F-14 being destroyed instead of...

Yes, I agree with you, a big intake is required. But the size is not without
bounds. There are limits to how big a useful intake can get. To me this
seems to be when the temperature gets high enough that it starts causing
stability problems at the throat. After that it serves no useful purpose to
increase the size of the intake. This seems to be the upper limit, Mach 5
to 6 range. At Mach 5, it's 25 to 1 area ratio. There is nothing inherently
wrong with a big compression ratio intake, and that is what is required to
fly at the upper Altitude limits at any given Mach number, going to Orbit.
Ideally, highest Equivalent Velocity (Ve) should be at takeoff when the
vehicle is the heaviest, and decreasing all the way to Orbit. Low Ve,
yields low loads, light structures... Example SpaceShipOne had a very low
overall Ve from the ground to space and back.

25 to 1, that seems like a good design point for the intake area ratio, and
would probably be the goal. Allows for the lowest Ve, towards the Upper
Altitude limit of flight. What is the F-14's maximum area ratio, 2?

We've been through this before, a Fluid Variable Intake can be used before
and after this upper Mach number limit of ramjet intake. It address both
the complexity and the heating issues to a large extent. At Mach 4, the
area ratio is only 10, a Fluid Variable Intake allows a Mach 4 sized intake
to fly at Mach 5 and beyond.

Heating on the rest of the airframe is limited by time and location.
Remember it's an acceleration profile, not an endurance type profile. Only
the locations that slow the flow down significantly will have heating
problems and require some high temperature insulation. Look at SpaceShipOne
and where the Red RTV has been applied.

I don't think we've even scratched the surface of all the other things would
need to be changed between a properly designed atmospheric first stage vs
an F-14 stage. But, I still think an F-14 would be a fun development
platform, a whole lot more fun than looking at numbers on a computer
screen.

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @
--


Len wrote:

On Jul 13, 9:09 am, Craig Fink wrote:
Len wrote:
On Jul 11, 7:39 am, Craig Fink wrote:
Len wrote:
On Jul 7, 9:31 pm, "Scott Hedrick" wrote:
"Craig Fink" wrote in message

hlink.net...

It's just the Aerospace Engineer in me, but even the F-4 is a
beautiful flying machine. As ugly as it is, it exudes the raw
power of it's engines, a flying brick.

And it *still* beats the hell out of what most of the world's
military flys.

After we didn't get a Phase II subcontract for the
RASCAL program, I put together a revised F-14
launch vehicle concept that I felt would have been
quite superior to the one that strictly fitted RASCAL's
"figures of merit." See:

http://www.tour2space.com/archives/f-14lv/f-14-st.htm

This concept would have worked quite well even with
F-14A's. Moreover, we were much more interested in
the basic airfame than in the weapons system
capability of the F-14A/C or D. However, I now feel
that spending several times more on developing our
Space Van 2011 would have a payoff that would be
proportionately much higher.

No kidding, that would be fun. Me, I'd what to coat all the leading
edge "hot" hot parts with a mix of high temperature RTV and Aerogel
filler. Then add a Fluid Variable Intake, larger exit nozzle, and see
if I could push it into the scramjet region using the now jet
fuel/hydrogen/oxygen powered turbojets. What fun. It only has to get
to Mach 5 to do a X-Prize mission scenario. Anything past that would
be gravy as far as an airbreathing first stage to Mach 5-10 is
concerned.

Where is Tomcat? He hasn't been posting lately. He might want to fly
it.

It would probably be a good idea to modify the ejection seat
(inflatable stability and heatshield) to survive a Mach 5 entry so
Tomcat can fly the version two when something goes wrong with version
one. :-)

What a cheap development platform, who cares if you crash a few.

Our RASCAL / F-14 concept got rather complicated
just trying to get to mach 3. Our post-RASCAL
did not stress the F-14 beyond its tested envelope
--except for altitude. Except for the addition
of truncated and rearranged RD-0124 nozzles,
very little modification would have been required.
Adding water injection is an option that offers some
performance improvement, but that may not be
worth the hassle.

Simplicity and minimum modification was the goal
for the post-RASCAL F-14 concept. The upper
stages get a little more complex, in order to avoid
F-14 mods.

To me it seems any improvement by adding water injection in the
traditional sense would be very limited. Adding water into the combustor
of the jet engine would cool the turbine inlet temperature, add mass
flow, add power to the turbine.

