Tuesday, March 24, 2009

A 'green' experiment backfires


It is to laugh . . . A German report shows that politically-correct environmental experiments can sometimes backfire - with unexpected results!

The German-Indian polar experiment LOHAFEX, where iron sulphate was dumped into the ocean to foster the growth of carbon dioxide-absorbing plankton, has proved ineffective in mitigating global warming.

The Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research explained that the addition of iron to 300 square kilometres of the South Atlantic did promote plankton growth, but they were unexpectedly eaten by small crustacean zooplankton before they could absorb more of the greenhouse gas.

“Nevertheless, despite the hard work under difficult circumstances, LOHAFEX has been an exciting experience laced with the spirit of adventure and haunted by uncertainty quite unlike other scientific cruises,” said Dr. Victor Smetacek, co-chief scientist from the Alfred Wegener Institute, which took the German research boat Polarstern on the journey.

Based on the preliminary results, the team doubts that iron fertilisation will lead to a removal of significant amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, the statement said.

Such experiments are called geo-engineering and have been highly controversial among environmentalists because of their unpredictable results.

. . .

Researchers from the Alfred Wegener Institute said that the experiment had left behind “no trace other than a swarm of well-fed amphipods.”


Bold print is my emphasis. There's more at the link.

Nature eats scientists' experiment! I love it! I trust the amphipods were duly appreciative of their newly-provided food source . . .



Peter

Boys and their (very big) toys!


The BBC reports on the world's largest model railway.

Rail enthusiasts can now enjoy views of Scandinavian fjords, the Swiss Alps, and even Mount Rushmore - in Germany.

Twin brothers Frederick and Gerrit Braun have built the world's longest model railway in the city of Hamburg.

It has six miles of track, cost £8m to build and its 1,150 square metres (12,380 square feet) take in the US, Scandinavia and the Swiss Alps.

By the time the layout is completed in 2014 it will be twice as long and will take in France, Italy and the UK.

The Braun brothers, 41, began work on the Miniatur Wunderland project in 2000.

Their model railway now comprises 700 trains with 10,000 carriages, 900 signals, 2,800 buildings and 160,000 individually designed figures.

It even includes scale models of the Rocky Mountains, Mount Rushmore, the Swiss Matterhorn, and a Scandinavian fjord complete with 4ft cruise ship.

The scenery took 500,000 hours, 700kg of fake grass and 4,000kg of steel to build.

So large is the layout that 160 staff are employed to show visitors around the railway.


Intrigued, I investigated further. The Miniatur Wunderland has its own Web site, and claims to have attracted over five million visitors so far! They've even made this video demonstrating the place.





Fascinating! Certainly one of the ultimate expressions of 'toys for boys', to put it mildly!

Peter

A very old world speed record is challenged


A British team is about to mount an assault on a 103-year-old speed record.

A plucky band of British enthusiasts are gearing up to break a 100-year-old land speed record in a 21st century steam-powered supercar.

They are aiming to break the existing 127mph record in a 25-foot-long vehicle they have already dubbed 'the fastest kettle in the world'.




Designed to top 200mph, the supercar is attempting a record which has stood since 1906.

Back then, daredevil driver Fred Marriott drove a 'steamer' built by two enterprising brothers called Francis and Freelan Stanley.

Their water-powered supercar - called the Stanley Rocket - achieved an astonishing record speed of 127.659mph in Florida.

It made it the fastest car in the world at the time, beating rivals with internal combustion engines that were soon to become the norm.

The new British 21st century challenger is a sleek, streamlined car weighing just over three tons.

The vehicle is a mixture of lightweight carbon-fibre composite and aluminium wrapped around a steel space frame chassis.

It is fitted with 12 boilers containing nearly two miles of tubing.

. . .

Like a giant kettle on a camper stove, Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) held in on-board tanks in the supercar is ignited to fire up burners producing three megawatts of heat - equivalent to 1,500 domestic kettles and capable producing 9,000 cups of tea.

This is used to heat 140 litres of distilled water which produces steam under pressure.

The distilled water is pumped into the boilers at the rate of 50 litres a minute, where steam is superheated to 400C and injected into the vehicles turbine at more than twice the speed of sound.

The sheer force produces the thrust that will propel it from rest to more than 200mph - pouring a jet of white condensed steam out of the back like an angry kettle.

The vehicle even incorporates the elements from two real kettles, used to warm up the liquid petroleum gas used to fire up the boilers.

Massive Goodyear tyres and disc brakes bring it back to a stop - with a parachute system just in case.




The actual record attempt is to take place on a dry lake bed on land at Edward's Airforce Base in California's Mojave desert in June, the scene of space shuttle flights and the base for countless military operations.

. . .

The British Steam Car team are based in Lymington, New Forest in Hampshire and, with minimum funds by maximum British ingenuity and pluck , they have constructed the car in farm outbuildings belonging to Mr Burnett.

'It is a 'garden shed' enterprise operation,' admitted their spokeswoman.

'The project has a fraction of the funding of some world speed record attempts. But we still aim to bring the steam powered world record back to Britain.'

. . .

Project manager Mr Candy said: 'We are doing it on a shoe-string and have been donated parts and paint which has kept the show on a road.

'We've even called referred to the car as being "essence of E-Bay." It's a real garden shed enterprise.'

He added:'There are two real kettle elements at the hear to the car, so if all else fails we can at least make a cuppa.'




However when they did approach tea giant PG Tips for sponsorship, they weren't offered any help.

'I thought that showed a bit of a lack of imagination. Imagine the fun they could have had,' Mr Candy said.

'A giant knitted tea cosy to cover the car or staging the biggest brew up in the world using the car. Maybe we should try the Tetley tea folk next?'


There's more (including many more photographs) at the link.

Full marks for enthusiasm and ingenuity to the team. May they attain success!

Peter

In support of a petition


I'd like to draw readers' attention to what I agree is an appalling display of political correctness and bureaucratic bungling - not to mention a gross injustice, and a slap in the face to US military service personnel and veterans. The full text of an online petition is provided below.

To: Secretary of the Navy

On March 5, 2009 Congressman John Murtha was awarded the Department of the Navy Distinguished Public Service Award by the Secretary of the Navy, Donald C. Winter. From the press release: It is the highest form of public service recognition bestowed by the Department of the Navy for a non-employee. According to the Department, nominations for this award will be limited to those extraordinary cases where individuals have demonstrated exceptionally outstanding service of substantial and long term benefit to the Navy, Marine Corps, or as Department of the Navy as a whole.

