aerocontrols
3rd February 2003, 07:07 AM
Story (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/28/1043534050248.html)
For the record I am a mechanical engineer who spent over two years at a British Aerospace guided missile R&D site in the early 1980s and have continued to take a strong interest in aerospace technology. I am a member of ASRI (Australian Space Research Institute). I am not a crank.
The author claims that the UK and Australia are supporting the American effort to remove Saddam Hussein because we've offered them anti-gravity technology. He asserts the existence of anti-grav because he doesn't believe the B-2 would fly without it, and claims that some of the tech that the US claims creates 'stealth' actually creates some imperfect anti-grav.
To his credit, he shows a good knowledge of former US black projects, but I think his evidence of anti-grav is unconvincing.
He claims it's underpowered, with a thrust to weight ratio of 0.2. This is pretty low, but he seems to be comparing it to the T/W ratio of conventional aircraft. The B-52 has a T/W ratio of around 0.3, while a fighter typically has T/W > 1. Here is an example (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-49.htm) of a flying wing (built in the '40s). Do the math and we find:
(8 engines x 3750 lbs. thrust each)/194000 lbs = 0.15
perhaps T/W = 0.2 isn't so unreasonable after all?
So what do you think? Disregarding (or not) the conspiratorial tone, is anti-grav impossible, far off, nearby, or yesterday's news?
MattJ
For the record I am a mechanical engineer who spent over two years at a British Aerospace guided missile R&D site in the early 1980s and have continued to take a strong interest in aerospace technology. I am a member of ASRI (Australian Space Research Institute). I am not a crank.
The author claims that the UK and Australia are supporting the American effort to remove Saddam Hussein because we've offered them anti-gravity technology. He asserts the existence of anti-grav because he doesn't believe the B-2 would fly without it, and claims that some of the tech that the US claims creates 'stealth' actually creates some imperfect anti-grav.
To his credit, he shows a good knowledge of former US black projects, but I think his evidence of anti-grav is unconvincing.
He claims it's underpowered, with a thrust to weight ratio of 0.2. This is pretty low, but he seems to be comparing it to the T/W ratio of conventional aircraft. The B-52 has a T/W ratio of around 0.3, while a fighter typically has T/W > 1. Here is an example (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-49.htm) of a flying wing (built in the '40s). Do the math and we find:
(8 engines x 3750 lbs. thrust each)/194000 lbs = 0.15
perhaps T/W = 0.2 isn't so unreasonable after all?
So what do you think? Disregarding (or not) the conspiratorial tone, is anti-grav impossible, far off, nearby, or yesterday's news?
MattJ