The main goal of DARPA's RASCAL program was
to see if water injection into the inlet would be a
good way to build a launch vehicle. But, as you
suspect, the benefits seem to be quite limited.
Our post-RASCAL F-14 concept depends almost
entirely on the addition of rocket power. With the
additon of rocket power, it doesn't really matter
much whether or not we're using the TF-30 or the
F-110 engines--or whether or not we inject water
or some other fluid into the inlet.

Maybe that was your problem, DARPA, they are looking for Military
Applications. This leads to solutions useful in weapons systems, not going
to Orbit. If you were working for DARPA, that's probably what you were
working on.


But, is that really what you want to do at high altitude? What are you
going to do with that additional power? Well, it's going to spin up the
compressor. Then you have to stop adding water, or the engine comes
apart, most likely do to centrifugal loads. It's just spinning to fast.

At high altitude, the aribrething engine is just along
for the ride. All the power is coming from the rocket.
Our attempt to get enough air at altitude to satisfy
DARPA's interest led to enormously larger inlets
--greatly decreasing the potential benefit of
modifying an existing aircraft.

I thought we discussed this earlier too. If your taking the airbreathing
engine along, it should be used to the fullest extent. Full thrust,
twisting the drive shaft in half, not just along for the ride. In reality,
there has never been a turbojet properly designed and built for the
Acceleration type mission profile. There is no reason to, for a weapon.

To really accelerate at high altitude before RASCAL release, you really
want to utilize the engines to the point of breaking, do to power loads,
not centrifugal loads. In other word, twisting the drive shaft in half
between the turbine and compressor would be the goal. So, you want to
give the compressor something to do too. That would be, compressing the
additional Oxidizer added into the Intake. If the mixture ratio
(Oxygen/Nitrogen) gets to rich, maybe inject liquid Air, but Oxygen is
definitely better.

You really want to forget about the airbreathing engines
altogether at altitude. The airbreathing engines are useful
--along with the rocket--for takeoff, initial climb, iniitial
acceleration, flyback, approach and landing. For the
most appropriate trajectory, IMO, the airbreathing engines
make very little contribution to transonic and supersonic
acceleration.

Initial Acceleration to Mach 5+, I'd say the goal for an air breathing first
stage might be more like Mach 10, with a turbojet. And would be on the
upper altitude limits of the flight envelope at that Mach number, not the
lower limits altitude limits.

We did look at adding LOx to the inlet, which is
not too bad an idea. But simple rocket power
seems to be much better.

Humm, really. Would you happen to have the guy's name who came up with it,
I'm sure he might like to discuss it. So, you looked into the idea, was the
guy who came up with it helping? Because, I don't see why you have such a
negative attitude about such a good idea. Maybe you weren't working with
the guy, and didn't fully utilize the idea properly. Fluid Variable
Intake's aren't in any of the text books I've looked at, and I don't think
they've been fully explored yet.

E-Mail me if you have that info on the guy, if you would find it acceptable
to do so.


The simplest Fluid Variable Intake for the F-14 would probably be to add
the Oxygen between the throat and the compressor blades. It's subsonic
flow, makes mixing much easier, and it can be injected differently.
Probably the majority of it going around the combustor in the bypass air
flow path for use in the afterburner. One of the really nice thing about
modern turbojets is that the bypass ratios are getting quite large.

This would be the simplest way to get the F-14 up to the Mach limit of a
Ramjet. Above the operational Mach limit of a ramjet, then the LOX has to
be added upstream of the throat and all the supersonic shock problems
make it a more difficult task.

I don't think so. The problem with airbreathing
engines is mainly the rapidly increasing size
and complexity of inlets with mach number--
and the subjection of the whole vehicle to the
environment necessary for the airbreathing engine
(but very damaging to the rest of the vehicle).

Like I said this rapidly increasing size and complexity of the intake no
longer applies when a Fluid Variable Intake is used.


Let me know if you get a hold of one of those F-14 before they are all
turned into beer cans. I've got bunch of other fun, much more complicated
improvements too.

We've backed off of the F-14 approach.
We now feel that our Space Van 2011
is far more promising than any other
concept that I have come up with
before. See

http://www.tour2space.com

Yes, I looked at your web site.

http://www.tour2space.com/archives/f-14lv/f-14-st.htm

It only makes me wonder, how much detail you got into in looking at it. I'm
still trying to figure out how the nose wheel gets to the ground. But, you
have some pictures, more than I have. So, I guess says something.

