View Full Version : XF-91.jpg
troy
February 16th 12, 07:39 PM
Orval Fairbairn
February 17th 12, 04:42 AM
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.
Richard[_8_]
February 17th 12, 07:43 AM
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...
Orval Fairbairn
February 18th 12, 01:04 AM
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.
Alan Erskine[_4_]
February 18th 12, 05:41 AM
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/478986/message/1265648006/Oh+my...+the+XF-90,+among+other+treats.
shows some photos.
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XF-91
Richard[_8_]
February 18th 12, 06:55 AM
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/478986/message/1265648006/Oh+my...+the+XF-90,+among+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?
Alan Erskine[_4_]
February 18th 12, 12:57 PM
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/478986/message/1265648006/Oh+my...+the+XF-90,+among+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
Richard[_8_]
February 18th 12, 10:41 PM
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/478986/message/1265648006/Oh+my...+the+XF-90,+among+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
Alan Erskine[_4_]
February 19th 12, 02:43 AM
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/478986/message/1265648006/Oh+my...+the+XF-90,+among+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
Richard[_8_]
February 19th 12, 04:14 AM
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/478986/message/1265648006/Oh+my...+the+XF-90,+among+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.
Alan Erskine[_4_]
February 19th 12, 12:50 PM
On 19/02/2012 3:14 PM, Richard wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
Likewise. It's good to see stuff like that. I always thought it was a
pure-rocket job.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.