaks too, as there are a lot of "model" publications out there, with good photos and drawings at least. Good luck, and LMK if you need more. Ed Rudnicki -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- Superior connectivity. World class hosting. Astra Labs WebHosting - http://www.astraweb.com ---------------------------------------------------------