Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!bionet!ames!amdcad!military
From: gwh%sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Cruise missile engines
Message-ID: <27448@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Date: 23 Sep 89 18:45:47 GMT
Sender: cdr@amdcad.AMD.COM
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 24
Approved: military@amdcad.amd.com



From: gwh%sandstorm.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert)
In article <27409@amdcad.AMD.COM> sigma!bill@beaver.cs.washington.edu (William Swan) writes:
>>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 :-)  
>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?

The version being sold to the public has some engineering changes and is derated by
about fifteen percent in power.  It's lifetime is supposedly as good as other jets
with these mods.


****************************************
George William Herbert  UCB Naval Architecture Dpt. (my god, even on schedule!)
maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu  gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu
----------------------------------------