Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!gatech!amdcad!military
From: gwh%earthquake.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Fighter "Maneuverability" vs. "Performance" (really jet engines)
Summary: ...Some data and a push in the right direction
Message-ID: <27337@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Date: 19 Sep 89 06:34:57 GMT
Organization: ucb
Lines: 19
Approved: military@amdcad.amd.com



From: gwh%earthquake.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert)
In article <27295@amdcad.AMD.COM> mmm@cup.portal.com writes:
>What are the "recent advances"?  Could someone please summarize and comment.

	Engines with a 10-1 thrust/wt ratio, and better for the next 
generation (ATF).

>BTW, I saw on TV some video of the assembly of a cruise missile.  One of the
>technicians was carrying around the engine for the missile.  The turbine
>looked to be about 2 1/2 feet in diameter.  What was surprising was the
>weight.  From the way the guy was holding it, I would guess this engine
>weighs about 25 pounds.

	The ENTIRE missile is less than two feet in diameter.
The actual engine is (about) 12" in diameter and between 24" and 30"
long.  It's a turbojet, can be bought in a derated form from (I
believe) Williams Intl.  for general aviation use.