The Citation reads:

Congressman Murtha's selfless devotion to the Nation's Sailors and Marines ensured they were provided the resources necessary to effectively conduct the Global War on Terrorism. His courageous leadership, vision, and loyalty to the men and women of the Department of the Navy greatly contributed to their quality of life and helped create the most modern and highly trained fighting force in history. As Chairman of Subcommittee on Defense of the House Appropriations Committee, Congressman Murtha's tireless advocacy helped maintain the Navy and Marine Corps team at the highest levels of combat readiness to meet the challenges of the 21st century. With grateful appreciation for his outstanding contributions to the Nation and the Navy and Marine Corps, Congressman Murtha is awarded the Department of the Navy Distinguished Public Service Award.

John Murtha deserves no such award. He has routinely and deliberately undermined the United States military, slandered servicemen serving in combat, and caused irreparable damage to our international reputation. While serving as a Representative from Pennsylvania, Murtha called Marines from 3d Battalion, 1st Marines "cold blooded killers" who "murdered innocent civilians." Before an investigation into the Haditha incident was even conducted, Murtha went on numerous television news programs and announced that the Marines "went into houses and killed women and children." He said, "There's no question in my mind about what happened here. There was no gunfire, they killed four people in a taxi...24 people were killed." When asked specifically if he claimed that innocent civilians were intentionally executed by Marines, he said, "That's exactly what happened." Not content to slander those Marines directly involved, he went on to claim that if these Marines were not punished, "other Marines would say well I'll do the same thing." Murtha then continued to use this incident to lobby for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, citing it as evidence that our military was incapable of winning the war.

Eight Marines were originally charged. As of March 17th, 2009 all charges were dropped against six Marines, one was found not guilty on all counts in courts martial. The prosecution has delayed the court martial of the final defendant indefinitely. The original allegations of a massacre and the statements of Congressman Murtha have been thoroughly discredited. Despite the facts, John Murtha refuses to apologize to those he slandered.

We the undersigned are appalled that the Secretary of the Navy would bestow the Department's highest award for a non-employee to John Murtha after his vile and despicable attacks against U.S. servicemen. This petition is a vehicle to express our bitter disappointment at this betrayal of our combat veterans. Congressman John Murtha should apologize for slandering the Marines of 3/1, and for undermining the efforts of those servicemen and women who fought in Iraq. If he does not, the Secretary of the Navy should rescind this award as a sign of his unwavering support for those who served in combat during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned


Dear readers, if you agree (as do I) with the sentiments expressed in that petition, I invite you to join me in signing it. I emphasize that this has nothing to do with Congressman Murtha's party political affiliation, or his views and/or voting record on any matter other than the Haditha incident. It's my personal opinion that his conduct and public statements concerning that incident, in and of themselves, were and are a disgrace to his Marine Corps veteran status and to his public office. I would hold that opinion whatever his political affiliation, and irrespective of any opinion or judgment on whether the Iraq War was and/or is a good idea, a worthwhile undertaking. To publicly vilify our service personnel, long before any official inquiry and/or trial can discover the truth, is unconscionable.

You'll find the petition here. I've already signed it. I hope you'll do the same; and I'll be grateful if you'll please pass the word about it to your family and friends. As I write these words, there are 31,991 signatures to it. Let's get it into seven figures!

Thank you.

Peter

Gobbledygook again


Back in March last year, I wrote about the undoing of gobbledygook and the efforts of the Plain English Campaign to reduce it.

Last week, a report from Britain's local government association highlighted this problem in UK municipalities, and issued a list of 200 words and phrases it wants to see eliminated.

Autonomous benchmarking of best practices toward coterminous, holistic governance and stakeholder engagement... just does not cut it any more.

Fed up with the babble, waffle and impenetrable jargon beloved of politicians and middle-managers, Britain's local government association has drawn up a list of 200 words it wants public bodies to avoid if they are to communicate properly.

Gone should be terms or phrases such as "cascading" (sending an email around), "menu of options" (choices) and "predictors of beaconicity" (?), and in comes straight talk.

Instead of "transformational" just say "change," rather than "client" use "person" and avoid the confusion created by a phrase such as "distorts spending priorities" and just admit that whatever it is "ignores people's needs."

"Why do we have to have to have 'coterminous, stakeholder engagement' when we could just have 'talk to people' instead," said Margaret Eaton, the chairman of the Local Government Association (LGA).

"Councils have a duty, not only to provide value for money to local people, but also to tell people what they get for the tax they pay."

The banned words, taken from documents issued by the central government and public sector bodies, is being sent to council offices around the country to try to get everyone to be clear together, otherwise known as "consensually transparent."

. . .

While some of the phrases are laughable, the LGA says there's a serious point to simplifying language, believing that many people miss out on government services because they don't understand what's on offer.

"Unless information is given to people to explain what help they can get during a recession, then it could well lead to more people ending up homeless or bankrupt," said Eaton.


There's more at the link.

I wish someone would import this sort of campaign to the USA, and have our lawmakers and regulators - national, State and local - implement its recommendations. Let's take a couple of examples. According to one source, writing in 2006 about the US tax code:

By the way, if you go to the US Government Printing Office ( www.gpo.gov ), you can order a complete set of Title 26 of the US Code of Federal Regulations (that's the part written by the IRS), all twenty volumes of it, at the bargain price of $974, shipping included.

According to the US Government Printing Office, it's 13,458 pages in total. The full text of Title 26 of the United States Code (the part written by Congress--available for an additional $179) is a mere 3,387 printed pages, bringing the adjusted gross page count to 16,845.


According to one system of estimating word count, using their most conservative figure of 200 words per page (normally used for large print books, which the tax code certainly isn't!), that equates to almost 3½ million words! In reality, the word count is probably much higher, perhaps double that figure - and remember that since 2006, the tax code has only gotten bigger! Is it any wonder that we need an army of accountants and tax lawyers to figure out who owes what to whom?

Another source provides the following comparison of length (and hence complexity):

  • Pythagorean theorem: 24 words.
  • The Lord's prayer: 66 words.
  • Archimedes' Principle: 67 words.
  • The Ten Commandments: 179 words.
  • The Gettysburg Address: 286 words.
  • The Declaration of Independence: 1,300 words.
  • U.S. regulations on the sale of cabbage: 26,911 words.

Says it all, doesn't it? Let's hear it for simpler Government language!

Peter

Monday, March 23, 2009

Fat cat meets narrow cat door


I suggest either a diet, or a wider cat door - or both!







Peter

Doofus Of The Day #189


Today's Doofus award goes to an Italian manufacturer of smelly cards for kids.

An Italian company that makes foul-smelling collectible novelty cards said it is recreating the cards without the odors after a class of children became ill.

Skifidol Puz, which translates to Nasty Idol Smell, said it redesigned the collectible character cards after 16 elementary schoolers and their teacher in the city of Turin were hospitalized Thursday and cards were confiscated as the suspected cause of their ill health, ANSA reported Monday.

The new cards, branded "No Smell, But Stronger," are due to hit Italian newsstands Sunday.

