Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!ames!amdcad!military
From: sigma!bill@beaver.cs.washington.edu (William Swan)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Cruise missile engines
Message-ID: <27409@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Date: 22 Sep 89 06:52:27 GMT
References: <27295@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Sender: cdr@amdcad.AMD.COM
Lines: 21
Approved: military@amdcad.amd.com



From: sigma!bill@beaver.cs.washington.edu (William Swan)
In article <27344@amdcad.AMD.COM>:
>These engines are considerably smaller and lighter than the piston
>engines used in light general aviation planes, and would give a plane
>the size of, say, a Cessna 172 Skyhawk, the thrust-to-weight ratio
>of a Learjet.  Can't wait till the next generation of cruise missiles,
>or the next disarmament agreement, drives all these engines onto the
>surplus market :-)  
>-- 
>Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ; 201 582-2998; mhuxd!wolit

But aren't these engines designed for one-time use? Isn't there some
difference between an engine optimised for power/weight ratio for a
one-time "short" duration flight, and one which is designed for long-
term use with regular maintenance?


-- 
Bill Swan  entropy.ms.washington.edu!sigma!bill