Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: howard@cos.com (Howard C. Berkowitz)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: B-70 bomber program
Summary: But where's the air base?
Message-ID: <10011@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 7 Oct 89 03:28:26 GMT
References: <27553@amdcad.AMD.COM> <9865@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems, McLean, VA
Lines: 63
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: howard@cos.com (Howard C. Berkowitz)

In article <9865@cbnews.ATT.COM>, amdcad!djm@castle.edinburgh.ac.uk (D Murphy) writes:
> Unfortunately, boron hydrides are VERY corrosive, and without the ceramics
> available today the engines would not have lasted long. In addition, they
> are difficult (== expensive) to handle because they tend to be unstable to
> water and air. This may be alright in a chemistry lab but poses logistics
> problems elsewhere (and severe hazard for ground crews). Finally (I'm not
> sure about this, but I rather suspect it would be true) the products of
> the reaction would likely be solid. This would impose another degradative
> strain on the engines - that of abrasion. It would also cause problems if
> the products were volatilized when the engines were running. Once they'd
> been shut down you'd get some condensing on the inside of the engines which
> could easily lead to the whole thing siezing up.


Again an anecdote from memory, there was a very practical problem 
with boron-based fuels.  The solids problem, in some fuel formulas 
(not necessarily that of the XB-70), went beyond corrosion:

it extended to putting dense white clouds of oxidized boron into
the air, such that visibility for the next plane taking off,
the tower, landing planes, birds, Russian spies, etc., were all
seriously impaired.  

There is a story of a test,  I believe at Edwards AFB, of an
early boron experiment -- there was concern that the plane had
sufficient fuel to stay aloft until the clouds settled enough
for the crew to see the runway.

Perhaps readers can contribute details (or anecdotes) of Great
Fiascoes in Military Technology [sci.military.snafus, .fubars,
or .fubabs].  For example, I have heard tales of two winners:
a 1950-vintage interceptor called the XP-72, and a suppposedly advanced
weapons control system for an advanced helicopter (Cheyenne?)

I saw the XP-72 in a Ground Observer Corps (anyone remember that?)
identification handbook in the early 50's.  It was a stubby-winged
(delta?) jet fighter, with what I can best explain as a beak.  I was
told the beak was a reinforced nose, and the aircraft was intended
for survivable ramming attacks against bombers.  Anyone know anything?

I heard of the helicopter control system while doing human factors
work.  The gunner was equipped with a hands-free gunsight slaved
to his eye movements.  This technology has been demonstrated, and can
work.  The improvement, however...

Allegedly, an additional goal was hands-free control of weapons release.
One bit down to fire rockets, twitched the left cheek for guns, etc.

Unfortunately, the first test gunner had hay fever.  On arming weapons,
he sneezed...tightening his face sufficiently to salvo all weapons.
Of course, the noise and recoil caused him to toss his head, breaking
lock.  Between sneezing and recoils, he wiped out most of the range,
with incidental damage to the target.
It ,o
-- 
howard@cos.com OR  {uunet,  decuac, sun!sundc, hadron, hqda-ai}!cos!howard
(703) 883-2812 [W] (703) 998-5017 [H]
DISCLAIMER:  Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the Corporation
for Open Systems, its members, or any standards body.