Andrea Marchesi, chief executive of Officina Comunicazione, which holds the brand rights to the cards, said posters advertising the new set will read: "Skifidol Puzz, accused of stinking, get washed and don't pong anymore."

Marchesi said he expects the new set to "sell like hot cakes, like their predecessors, even without the smells."

Authorities said they are still testing the cards that were confiscated.


Er . . . guys? Here's a hint. If you want to sell lots of cards, it's a good idea not to gas your customers with their stench!

Sheesh!

Peter

Stob? Rooping iron? Worm grunting???


If those terms mean nothing to you, don't worry - they didn't mean anything to me, either, until I read this article. A brief excerpt:

Know the saying about the early bird and what it catches? It's Gary Revell's credo. He likes to be in the Apalachicola National Forest in northwest Florida at daybreak, armed with a wooden stake he calls a stob, a heavy steel file he calls a rooping iron, and a mess of one-gallon cans in which he places the bounty he scares out of the ground. Earthworms. By the thousands. In our state there is no more unusual way of making a living than — take your pick — worm rooping, worm charming, worm grunting or worm fiddling. This is a place where science meets folk life, where the 21st century intersects with the old Florida of horseback and Model A Fords.

Kneeling in the dirt at dawn, Revell buries the stob 15 inches deep in the topsoil. Grasping the heavy iron roop with both hands, he leans his weight against the stob and commences a passionate rubbing.

The roop-on-stob collaboration produces the Sopchoppy Symphony, which has been performed in a remote section of Florida for more than a century.

The Sopchoppy Symphony, as Revell plays it, starts with groan and proceeds to a kind of mighty grunt, the kind a distressed 100-pound bullfrog might produce, an awesome, hair-raising, teeth-rattling sustained kind of grunt. First the earth begins to tingle. Then it quakes for dozens of feet in all directions.

Then things get really get weird.

Within seconds the ground explodes with earthworms. They writhe in what seems to be ecstasy, but is more likely terror — as if the demons from hell are pursuing them from the netherworld.

As Gary Revell plays the stob like a Stradivarius, his wife, Audrey, trots among the worms, plucking here, plucking there, filling bucket after bucket with fish bait.


There's lots more at the link, including a video clip, and some history about this weird - and lucrative - pastime. I've never heard of the like, and I have to admit to a reluctant fascination after reading it! It's certainly an antidote for all the depressing financial news with which we're beaten daily.

(Have I just recommended a video about summoning worms as an antidote to financial meltdown? Sometimes I surprise even myself!)



Peter

Of sex, shenanigans and sorrow


I don't know why these things come in clumps, but tonight, in preparing my blog posts, I've found a whole slew of reports about the seamier side of our sexual nature. Some have been sobering, but they've also been funny.

First, German brothels are complaining about the effect of the economy on their business.

Times are hard down at Berlin’s Pussy Club where a new all-in service is on offer: €70 for girls, drinks and food.

Like many of its counterparts, the brothel has been hit by the credit crunch and has had to come up with its own stimulus package for a trade that was legalised in Germany seven years ago.

The Belle Escort, another brothel in the capital, has not faced problems before, but the current financial crisis has triggered a sharp decline in clientele, said its owner Isabelle.

She rejected the idea of ‘special deal prostitution’ as offered by the Pussy Club but admitted, “We’re in trouble.

“I’d estimate that we have at least 20 percent fewer people coming here,” she said.

Monika Heitmann works for a support network for prostitutes in Bremen and confirms the problems the industry is facing.

“If customers can’t even afford to spend money on housing, food and cars, then how can we expect them to spend money on sex?” she asked.

. . .

Some places have been forced to shut their doors and in January, sex-shop owners and porn producers pushed for state aid, taking their lead from the crisis-hit auto and banking industries.

Erotic trade federation official Uwe Kaltenberg, said that ‘economic aid would be judicious’.

Heitmann is now afraid that waning turnover could damage the industry’s reputation even more and that back-street prostitution could escalate.

Barbara Kavemann, professor at the Berlin Research Institute for Social Science and Women Studies, said the full impact of the financial crisis could not be determined because there was no concrete data.

“Firstly, prostitutes don’t legally have to be registered, and secondly, who defines who is a prostitute?” she asked.

But Isabelle and other brothel owners do not need empirical data or definitions to confirm the impact of the credit crunch on the sex industry has been hard.

“The only thing we can do now is keep our fingers crossed and hope for better times,” she said, “and obviously I wouldn’t say no to a state-funded cash injection.”


A 'state-funded cash injection'??? But . . . I thought cash went before 'injection', at least in a brothel! Or am I not getting this straight?

Next, we have the trials and tribulations of prostitutes' clients in Escambia County, Colorado.

Soon wives could receive letters from the Escambia County Sheriff's Department letting them know when their husbands are arrested for soliciting prostitutes.

"I don't think it's people's right to do that. I really don't," said Trishanne LaFreniere, a woman who opposes the letter.

"She has the right to know," said Laurie Thuma, who likes the idea of alerting wives. "This impacts her on many levels, including her health."

Even the men in Escambia County can't seem to agree whether or not the letter is a good idea.

"This letter's making you guilty before you get your day in court," emphasized Jeff Hughes. "You need therapy. You need help. You don't need to be lambasted by your wife."

"She should know," countered Mark Thuma. "The sooner the better, so she can make her own decisions."

Lt. Pat Spears says the department is still working out all of the legal issues involved, but she says their motive is to protect the women who could become innocent victims.

"We're not trying to break up homes or tear up marriages," explained Lt. Spears. "What we're trying to do is a safety issue; warning women what this guy could be taking home."

Spears says some of the prostitutes in this area are HIV positive, yet they still work the streets.

She says deputies will always patrol problem areas.

They're hoping wives can patrol the home front.


Sounds like this could lead to a holocaust of domestic understanding!

We move to sunny Volusia County, Florida, to learn what one woman did when she learned of her man's underage philandering.

A woman was so angry with her boyfriend Thursday morning that she chased him with her van as he ran from her, then drove through a fence and hit him near Interstate 4, police said.

Leoninas Williams, 37, flew through the vehicle's windshield, but was able to get up and continue to run.

Deputies said 33-year-old Traci Desaussure, armed with a knife, chased her boyfriend across rush hour traffic and into a median.

Once in the median, Desaussure beat her boyfriend, deputies said.

"By witness accounts, yes, she chased him across I-4 and started fighting with him in the median against the guardrails," said Deputy James Nunn, of the Volusia County Sheriff's Office.

Investigators said Desaussure became enraged when she learned her boyfriend was allegedly having a sexual relationship with an underage girl.

Deputies said the woman called 911 and warned them that she was about to kill her ex-boyfriend.

"I got an emergency," Desaussure said on the 911 call. "I need an officer now. There's gonna be a murder."

