-Caveat Lector- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-629399,00.html March 31, 2003
Oil industry suppressed plans for 200- mpg car By Simon de Bruxelles THE original blueprints for a device that could have revolutionised the motor car have been discovered in the secret compartment of a tool box. A carburettor that would allow a car to travel 200 miles on a gallon of fuel caused oil stocks to crash when it was announced by its Canadian inventor Charles Nelson Pogue in the 1930s. But the carburettor was never produced and, mysteriously, Pogue went overnight from impoverished inventor to the manager of a successful factory making oil filters for the motor industry. Ever since, suspicion has lingered that oil companies and car manufacturers colluded to bury Pogue’s invention. Now a retired Cornish mechanic has enlisted the help of the University of Plymouth to rebuild Pogue’s revolutionary carburettor, known as the Winnipeg, from blueprints he found hidden beneath a sheet of plywood in the box. The controversial plans once caused panic among oil companies and rocked the Toronto Stock Exchange when tests carried out on the carburettor in the 1930s proved that it worked. Patrick Davies, 72, from St Austell, had owned the tool box for 40 years but only recently decided to clean it out. As well as drawings of the carburettor, the envelope contained two pages of plans, three test reports and six pages of notes written by Pogue. They included a report of a test that Pogue had done on his lawnmower, which showed that he had managed to make the engine run for seven days on a quart (just under a litre) of petrol. The documents also described how the machine worked by turning petrol into a vapour before it entered the cylinder chamber, reducing the amount of fuel needed for combustion. Mr Davies has had the patent number on the plans authenticated, proving that they are genuine documents. He said: “I couldn’t believe what I saw. I used to be a motor mechanic and I knew this was something else altogether. I was given the tool box by a friend after I helped to paint her house in 1964. Her husband had spent a lot of time in Canada.” The announcement of Pogue’s invention caused enormous excitement in the American motor industry in 1933, when he drove 200 miles on one gallon of fuel in a Ford V8. However, the Winnipeg was never manufactured commercially and after 1936 it disappeared altogether amid allegations of a political cover-up. Dr Murray Bell, of the University of Plymouth’s department of mechanical and marine engineering, said he would consider trying to build a model of the Pogue carburettor. Engineers who have tried in the past to build a carburettor using Pogue’s theories have found the results less than satisfactory. Charles Friend, of Canada’s National Research Council, told Marketplace, a consumer affairs programme: “You can get fantastic mileage if you’re prepared to de-rate the vehicle to a point where, for example, it might take you ten minutes to accelerate from 0 to 30 miles an hour.” http://exn.ca/flightdeck/arrow/design.cfm Design June 24, 1999 The Arrow 206 on the assembly line. The Arrow was primarily a triumph of innovative design. Here we glance at a few of the aircraft’s design features. For a more in-depth treatment of the Arrow's design, see Technical Aspects of the Avro CF-105 Arrow by Stephen R. Payne and A.J. Shortt of the National Aviation Museum. For detailed drawings and plans of the Arrow, visit exn.ca’sThe Arrow Diagrams. a collection of 17 technical drawings of the Arrow. >From left to right, Robert Lindley, Cheif designer, Jim Floyd, Vice President of Engineering, Guest Hake, Arrow Project Designer, and Jim Chamberlin, Cheif Aerodynamist. RCAF specifications In April 1953 the RCAF released their demanding specifications for a new supersonic interceptor, known as Air- 7-3, “Design Studies of a Prototype Supersonic All-Weather Aircraft”, which called for a craft that could function in the uniquely Canadian context of a vast northern wasteland. They were without parallel in the world of aviation. The twin-engined, two-seat fighter should be able to operate from a 6000 ft runway, have a range of 600 nautical miles (11000km). It was to cruise and combat at Mach 1.5 at an altitude of 50,000 feet and be capable of pulling 2g in maneuvers with no loss of speed or altitude. It was to be equipped with a sophisticated fire control system, and to have an all-missile weapon system which would operate either independently or as part of an integrated defence system. The high speed mission radius was to be at least 200 nautical miles. The time from a signal to start the engines to the aircraft's reaching an altitude of 50,000 feet and a speed of Mach 1.5 was to be less than five minutes. The turn around time on the ground was to be less than ten minutes. Airframe Design The choice of a twin-engined, two seat design was typical of the uniquely Canadian challenges – the vast emptiness of the Northern wastes. Unlike the USAF, which selected a single seat, single engine design for its modern interceptor, the RCAF felt the workload for a single pilot in bad weather or at night would be too high. The CF-105 was to operate in very cold weather, but to remain resistant to the superheating which came with sustained high-speed flight. Titanium was extensively used, and an environmental control system capable of producing 23 tons of ice per day was installed to protect the crew and instruments. Because of the immediate need to counter the Soviet threat of the day, there was to be no prototype. This meant that an unprecedented amount of testing would have to take place, involving wind tunnels, models, elaborate rigs and an early version of computer simulation. The result was that time-consuming and costly custom-manufactured prototypes were eliminated, and instead an assembly line was set up from