|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
February 16th 12, 07:39 PM
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
|
|||
|
|||
XF-91.jpg
|
|
#2
February 17th 12, 04:42 AM
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
|
|||
|
|||
|
XF-91.jpg
In article , troy wrote:
begin 644 XF-91.jpg [Image] end Interesting! The "official" pics of the XF-91 did not show the radome, which should boost inlet efficiency.
|
|
#3
February 17th 12, 07:43 AM
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
|
|||
|
|||
|
XF-91.jpg
On 2/16/2012 10:42 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In , troy wrote: begin 644 XF-91.jpg [Image] end Interesting! The "official" pics of the XF-91 did not show the radome, which should boost inlet efficiency. Maybe, Orval. But that little inlet probably speaks tons about performance...
|
|
#4
February 18th 12, 01:04 AM
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
|
|||
|
|||
|
XF-91.jpg
In article ,
Richard wrote: On 2/16/2012 10:42 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote: In , troy wrote: begin 644 XF-91.jpg [Image] end Interesting! The "official" pics of the XF-91 did not show the radome, which should boost inlet efficiency. Maybe, Orval. But that little inlet probably speaks tons about performance... IIRC, the XF-91 was built just before aero engineers discovered the advantages of shock attachment for supersonic flight. The flat inlet causes a shock, which adversely affects performance.
|
|
#5
February 18th 12, 05:41 AM
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
|
|||
|
|||
|
XF-91.jpg
On 17/02/2012 6:43 PM, Richard wrote:
On 2/16/2012 10:42 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote: In , troy wrote: begin 644 XF-91.jpg [Image] end Interesting! The "official" pics of the XF-91 did not show the radome, which should boost inlet efficiency. Maybe, Orval. But that little inlet probably speaks tons about performance... It was an attempt to build a 'jet-rocket' rather than a pure jet: http://www.network54.com/Forum/47898...g+other+treats. shows some photos. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XF-91
|
|
#6
February 18th 12, 06:55 AM
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
|
|||
|
|||
|
XF-91.jpg
On 2/17/2012 11:41 PM, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 17/02/2012 6:43 PM, Richard wrote: On 2/16/2012 10:42 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote: In , troy wrote: begin 644 XF-91.jpg [Image] end Interesting! The "official" pics of the XF-91 did not show the radome, which should boost inlet efficiency. Maybe, Orval. But that little inlet probably speaks tons about performance... It was an attempt to build a 'jet-rocket' rather than a pure jet: http://www.network54.com/Forum/47898...g+other+treats. shows some photos. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XF-91 My memory seems to thing that the X2 (or was it D558?) had both rocket and jet engines for a while. That from Bill Bridgeman's autobiography?
|
|
#7
February 18th 12, 12:57 PM
posted to alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
|
|||
|
|||
|
XF-91.jpg
On 18/02/2012 5:55 PM, Richard wrote:
On 2/17/2012 11:41 PM, Alan Erskine wrote: On 17/02/2012 6:43 PM, Richard wrote: On 2/16/2012 10:42 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote: In , troy wrote: begin 644 XF-91.jpg [Image] end Interesting! The "official" pics of the XF-91 did not show the radome, which should boost inlet efficiency. Maybe, Orval. But that little inlet probably speaks tons about performance... It was an attempt to build a 'jet-rocket' rather than a pure jet: http://www.network54.com/Forum/47898...g+other+treats. shows some photos. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XF-91 My memory seems to thing that the X2 (or was it D558?) had both rocket and jet engines for a while. That from Bill Bridgeman's autobiography? Wikipedia agrees with you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D558
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