. . .

Williams was flown to Halifax Medical Center and was in serious condition.

Desaussure is in custody and is facing attempted first-degree murder charges.


I can't quite figure out how she could call 911 to tell them to help her, then set out to be the aggressor . . . but then, I suspect logic wasn't on the mind of either participant right then!

Last, but emphatically not least, there's what a Russian lady (?) did to her husband when she caught him cheating.

A wronged wife has taken revenge on her cheating husband by biting off his private parts.

Katya Kharitovonova has been jailed for two years for the attack on husband Mikhail after waking up to find him and her best friend half-naked.

She also lashed out at Lisa Dmitriyeva, smashing her over the head with a floor lamp.

Liza, 33, had earlier been invited to a meal at the couple's home in Russia, before they all sat down to watch The War Of The Worlds.

Katya, 36, fell asleep, allowing 40-year-old Mikhail and Liza to fall into each other's arms.

Mikhail told a court near Moscow: "Liza started stroking my hair and legs, and then it went further."

Liza revealed: "I kissed Mikhail's lips. He didn't resist, and then I kissed him more."

When Katya awoke to discover oral sex going on, she furiously hit her love rival than bit her husband - though did then call an ambulance to take him to hospital.

Mikhail said: "I saw the blood spurting out of Liza's mouth and then felt a sharp pain. I don't remember what happened next, I was unconscious."

Doctors were eventually able to stitch him back together.


Hmm. I suggest a new Russian word for castration by an enraged lover. How about 'Bobbitt-ski'???



Peter

The financial bail-out - what it really means?


Rolling Stone magazine has published a profanity-laden, no-holds-barred article that purports to lay bare what's going on behind the scenes of the so-called 'bail-out' or 'rescue' packages passed by our Government, and what the banking sector is really up to with all our money. It's long, but worth reading, IMHO, despite its use of language I'd prefer not to read. Here's a brief excerpt.

So it's time to admit it: We're fools, protagonists in a kind of gruesome comedy about the marriage of greed and stupidity. And the worst part about it is that we're still in denial — we still think this is some kind of unfortunate accident, not something that was created by the group of psychopaths on Wall Street whom we allowed to gang-rape the American Dream. When Geithner announced the new $30 billion bailout, the party line was that poor AIG was just a victim of a lot of s****y luck — bad year for business, you know, what with the financial crisis and all. Edward Liddy, the company's CEO, actually compared it to catching a cold: "The marketplace is a pretty crummy place to be right now," he said. "When the world catches pneumonia, we get it too." In a pathetic attempt at name-dropping, he even whined that AIG was being "consumed by the same issues that are driving house prices down and 401K statements down and Warren Buffet's investment portfolio down."

Liddy made AIG sound like an orphan begging in a soup line, hungry and sick from being left out in someone else's financial weather. He conveniently forgot to mention that AIG had spent more than a decade systematically scheming to evade U.S. and international regulators, or that one of the causes of its "pneumonia" was making colossal, world-sinking $500 billion bets with money it didn't have, in a toxic and completely unregulated derivatives market.

Nor did anyone mention that when AIG finally got up from its seat at the Wall Street casino, broke and busted in the afterdawn light, it owed money all over town — and that a huge chunk of your taxpayer dollars in this particular bailout scam will be going to pay off the other high rollers at its table. Or that this was a casino unique among all casinos, one where middle-class taxpayers cover the bets of billionaires.

People are pissed off about this financial crisis, and about this bailout, but they're not pissed off enough. The reality is that the worldwide economic meltdown and the bailout that followed were together a kind of revolution, a coup d'état. They cemented and formalized a political trend that has been snowballing for decades: the gradual takeover of the government by a small class of connected insiders, who used money to control elections, buy influence and systematically weaken financial regulations.

The crisis was the coup de grâce: Given virtually free rein over the economy, these same insiders first wrecked the financial world, then cunningly granted themselves nearly unlimited emergency powers to clean up their own mess. And so the gambling-addict leaders of companies like AIG end up not penniless and in jail, but with an Alien-style death grip on the Treasury and the Federal Reserve — "our partners in the government," as Liddy put it with a shockingly casual matter-of-factness after the most recent bailout.

The mistake most people make in looking at the financial crisis is thinking of it in terms of money, a habit that might lead you to look at the unfolding mess as a huge bonus-killing downer for the Wall Street class. But if you look at it in purely Machiavellian terms, what you see is a colossal power grab that threatens to turn the federal government into a kind of giant Enron — a huge, impenetrable black box filled with self-dealing insiders whose scheme is the securing of individual profits at the expense of an ocean of unwitting involuntary shareholders, previously known as taxpayers.


I'm not certain I completely agree with the author of this article on all his points: but I certainly agree with him that the whole bail-out scenario is a nightmare at best, a national disaster at worst. Recommended reading, and food for thought.

And, while on the subject of money, have you any idea what a trillion dollars looks like? No? Go to this Web site for a graphic presentation of just how much money this is. It'll make you think as hard as the previous article!

Peter

The perfect (space) storm?


New Scientist has a very interesting - and very worrying! - article about the potential impact of a Solar coronal mass ejection on Earth, if one happens to be launched in our direction. It's a long read, but here's a short excerpt.

Over the last few decades, western civilisations have busily sown the seeds of their own destruction. Our modern way of life, with its reliance on technology, has unwittingly exposed us to an extraordinary danger: plasma balls spewed from the surface of the sun could wipe out our power grids, with catastrophic consequences.

The projections of just how catastrophic make chilling reading. "We're moving closer and closer to the edge of a possible disaster," says Daniel Baker, a space weather expert based at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and chair of the NAS committee responsible for the report.

It is hard to conceive of the sun wiping out a large amount of our hard-earned progress. Nevertheless, it is possible. The surface of the sun is a roiling mass of plasma - charged high-energy particles - some of which escape the surface and travel through space as the solar wind. From time to time, that wind carries a billion-tonne glob of plasma, a fireball known as a coronal mass ejection. If one should hit the Earth's magnetic shield, the result could be truly devastating.

The incursion of the plasma into our atmosphere causes rapid changes in the configuration of Earth's magnetic field which, in turn, induce currents in the long wires of the power grids. The grids were not built to handle this sort of direct current electricity. The greatest danger is at the step-up and step-down transformers used to convert power from its transport voltage to domestically useful voltage. The increased DC current creates strong magnetic fields that saturate a transformer's magnetic core. The result is runaway current in the transformer's copper wiring, which rapidly heats up and melts. This is exactly what happened in the Canadian province of Quebec in March 1989, and six million people spent 9 hours without electricity. But things could get much, much worse than that.

. . .

