On Sat, 01 Feb 2003 18:32:17 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: >Someone on one of my other lists posted this link: > >http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/28/1043534050248.html > >My BS detector started going off at the sentence "I am not a crank." :) > >Anyone better at ferreting out the BS in the details want to take a crack at >pointing out to me just where the fatal flaws are? (I'd be very interested >in hearing from Dan, Erik and Gautam on the whole thing. Any other response >is quite welcome, as well.)
I can't comment on the physics of anti-gravity, but their assertion that the B2 is underpowered is ridiculous. "Take-off thrust of the [B2 engine] F118- 100 at sea level is given as '19,000lb (84.5kN) class' by Northrop Grumman and as '17,300lb (77.0kN)' by the USAF. These are startlingly low figures for an aircraft whose take-off weight is said to be 336,5001b (152,635kg) and which was until recently said to weigh 376,0001b (170,550kg). Aircraft usually get heavier over the years, not 20 tones [sic] lighter. Even at the supposed reduced weight, the ratio of thrust to weight is a mere 0.2, an extraordinarily low value for a combat aircraft." A heavy subsonic combat aircraft. If they wanted to make a point here they would have compared it to other aircraft. I don't know typical values for other combat aircraft but while modern commercial airliners have a thrust to weight ratio closer to .3, it doesn't mean they couldn't fly at .2. They just would be less suitable for "short" fields. As long as the thrust available exceeds drag, the plane should be able to accelerate to takeoff speed given enough runway. And the profile of the stealth looks like it would have less drag than a wide body jet, requiring less thrust. Does anyone know what the takeoff distance of a loaded B2 is? I imagine it is quite long. Is this the reason it is flown from bases in the US? And why do aircraft get heavier over the years? Dean _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