Good thing you've moved on to other concepts, as the F-14s are also moving
on to the Budweiser plant.

On Jul 14, 8:42 am, Craig Fink wrote:
Yes, I agree with you, a big intake is required. But the size is not without
bounds. ...snip..

The problem, Craig, is on the system design level.
The size, mass, complexity of inlets designed for
acceleration over a wide mach number range kill
off the potential benfits, and then some. Subjecting
the total system to the horrible environment needed
to collect air doesn't help either. It's a lot more than
just getting the engine and inlet system to operate
as a subsystem.

.....

Maybe that was your problem, DARPA, they are looking for Military
Applications. This leads to solutions useful in weapons systems, not going
to Orbit. If you were working for DARPA, that's probably what you were
working on.

No. The RASCAL program seemed quite interested in
commercial space launch spinoffs.

The problem is something quite different.
I'm afraid that DARPA is mainly interested in
pursuing systems that aren't likely to work. They
seem to pride themselves in only being interested
in high-risk development projects. That's OK--
but not to the exclusion of looking at low-risk,
high-payoff projects.

....snip...

We did look at adding LOx to the inlet, which is
not too bad an idea. But simple rocket power
seems to be much better.

Humm, really. Would you happen to have the guy's name who came up with it,
I'm sure he might like to discuss it. So, you looked into the idea, was the
guy who came up with it helping? Because, I don't see why you have such a
negative attitude about such a good idea. Maybe you weren't working with
the guy, and didn't fully utilize the idea properly. Fluid Variable
Intake's aren't in any of the text books I've looked at, and I don't think
they've been fully explored yet.

The guy who came up with the LOx injection idea
was Len Cormier. Two problems. First, it really didn't
fit into what DARPA was looking for. Second, once
outside of DARPA constraints, the pure rocket uses
the LOx more efficiently--plus the total system seems
to work better with less complexity.

E-Mail me if you have that info on the guy, if you would find it acceptable
to do so.



The simplest Fluid Variable Intake for the F-14 would probably be to add
the Oxygen between the throat and the compressor blades. It's subsonic
flow, makes mixing much easier, and it can be injected differently.
Probably the majority of it going around the combustor in the bypass air
flow path for use in the afterburner. One of the really nice thing about
modern turbojets is that the bypass ratios are getting quite large.

If one were to try to use LOx injection, your suggestions
are appropriate and consistent with what we were
considering.

This would be the simplest way to get the F-14 up to the Mach limit of a
Ramjet. Above the operational Mach limit of a ramjet, then the LOX has to
be added upstream of the throat and all the supersonic shock problems
make it a more difficult task.

I don't think so. The problem with airbreathing
engines is mainly the rapidly increasing size
and complexity of inlets with mach number--
and the subjection of the whole vehicle to the
environment necessary for the airbreathing engine
(but very damaging to the rest of the vehicle).

Like I said this rapidly increasing size and complexity of the intake no
longer applies when a Fluid Variable Intake is used.

Again, it's the system thing, not just the engine
and inlet.


Let me know if you get a hold of one of those F-14 before they are all
turned into beer cans. I've got bunch of other fun, much more complicated
improvements too.

We've backed off of the F-14 approach.
We now feel that our Space Van 2011
is far more promising than any other
concept that I have come up with
before. See

http://www.tour2space.com

Yes, I looked at your web site.

http://www.tour2space.com/archives/f-14lv/f-14-st.htm

It only makes me wonder, how much detail you got into in looking at it. I'm
still trying to figure out how the nose wheel gets to the ground. But, you
have some pictures, more than I have. So, I guess says something.

In one of the concepts the forward portion of the expendable
stage has to slide forward enough to allow the nose gear
to have room to retract and extend. After retraction, the
forward section slides back (a rather fancy nose-gear
fairing). But, you're right, I didn't spend much time on the
concept or details.

Good thing you've moved on to other concepts, as the F-14s are also moving
on to the Budweiser plant.

I think we agree that what is happening to the F-14s
is unfortunate.

Len

On Jul 9, 8:57 pm, Craig Fink wrote:

I, like
most United Statians (*of*, that was tough not saying, *Americans*) are
pretty much ignorant of the intricate details of British Realm.