There are two problems to face. The first is the modern electricity grid, which is designed to operate at ever higher voltages over ever larger areas. Though this provides a more efficient way to run the electricity networks, minimising power losses and wastage through overproduction, it has made them much more vulnerable to space weather. The high-power grids act as particularly efficient antennas, channelling enormous direct currents into the power transformers.

The second problem is the grid's interdependence with the systems that support our lives: water and sewage treatment, supermarket delivery infrastructures, power station controls, financial markets and many others all rely on electricity. Put the two together, and it is clear that a repeat of the Carrington event could produce a catastrophe the likes of which the world has never seen. "It's just the opposite of how we usually think of natural disasters," says John Kappenman, a power industry analyst with the Metatech Corporation of Goleta, California, and an advisor to the NAS committee that produced the report. "Usually the less developed regions of the world are most vulnerable, not the highly sophisticated technological regions."

According to the NAS report, a severe space weather event in the US could induce ground currents that would knock out 300 key transformers within about 90 seconds, cutting off the power for more than 130 million people (see map). From that moment, the clock is ticking for America.

. . .

Hurricane Katrina's societal and economic impact has been measured at $81 billion to $125 billion. According to the NAS report, the impact of what it terms a "severe geomagnetic storm scenario" could be as high as $2 trillion. And that's just the first year after the storm. The NAS puts the recovery time at four to 10 years. It is questionable whether the US would ever bounce back.

"I don't think the NAS report is scaremongering," says Mike Hapgood, who chairs the European Space Agency's space weather team. Green agrees. "Scientists are conservative by nature and this group is really thoughtful," he says. "This is a fair and balanced report."


I highly recommend reading the whole article. It's certainly food for serious thought. I can only hope our national leadership is giving this problem the attention it deserves. There are safeguards against this problem - but right now, they're not being implemented.

Peter

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Weekend Wings #33: Jack Northrop's Flying Wings


Jack Northrop (properly named John Knudsen Northrop) was born in 1895, and died in 1981.




He founded three aviation companies, the last two of which bore his name, and the last of which is still in existence as the Northrop Grumman Corporation. It's said to be the fourth-largest defense contractor in the world today.

Almost all his life in aviation, Northrop was preoccupied (some would say obsessed) with the notion of an aircraft without a fuselage or tail structure - a pure 'flying wing'. It's perhaps his personal tragedy that he was born when he was. Aviation materials and technology of his day simply weren't equal to the task of producing a fully functional and safe aircraft in that shape or form. Today, of course, with computer-aided design, synthetic and artificial materials, and much more powerful engines and more capable electronics, the 'flying wing' is a reality, and looks set fair to be with us for a very long time to come in specialized military applications. Its most advanced application currently in service is Northrop Grumman's own B-2 Spirit 'stealth bomber'.




Here it's shown from the refueling window of a US Air Force tanker.




At a total program cost per plane of well over $2 billion, this is also the most expensive aircraft ever built. All that money was required to develop and pay for the ultra-modern technologies involved in its construction. Without them, it would never have flown or been effective in its designated mission. That's the challenge of the 'flying wing' - and its promise for the future. Those same technologies, in even more modern form, are now being applied to a whole new range of aircraft, which we'll discuss in the next 'Weekend Wings', with particular reference to the US Air Force's 'New Generation' or 'Next Generation' bomber requirement.

Let's begin at the beginning. Jack Northrop worked for Lockheed and Douglas before he founded the Avion Corporation in 1928. While at Lockheed, he met Anthony Stadlman, who was enthusiastic about the possibilities inherent in a 'flying wing' design. It's not certain whether Northrop was himself as enthusiastic at first, but there's little doubt that he was inspired by Stadlman's ideas, and adopted them in his own thinking. The two built a set of wings for a prototype 'flying wing', but didn't proceed further with the design.

Stadlman is shown below in 1929, holding a model of his 'flying wing' design (which, since it still had tail and control surfaces, was not a 'pure' flying wing, but was as far as he could go with the materials and technologies available to him at that time).




When Northrop founded the Avion Corporation in 1928, he began work on his own 'Flying Wing'. He brought the newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst to Avion as President, with himself as vice-president, and Hearst partly financed the development of the aircraft. The plane was not a true 'flying wing' in that it had tail-booms supporting conventional ailerons and rudders. However, its construction was very modern for the day, being all metal (duralumin), with the skin providing most of the structural strength of the aircraft. At the time, many aircraft were still being made with frames covered by fabric. Northrop experimented with two different power plants from Menasco Motors of Los Angeles. The first was an inverted Mark III Cirrus engine, in a pusher configuration, and the other a Menasco A-4 inverted engine driving a tractor propeller. The former configuration proved most useful in the prototype. The engine was completely enclosed within the wing, with cooling air passing through a tunnel in the wing. This significantly reduced aerodynamic drag. Two cockpits were provided, one on either side of the centrally-mounted seven-foot shaft connecting the pusher propeller to the forward-mounted engine, but one was covered over for the test flights. Northrop designed a retractable undercarriage for the aircraft, in co-operation with Menasco Motors, but in the event a conventional fixed undercarriage was used on the prototype.

The prototype was tested at Muroc Dry Lake in the Mojave Desert (today the site of Edwards Air Force Base), with test pilot Eddie Bellande in the cockpit. Here Northrop (standing) is shown discussing the test flights with Bellande (in the cockpit).




Here's the 'Flying Wing' in the air in 1929, with Bellande at the controls.




The tests were generally very successful. The aircraft's speed was described as 'approximately 25% better than any other design of like power and capacity', and flight characteristics were normal. Of course, this was due to the conventional ailerons and rudders, but the basic design of the 'flying wing' had been proven to be sound. Engineering data obtained from these flight tests would be used to develop the first true 'flying wing' aircraft a decade later. The test flights were completed in September 1930, and no further information is available on what happened to the prototype.

Northrop went on to form the Northrop Corporation in 1932, with financial backing from Douglas Aircraft Corporation. The new company developed several successful designs during the 1930's, notably the Gamma and Delta transports.



Northrop Gamma



Northrop Delta


By 1939, due to the difficult economic conditions of the 1930's, Douglas had taken control of Northrop Corporation, and folded the smaller company into its own operations. Northrop proceeded to found a second Northrop Corporation, under his own control, with independent financing. He was now able to focus his efforts on further development of 'flying wing' designs.

His first effort was the Northrop N-1M. This was the first true 'flying wing' in the USA, flying without any vertical control surfaces or rudders, and without ailerons mounted separately from the wings. It first flew in July 1941.




The drooped edges of the wings proved problematic during takeoff: as the aircraft rotated, the tips were lowered, so that they sometimes scraped the ground, causing damage. As testing progressed, a new straight-wing design was adopted, which proved just as capable of control in flight and eliminated this problem. The video clip below, taken in 1940, shows both versions of the N-1M in flight. I apologize for the music soundtrack that someone saw fit to record on it, but that's YouTube for you!