the first model onward. This meant the initial development price would be higher, but the cost would more than be defrayed once the plane went into production. This is important to consider when deciding whether the Arrow would have been an economically feasible project or not. As it turned out, the price of producing the first Arrow in terms of man-hours to weight ratio cost significantly less than previous aircraft. The fuselage had a subtly pinched, wasp-waisted “Coke-bottle” shape that wasn’t immediately noticeable. This was an aerodynamic concept known as the Area Rule, which reduces drag to a minimum. The aircraft also used a then-revolutionary control system known as “fly-by-wire”, where instead of using rods and cables to link the pilot’s controls with actuators on the airplane, electronic signals sent through wires did the job instead, faster and with less effort on the part of the pilot. This is in common use now, but it was pretty hot back in the late 50s. The Iroquois engine getting ready to be placed into the engine cavity Iroquois Engine The Arrow Mk.2 was to be powered by two Orenda PS-13 Iroquois engines, the development of which was begun in 1953. It was designed to deliver 8,720kg dry thrust and 11,800kg with afterburner. These engines consumed enormous amounts of fuel when flying at supersonic speeds, close to a quarter ton per minute. Engine weight was important in such a large plane, and to keep the weight down, expensive and rare metals like titanium were used. Of a total weight of about 2000kg, 30% of the weight of the Iroquois was accounted for by titanium parts. The final Arrow Mk.3, with even better engines, was expected to fly at Mach 2.5. Because the Iroquois would not be available for the first prototypes, it was decided to use the Pratt & Whitney J75 to power the Mark 1 prototypes and pre-series aircraft. The thrust of the J75-P-3 with full afterburner was 8390kg, equivalent to the maximal dry thrust of the Iroquois. Noise from the Iroquois was said to permanently deafen a human at 100 metres, and perhaps kill at closer ranges. The engines were installed at the extremities of the aft fuselage, with the engine nozzles projecting well beyond the wing trailing edge and the tail. They could be changed in 30 minutes, by extracting them backwards. The Iroquois’ weight-to- thrust ratio made it the most powerful engine of the American continent, and it was said to be fuel efficient. Development costs had not amounted to more than 90 million dollars, considered inexpensive even in the 1950’s. Armament The Arrow’s complex and expensive radar and fire control system ended up being one of its major Achilles heels, and its story is indicative of the processes that brought down the project. A search for an alternative weapons system began after it was determined that the Canadian-grown Velvet Glove air-to-air missile developed for the CF-100 would be inadequate for supersonic combat. The original idea was to fit the Arrow with Falcon guided missiles built by Hughes Aircraft, along with a Hughes guidance system. However the RCAF, against the advice of Avro and the USAF, decided to adopt the more- complex Sparrow II missile, then under development for the U.S. Navy. They ordered a new Canadian-built guidance system called the Astra, designed by weapons-newcomers RCA-Victor, to marry the missile to the Arrow. Unfortunately, the U.S. Navy cancelled the Sparrow development in 1956, calling it too ambitious. The project was taken over by Canadair and Westinghouse Canada. The cost of assuming this development was to prove too much in the end, as was the expensive Astra fire control system. Both were cancelled in September 1958, some six months before the Arrow’s cancellation, ostensibly to be replaced with the original Hughes-built Falcon system that Avro had recommended. This vacillating and overspending was to contribute greatly to the image of the Arrow as a money loser. The Arrow was intended to use only missiles as armament, and they were to be stored in a huge internal missile bay larger than that of a B- 29. The internal bay not only protected the missiles from the weather but also reduced drag. Maintenance access was simplified by adopting a high, shoulder wing structure. Wings Though quite a few wing designs were examined, the high delta wing was decided upon as the most aerodynamically efficient for a high- altitude, high-speed interceptor. The wings were placed high, over top of the fuselage as opposed to under it, allowing the engines and armament packages to be changed more easily and without requiring any modification of the wing structure. The large delta wings provided an opportunity to stow away other elements such as fuel tanks and, in the thicker wing root, the landing gear. The leading edges were drooped, more strongly on the outboard wing sections. A tail wing placed on the thin tail fin would be strongly affected by air currents called wing downwash, or else would have to be placed so low that landing angles would be compromised. The resulting tailless configuration gave the Arrow its distinctive look. Characteristic dogtooth notches along the front of each wing controlled airflow across the wingspan of the large delta wings. This allowed higher angles of attack and made the craft aerodynamically superior. Variations of these are quite common on modern aircraft such as MiGs, which have posts that serve the same purpose. Forwarded for your information. The text and intent of the article have to stand on their own merits. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera- tions. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of teachers, elders or wise men. Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all. Then accept it and live up to it." The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutra <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