I cannot offer an opinion about the Canadian situation, but most
people (both inside and outside Australia) don't know that the British
Realm and the Australian Realm are separate legal entities, and that
Sovereign of the UK and Sovereign of Australia are separate offices
which happen to be held by the same person.


I noticed
the the Prime Minister of England's last official act was to see the Queen,

England doesn't have a PM. It doesn't even have a parliament.

did he "tell" her he was resigning as Prime Minister, or did he "ask" her
to accept his resignation. "Cleared" is such a harsh word, like the
Queen's words are subject to the Prime Minister approval.

They are, by and large. Convention says the Queen acts according to
the 'advice' of her Government. In the Westminister system the meaning
of 'advice' isn't defined but precedent tells us what is advice and
what isn't.

Len wrote:

On Jul 14, 8:42 am, Craig Fink wrote:
Yes, I agree with you, a big intake is required. But the size is not
without bounds. ...snip..

The problem, Craig, is on the system design level.
The size, mass, complexity of inlets designed for
acceleration over a wide mach number range kill
off the potential benfits, and then some. Subjecting
the total system to the horrible environment needed
to collect air doesn't help either. It's a lot more than
just getting the engine and inlet system to operate
as a subsystem.

I'm a true believer in making multiple use of systems. I can tell you think
of them as subsystem or even isolated units. Yes single use subsystems are
going to be heavier. Blended wing/bodies, lifting bodies, inlet bodies...
Fluid Variable Intakes, really add a lot of unexplored territory, more
independent variables added to the optimization/constraints problem that if
done right reduce all mass / complexity issue. The size, is a positive
thing, something that is desired.

I would encourage young people interested in Earth to LEO, instead of always
trying to convince them that the past is future wrt ascent. That the
atmosphere is a benefit, not a hindrance to getting to space. Viewing the
atmosphere as a resource and trying to figure out how best to utilize, that
is the challenge, and the more interesting problem.

Good luck with your projects.
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

On Jul 13, 9:06 am, Len wrote:
On Jul 13, 9:09 am, Craig Fink wrote:


Len wrote:
On Jul 11, 7:39 am, Craig Fink wrote:
Len wrote:
On Jul 7, 9:31 pm, "Scott Hedrick" wrote:
"Craig Fink" wrote in message

hlink.net...

It's just the Aerospace Engineer in me, but even the F-4 is a
beautiful flying machine. As ugly as it is, it exudes the raw power
of it's engines, a flying brick.

And it *still* beats the hell out of what most of the world's military
flys.

After we didn't get a Phase II subcontract for the
RASCAL program, I put together a revised F-14
launch vehicle concept that I felt would have been
quite superior to the one that strictly fitted RASCAL's
"figures of merit." See:

http://www.tour2space.com/archives/f-14lv/f-14-st.htm

This concept would have worked quite well even with
F-14A's. Moreover, we were much more interested in
the basic airfame than in the weapons system
capability of the F-14A/C or D. However, I now feel
that spending several times more on developing our
Space Van 2011 would have a payoff that would be
proportionately much higher.

No kidding, that would be fun. Me, I'd what to coat all the leading
edge "hot" hot parts with a mix of high temperature RTV and Aerogel
filler. Then add a Fluid Variable Intake, larger exit nozzle, and see if
I could push it into the scramjet region using the now jet
fuel/hydrogen/oxygen powered turbojets. What fun. It only has to get to
Mach 5 to do a X-Prize mission scenario. Anything past that would be
gravy as far as an airbreathing first stage to Mach 5-10 is concerned.

Where is Tomcat? He hasn't been posting lately. He might want to fly it.

It would probably be a good idea to modify the ejection seat (inflatable
stability and heatshield) to survive a Mach 5 entry so Tomcat can fly the
version two when something goes wrong with version one. :-)

What a cheap development platform, who cares if you crash a few.

Our RASCAL / F-14 concept got rather complicated
just trying to get to mach 3. Our post-RASCAL
did not stress the F-14 beyond its tested envelope
--except for altitude. Except for the addition
of truncated and rearranged RD-0124 nozzles,
very little modification would have been required.
Adding water injection is an option that offers some
performance improvement, but that may not be
worth the hassle.

Simplicity and minimum modification was the goal
for the post-RASCAL F-14 concept. The upper
stages get a little more complex, in order to avoid
F-14 mods.

To me it seems any improvement by adding water injection in the traditional
sense would be very limited. Adding water into the combustor of the jet
engine would cool the turbine inlet temperature, add mass flow, add power
to the turbine.