Jack Northrop is shown below leaning on the prototype N-1M, speaking to a test pilot.




The only example of the N-1M was presented to the US Army Air Forces in 1945. It's now on display in the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center of the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C.




The N-1M proved that a 'flying wing' was feasible. It was a timely development. On April 11th, 1941, the US Army Air Corps put out a request for a new ultra-long-range high-speed bomber. It was to be capable of a round-trip mission of 10,000 miles, flying at a cruising speed of 275 mph, and with a maximum speed of 450 mph for shorter periods. Service ceiling was to be 45,000 feet. This aircraft was intended to allow the US to bomb European targets in the event that Britain fell to Nazi Germany.

The USAAC contract was initially offered to Boeing and Consolidated Aircraft Company (later Convair), but in May 1941 Northrop was also invited to submit design proposals. Jack Northrop's answer was the XB-35, a 'flying wing' bomber of immense proportions for the day. It was a radical technological innovation, and no-one (except Northrop) was sure that it could be made to work: but the design looked so promising that Northrop received a contract in November 1941 to develop a prototype aircraft, with an option to order a second prototype, which was exercised in January 1942.

Because of the technological difficulties involved, the contract specified that a one-third-scale version of the XB-35 was to be built first, to investigate these issues. This became the Northrop N-9M, of which four were ultimately built. Based on the N-1M, but larger, and with more powerful engines, it would pave the way for its still larger sister. It first flew in December 1942.




The aircraft proved underpowered, and the 260hp. Menasco C65-1 engines were replaced in later prototypes by two 400hp. Franklin engines. Both powerplants drove two-bladed pusher airscrews. The first prototype was lost in a crash in May 1943, the pilot being killed, but the three remaining aircraft were completed and continued their test flights. They are shown below in formation, date unknown.




The N9-M prototypes accumulated valuable engineering data, which was fed back into the XB-35's design and development. In the picture below, two of the N9-M prototypes are parked inside the assembly building. Behind them, the XB-35 prototype is taking shape.




Only one N9-M prototype survived the cancellation of the XB-35 program. It was restored to flying condition by a California museum in the 1980's, and subsequently flown in air shows: the pictures and video clip below show it in action.











In 2006, an engine fire caused sufficient damage to render it non-airworthy. It's not known when (or even if) it will fly again.

The N9-M tested a unique control configuration for the XB-35 project. As Wikipedia describes it:

Unlike conventional aircraft, flying wings cannot use a rudder for lateral control, so a set of butterfly-like, double split flaps on the trailing edge of the wingtips were used. When aileron control was input, they were deflected up or down as a single unit, just like an aileron. When rudder input was made, the two surfaces on one side opened, top and bottom, creating drag, and yawing the aircraft. By applying input to both rudder pedals, both sets of surfaces were deployed creating drag so that the airspeed or the glide angle could be manipulated.


While the N9-M was being built to test this design, detail design studies began for the XB-35. Here's a 1941 Northrop design patent drawing.




The huge wing would incorporate a crew cabin in a central section. A tail cone would protrude from the trailing edge of the wing, containing machine-guns operated from a remote sighting station for rearward defense. A total of nine crew would be carried: two pilots, a navigator, an engineer, a bomb-aimer, a radio operator and three gunners. Folding bunks were provided for crew rest during long-distance missions. The (rather indistinct and small-size) cutaway drawing below shows how the crew would be distributed. Note that there was no large central bomb bay: bombs would be carried in a number of smaller bays, distributed along the wing.




A new and very strong aluminum alloy would be used for the skin, adding strength to the airframe. Four 28-cylinder 3,000hp Pratt & Whitney R-4360 engines were intended to drive contra-rotating pusher propellers, eight in all (two per engine). Unfortunately, the contra-rotating propellers would prove enormously complex, causing major gearbox problems and being hard to control in flight.



XB-35 prototype under construction


Serious delays were experienced with refining the design and building the prototype. Some of these were allegedly caused by Jack Northrop's continual diversion of members of the XB-35 team to work on other 'flying wing' designs (we'll come back to them later).

The US Army Air Corps had initially specified that the first prototype was to be delivered in November 1943 and the second in April 1944. It soon became clear that this schedule was hopelessly optimistic. Nevertheless, in 1943 the USAAC decided to order 200 production-model B-35's, and contracted with the Glenn L. Martin Company to produce them, as Northrop's facilities were inadequate for mass production. In September 1943 13 pre-production YB-35's were ordered from Northrop.

Delays in the development of the XB-35 forced the USAAC to cancel its order for 200 production aircraft in May 1944, as it was clear that the prototype would not fly before the end of World War II. However, the order for the 13 pre-production prototypes was allowed to stand, and the program was taken over by the Air Technical Services Command as a technology development exercise. Northrop also began studies on how to apply the new jet engines to the 'flying wing'.

The first prototype XB-35 was finally rolled out in early 1946.




The aircraft flew in June 1946, over two and a half years behind schedule.








Northrop XB-35 followed by Northrop P-61 chase plane




Northrop XB-35 landing


After only a few test flights, both prototypes had to be grounded and the propellers replaced with single units. However, these produced far less power than the double contra-rotating units, severely limiting the aircraft's speed and performance. The single propellers may be seen in flight below.




To make matters worse, the engines used a very complex exhaust system to get their gases out of the rear of the wing. It gave immense problems, particularly with heat buildup, which were never fully resolved. The engines began to show signs of metal fatigue after only two years. In addition, the range and speed of the prototypes was less than called for by the US Army Air Corps specification: and the reciprocating engines of the XB-35 had been made obsolescent by the advent of jet engines. To complicate matters further, the XB-35 had no single large bomb bay, so it could not accommodate the very large early nuclear weapons. Other bombers such as the Boeing B-29 Superfortress and Convair B-36 could do so, and this factor, more than any other, is probably what ultimately doomed the XB-35 program and its successor.

However, Jack Northrop and his team of designers had been hard at work developing a jet-powered version of the XB-35. They succeeded in persuading the US Army Air Force (as the USAAC had now been renamed) to fund development of this project. The XB-35 and YB-35 programs were cancelled in July 1949, and the two XB-35 prototypes were scrapped in August of that year. The first YB-35 pre-production prototype had flown in 1948. It, and the second YB-35 aircraft, were also scrapped in 1949. However, the remaining eleven YB-35 fuselages were retained for conversion to jet propulsion as part of a new program - the Northrop YB-49.




The YB-49 program got underway as early as 1944, as mentioned above, with the cancellation of the USAAF order for 200 production-model B-35's. It would apply new jet propulsion technology to the 'flying wing'. Instead of building prototype aircraft 'from scratch', two of the already-contracted YB-35 pre-production aircraft would be converted for this purpose.

