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.

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...

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.

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

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?

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

On 2/18/2012 6:57 AM, Alan Erskine wrote:
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



http://www.aero-web.org/specs/douglas/d558ii.htm

On 19/02/2012 9:41 AM, Richard wrote:
On 2/18/2012 6:57 AM, Alan Erskine wrote:
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



http://www.aero-web.org/specs/douglas/d558ii.htm

Those photos don't show the intakes very well; this one does:
http://www.anigrand.com/AA2052_D558-2.htm

On 2/18/2012 8:43 PM, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 19/02/2012 9:41 AM, Richard wrote:
On 2/18/2012 6:57 AM, Alan Erskine wrote:
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



http://www.aero-web.org/specs/douglas/d558ii.htm

Those photos don't show the intakes very well; this one does:
http://www.anigrand.com/AA2052_D558-2.htm

Thanks a lot, Alan.
I read about it, but had never actually seen how the intakes were arranged.