The main goal of DARPA's RASCAL program was
to see if water injection into the inlet would be a
good way to build a launch vehicle. But, as you
suspect, the benefits seem to be quite limited.
Our post-RASCAL F-14 concept depends almost
entirely on the addition of rocket power. With the
additon of rocket power, it doesn't really matter
much whether or not we're using the TF-30 or the
F-110 engines--or whether or not we inject water
or some other fluid into the inlet.



But, is that really what you want to do at high altitude? What are you going
to do with that additional power? Well, it's going to spin up the
compressor. Then you have to stop adding water, or the engine comes apart,
most likely do to centrifugal loads. It's just spinning to fast.

At high altitude, the aribrething engine is just along
for the ride. All the power is coming from the rocket.
Our attempt to get enough air at altitude to satisfy
DARPA's interest led to enormously larger inlets
--greatly decreasing the potential benefit of
modifying an existing aircraft.



To really accelerate at high altitude before RASCAL release, you really want
to utilize the engines to the point of breaking, do to power loads, not
centrifugal loads. In other word, twisting the drive shaft in half between
the turbine and compressor would be the goal. So, you want to give the
compressor something to do too. That would be, compressing the additional
Oxidizer added into the Intake. If the mixture ratio (Oxygen/Nitrogen) gets
to rich, maybe inject liquid Air, but Oxygen is definitely better.

You really want to forget about the airbreathing engines
altogether at altitude. The airbreathing engines are useful
--along with the rocket--for takeoff, initial climb, iniitial
acceleration, flyback, approach and landing. For the
most appropriate trajectory, IMO, the airbreathing engines
make very little contribution to transonic and supersonic
acceleration.

We did look at adding LOx to the inlet, which is
not too bad an idea. But simple rocket power
seems to be much better.



The simplest Fluid Variable Intake for the F-14 would probably be to add the
Oxygen between the throat and the compressor blades. It's subsonic flow,
makes mixing much easier, and it can be injected differently. Probably the
majority of it going around the combustor in the bypass air flow path for
use in the afterburner. One of the really nice thing about modern turbojets
is that the bypass ratios are getting quite large.

This would be the simplest way to get the F-14 up to the Mach limit of a
Ramjet. Above the operational Mach limit of a ramjet, then the LOX has to
be added upstream of the throat and all the supersonic shock problems make
it a more difficult task.

I don't think so. The problem with airbreathing
engines is mainly the rapidly increasing size
and complexity of inlets with mach number--
and the subjection of the whole vehicle to the
environment necessary for the airbreathing engine
(but very damaging to the rest of the vehicle).



Let me know if you get a hold of one of those F-14 before they are all
turned into beer cans. I've got bunch of other fun, much more complicated
improvements too.

We've backed off of the F-14 approach.
We now feel that our Space Van 2011
is far more promising than any other
concept that I have come up with
before. See

http://www.tour2space.com


--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Len,
Too bad h2o2 is simply too powerful and otherwise of too much energy
density, as otherwise your "space van 2011" seems worth doing,
especially since there's so many billionaires that hardly worked an
honest day in their life as potential clients, that'll gladly buy
those million dollar space van tickets to ride.
-
Brad Guth

Neil Gerace wrote:

On Jul 9, 8:57 pm, Craig Fink wrote:

I, like
most United Statians (*of*, that was tough not saying, *Americans*) are
pretty much ignorant of the intricate details of British Realm.

I cannot offer an opinion about the Canadian situation, but most
people (both inside and outside Australia) don't know that the British
Realm and the Australian Realm are separate legal entities, and that
Sovereign of the UK and Sovereign of Australia are separate offices
which happen to be held by the same person.

I didn't know that. Separate, but with no possibility of being different?

A few years ago, I had a really interesting conversation someone from the
Netherlands about their Monarch. I like most people from the US take pride
in not having a Monarch, so I was surprised at how much pride this person
had in their Monarch. To me it was really interesting their attitude and
perception of the role of the Monarch in current society. It seems in the
Netherlands, the Queen actually signs (approves) legislation and is view as
working in the people's interest. A moderating factor... keeping
overzealous legislators under control. What I would say is equivalent to
the checks and balances built into our Constitution, that currently our
legislators and executive branch seem all to willing to circumvent and
eliminate.