Work on the YB-49 proceeded much more quickly than on the troubled XB-35. It was redesigned to accommodate eight Allison/GE J-35 axial-flow turbojet engines, each producing 4,000 pounds of thrust for a total of 32,000 pounds. Unfortunately, the thick airfoil section of the XB-35 was retained. This had been designed for a cruising speed of only 240 mph, which severely restricted the YB-49's Mach limit and maximum speed. Four vertical stabilizers were added, two on each wing, on either side of the four jet engines in each wing. The jet engine exhausts, in two groups of four, flanked by the new vertical stabilizers, can be clearly seen in the photograph below.




The series of smaller bomb bays were retained, instead of being replaced with a single large unit. The crew was reduced from nine in the XB-35 to six on the YB-49: a pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer, radio operator, bombardier and a single air gunner. Most of the defensive armament was deleted. It was intended to make provision in production versions for two more gunners, and perhaps a full relief crew as well, to take over on long missions.

The first YB-49 flew on October 21st, 1947, and was immediately far more successful than its piston-engined XB-35 counterpart. It set an unofficial endurance record by remaining above 40,000 feet for over six hours, and also established a trans-continental speed record when it flew from Muroc Air Force Base in California to Andrews Air Force Base in Washington, D.C., in 4 hours 20 minutes. The video clips below show it during flight testing. The first one is of poor quality, with several moments when the picture is too blurred to be understood, but since footage of the YB-49 is so scarce, it's the best I can do, I'm afraid.










Despite being more successful than the XB-35, the YB-49 program experienced serious problems. Its Allison engines and the auxiliary power unit proved very unreliable, breaking down frequently. Furthermore, experimental dropping of bombs demonstrated that the flying wing tended to yaw in disturbed air, making accuracy very unsatisfactory unless an autopilot or yaw damping system was used. Since any enemy would be shooting at the bomber at the time, this was obviously a serious handicap to its survival, as its maneuverability would be drastically reduced.




The second YB-49 prototype was lost in a crash on June 5th, 1948, killing all aboard. The co-pilot was Captain Glen Edwards, for whom Edwards Air Force Base was subsequently named. The precise cause of the accident could not be determined, but it was speculated that it resulted from structural failure after an over-rapid descent from high altitude. (Remember that the YB-49's airfoil was the same as that of the XB-35, designed for much slower cruising speeds than a jet aircraft.) There was also speculation that the aircraft had gone into a spin. The flying wing required a radically different spin recovery technique from that used in normal aircraft - something which could only be learned 'the hard way'.

The second YB-49 prototype continued its test flights, but the real problem was now emerging: the aircraft's inability to carry the very large nuclear bombs of the day. Its small bomb bays simply couldn't accommodate them. This eventually led to the US Air Force (as the US Army Air Force had now become) canceling the YB-49 program on March 15th, 1950. Coincidentally, on that same day, the second prototype suffered an accident while taxiing and was destroyed by fire.

However, prior to that, in September 1948, the USAF had ordered the remainder of the YB-35's converted to a new jet-propelled version, the RB-49. This had six uprated Allison engines instead of eight, each of the new version producing 5,000 pounds of thrust. Four were mounted inside the wings, and two in under-wing pods. The YRB-49 prototype is shown below.






The RB-49 was intended as a reconnaissance bomber, where its inability to carry large nuclear weapons would not be a handicap. However, two months after awarding the contract, the USAF canceled it. It had become clear that other aircraft such as the Boeing B-47 Stratojet and the forthcoming Boeing B-52 Stratofortress would be able to handle this mission, so that a specialized aircraft was no longer necessary for the task. Nevertheless, one YRB-49 prototype was completed, and made its first flight in May 1950. Flight testing continued until April 1951. The prototype YRB-49 was scrapped in 1953, and all remaining YB-35/49 aircraft, in partial stages of conversion, were scrapped as well. Below they are shown lined up, waiting to be dismantled.




Northrop submitted several design studies for a new version of the flying wing, this time with a large enough bomb bay to accommodate the nuclear weapons of the day. One proposal would have been powered by two Northrop Turbodyne V turboprop engines, each producing 10,000 shaft horsepower, driving contra-rotating propellers. Its design sketches are shown below.






Another proposal would have substituted four smaller Allison turboprop engines for the two Northrop monster machines, also driving contra-rotating propellers, producing something like this:






However, by now the Convair B-36 and Boeing B-47 were in production, and the B-52 was on the horizon. The Air Force's needs would be met for the foreseeable future, and there was no room for these proposals. The day of the 'flying wing' bomber appeared to be over.

It's time now to turn back the clock a few years. I mentioned that the XB-35's progress had been delayed, due in part to Jack Northrop taking people off that project to work on other 'flying wing' aircraft. Let's take a brief look at those other planes.

The first was a proposal by Jack Northrop to build a rocket-powered fighter, similar in concept to the German Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet. It would utilize his 'flying wing' concept, although with a tail, which he promised would render it capable of exceptionally high speeds. The US Army Air Force liked the idea, and contracted with Northrop to produce three gliders to test the aerodynamic qualities of his proposal. In their unpowered version, they would be known as the MX-334.




The aircraft was built of non-vital materials, so as not to impact war production. The pilot lay on his stomach, chin supported in a V-shaped strut, so as to minimize the effect of G-forces during high-speed maneuvers.

The MX-334 made its first flight in October 1943, towed by a P-38 Lightning fighter.





Unpowered gliding flights continued until the first rocket-powered flight in July 1944. The testing was an 'interesting' experience for the pilots involved, as one source relates:

In the rather bland prose of official Army flight test reports, there is little evidence of the moments of stark terror experienced by company pilots Alex Papana and Harry Crosby at the controls of the tiny gliders.

Army pilots concluded that the glider was indeed flyable and controllable about all three axes. Aileron effectiveness was good, but fell short of current requirements for fighter aircraft. With regard to directional control, the time lag between operation of the rudder pedals and movement of the air-operated control surfaces was so great that the arrangement was considered impractical for that type of aircraft. Despite these limitations, the overall handling characteristics of the MX-334 were considered as good as or better than those of any other flying wing aircraft tested by the Army pilots to that date.

Test pilots sometimes described the tragedies and misfortunes that mark their daily lives in language entirely different from the engineering jargon of formal reports. Alex Papana and Harry Crosby flew many flights in the MX334 gliders that deserved a few extra superlatives in their description.

Two harrowing experiences occurred during this program. The first involved Alex Papana as pilot. Upon reaching the test altitude, Alex reached for the tow-line release, but inadvertently pulled the lever which jettisoned both the upper and lower escape hatch covers. The absence of the stream-lining effect of the hatch enclosures resulted in a dramatic increase in airplane drag and brought on very severe aircraft buffeting. Through a combination of pilot skill and good luck, Alex successfully landed on the lake bed after what must have been a hair-raising descent.

The other harrowing experience occurred a few days later with Harry Crosby as the pilot. Immediately following towline release, Harry flew into the propwash of the P-38 tow plane ... his glider pitched up, stalled and rolled off into a spin from which it recovered in a stable, shallow glide. The problem, however, was that it was flying inverted, and there was Crosby on his back in a prone position aircraft and unable to reach the controls. The escape hatch, which normally was on the bottom of the airplane, was now overhead. Somehow Harry managed to jettison the hatch and crawl through the opening to the top of the wing, which really was the bottom of the wing. He sat there for a moment contemplating his predicament. After deciding there was nothing he could do, he released his grasp, slid off the wing, and deployed his parachute. When he looked around he was amazed to see his still up-sidedown glider flying in circles around him and descending at about the same rate he was. Although both the glider and the pilot landed at about the same time and in about the same place, they did not collide and Harry escaped without injury. The glider was damaged beyond repair.


Harry Crosby can be seen in this picture of an MX-334. He's standing with his feet through the bottom hatch, and his body through the top hatch, which gives some idea of the very small size of these gliders!




In June 1944 an Aerojet rocket motor, developing 427 pounds of thrust, was installed in one of the remaining two gliders, which was re-designated the MX-224 to indicate that it had been equipped with an engine. Harry Crosby flew it the following month, the only pictorial record of his flight being this rather blurred and grainy photograph. The rocket exhaust can be seen behind the aircraft.




Testing continued for a few months, but the lack of a more powerful rocket motor, and the greater availability of the new jet engines, meant that the MX-334/324 design was now too limited. Jack Northrop had been hard at work on a new design, to take advantage of jet propulsion, and the prototype of the Northrop XP-79 was now nearing completion. The rocket program was wound down in anticipation of the new aircraft.




The XP-79, also known as the 'Flying Ram', was unusual for its day. It was again a 'flying wing' with tail surfaces, but constructed of welded magnesium alloy instead of aluminum. Like the MX-334, the pilot would lie prone inside the fuselage. It was originally intended to be rocket-powered, but it was adapted early on to use two Westinghouse J30 jet engines, each producing 1,200 pounds of thrust. It was nicknamed the 'Flying Ram' because for a while, there was serious discussion of using its extremely strong construction as an air-to-air combat weapon, its pilot deliberately ramming enemy aircraft to bring them down. As Jack Northrop said:

"It was designed as a projectile, with the thought that it could be used to intercept and knock wings or tails off other airplanes. Rather than shooting at them, this airplane was going to slice sections off the other airplanes to destroy them."


This proposal was never taken further . . . largely because senior US officers pointed out that if they ordered their pilots to ram enemy planes, the answers they received were likely to be rather short, not at all polite, and very much to the point!




The XP-79 was ready to fly in September 1945, only the fourth US jet aircraft to take wing. Tragically, its first flight was also its last. Fifteen minutes into the flight, Harry Crosby lost control, and the aircraft went into a spin. Crosby attempted to bail out, but was struck by the aircraft. He was unable to open his parachute, probably because he was either knocked unconscious by the impact or too severely injured to reach the ripcord. His body was recovered near the wreckage of the aircraft.

With the loss of the only prototype, and the end of World War II, the urgency had gone out of the program, and the 'flying wing fighter' project was abandoned.

Another 'flying wing' project undertaken by Northrop in World War II, at the same time as the MX-334 program, was to develop a 'flying bomb' along the lines of the German Fieseler Fi 103 (better known as the V-1). He developed two versions, one to be flown by a human pilot to verify its handling and aerodynamic qualities, the second to be unmanned, powered by jet engines. Both would be known as the JB-1. The central fuselage would contain the engines, with two containers, one on either side, containing explosives. The whole affair looked rather like a fat bat, and as a result came to be known as the 'Bat Bomb'.

The glider version was tested in 1944, again by Harry Crosby, with success. The prototype is preserved today at the Western Air Museum in California.




The jet-powered bomb version of the JB-1, shown below, was first tested in December 1944.




The prototype crashed after its launch from a rocket-powered sled on a ramp, because the elevon setting was incorrect. The two General Electric B1 turbojets, each developing only 400 pounds of thrust, also proved unreliable, causing further problems. As a result, the program was switched to pulse-jet propulsion, using a Ford PJ31 engine developed on the basis of what had been learned from the German V-1 program. The new missile, shown below, was designated the JB-10.




It was intended to fly for up to 200 miles, directed by a pre-programmed guidance system, and crash onto its target. It carried two 2,000-pound high-explosive warheads, one on each side of the central fuselage containing the pulse-jet engine. It was first launched in April 1945, but its engine proved unreliable once more. Of ten test firings, eight failed, and the remaining two were only partial successes. With the end of World War II, the urgent need for this and similar weapons had passed, so the program was canceled in January 1946.

With the end of these weapons programs, followed by the demise of the XB-35 and YB-49 programs by the early 1950's, it seemed that the days of the 'flying wing' were over. However, advances in materials and technology paved the way for new interest in the 'flying wing', particularly because it was a naturally 'stealthy' design, with minimal radar reflection. When Northrop began to design what would become the B-2 Spirit bomber in the late 1970's, they initially used a diamond shape for their aircraft: but when the USAF optimized their requirement around low-level penetration, the Northrop designers went back to the drawing-board and came up with a new and ultra-modern flying wing design. To the amazement of many, the current B-2 Spirit and the YB-49 have precisely the same wingspan (192 feet)!

Jack Northrop retired from his company in 1952, although he remained 'on the books' as a consultant, helping to develop the T-38 Talon supersonic trainer, and from it the F-5A/B Freedom Fighter and F-5E/F Tiger II fighter-bombers. After the death of his wife in 1977, he suffered a series of strokes, and became progressively weaker. However, he was well enough to be brought back to the company he founded, for a very special occasion.

The team designing the B-2 Spirit obtained special security clearance to show their design to Jack Northrop, the man who had essentially invented the big-bomber flying wing. He was brought to the plant in 1980, and shown drawings and a scale model of what they proposed to build. It was apparently a very emotional moment for all concerned, and Northrop supposedly quipped that this must be why God had kept him alive for the past twenty years! He's shown below (center) with the heads of the B-2 design team.




Jack Northrop died in his sleep on February 18, 1981. He did not live to see the culmination of his 'flying wing' bomber, the B-2 Spirit, make its first public flight on July 17th, 1989.







Nevertheless, his influence in its design is clear: and that same influence, plus what's been learned from the B-2, plus new advances in technology, are driving a whole new wave of aircraft developments, with Northrop Grumman firmly at the head of the field.

We'll talk about them in the next few weeks.

Peter