Eliminating built in checks and balances in favor of an all powerful
President, is a very dangerous thing for US to do. Something that would
probably be quite impossible with a Monarchy without attacking the
Monarchy. Powerless, but with a purpose, she keeps the PM in his place?

Maybe we in the US underestimate "human nature" and the need to "follow" (a
leader), as we and our Mass Media seem to be abandoning the Constitution
and treating President like royalty. President Bush's main qualification
seems to be that he is the son of a President. And, the most likely winner
of the next election's main qualification seems to be that she is the wife
of a President. He was good, so his son will be good, or his wife will be
good. Sounds like royalty to me.

On Jul 15, 8:45 am, Craig Fink wrote:
Len wrote:
On Jul 14, 8:42 am, Craig Fink wrote:
Yes, I agree with you, a big intake is required. But the size is not
without bounds. ...snip..

The problem, Craig, is on the system design level.
The size, mass, complexity of inlets designed for
acceleration over a wide mach number range kill
off the potential benfits, and then some. Subjecting
the total system to the horrible environment needed
to collect air doesn't help either. It's a lot more than
just getting the engine and inlet system to operate
as a subsystem.

I'm a true believer in making multiple use of systems. I can tell you think
of them as subsystem or even isolated units. Yes single use subsystems are
going to be heavier. Blended wing/bodies, lifting bodies, inlet bodies...
Fluid Variable Intakes, really add a lot of unexplored territory, more
independent variables added to the optimization/constraints problem that if
done right reduce all mass / complexity issue. The size, is a positive
thing, something that is desired.

I would encourage young people interested in Earth to LEO, instead of always
trying to convince them that the past is future wrt ascent. That the
atmosphere is a benefit, not a hindrance to getting to space. Viewing the
atmosphere as a resource and trying to figure out how best to utilize, that
is the challenge, and the more interesting problem.

In 1960, I left NASA headquarters out of frustration
and lack of interest in space transports (RLVs, if you
will). I went to North American Aviation with great
enthusiam for the prospects of using the atmosphere
as a benefit, rather than a problem, for getting to LEO
a better way. (The B-70 was part of the attraction of
North American).

Quite quickly, I realized that rocket propulsion, rather
than airbreathing propulsion was paradoxically far more
appropriate--although the atmosphere could still be as
much a benefit as a problem with winged approaches.
Forty-five years later, I am more convinced than ever
that using the atmosphere for lift, but not propulsion,
is a good approach. There are other approaches, such
as non-winged VTOL, that might work, as well.
These other approaches might, some day, include
airbreathing propulsion for acceleration; however,
nothing in my last 45 years of experience indicates
that this is likely.

The reasons that airbreathing propulsion doesn't
seem to work for acceleration are somewhat complex
and counter-intuitive, but actually quite fundamental
and unchanging. This conclusion is not capricious--
rather it is the result of lot of hard-headed thinking,
design and analysis, particularly on the system level.
As I mentioned before, analysis on the system level
is quite damning--even when one grants airbreathing
propulsion the benefits of the doubt with resepect
to some of the problems that airbreating
acceleraton advocates claim that "if only we
can....."

Good luck with your projects.

Thanks.

Len

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

In article . net,
Craig Fink wrote:
...It seems in the
Netherlands, the Queen actually signs (approves) legislation and is view as
working in the people's interest. A moderating factor... keeping
overzealous legislators under control. What I would say is equivalent to
the checks and balances built into our Constitution...

Much the same thing, yes. It's unfortunate that the same thing no longer
happens in Britain.

Once upon a time in Britain, the King was largely in charge of the
government, but his power was limited in various ways by Parliament,
notably by its control of the budget. By the mid-19th century, most power
rested with Parliament in general and the Prime Minister in particular,
but major policy issues still got reviewed by the King or Queen, and this
could make a real difference. For example, Britain would probably have
entered the US Civil War, in support of the South, over the Trent
incident(*), had not Prince Albert (Queen Victoria's husband) intervened.
Alas, when Albert died soon after that, Victoria withdrew from public
affairs for a long time, and the Crown's influence on government policy
gradually disappeared due to her lack of interest. Some valuable checks
and balances got lost there.

(* The South had sent a pair of commissioners to Europe, to do business on
behalf of the CSA and to politick for diplomatic recognition of the
Confederacy. They successfully ran the Union blockade and reached Cuba,
where they took passage in a British merchant ship, the Trent. A USN
captain exceeded his orders, stopped the Trent on the high seas, and took
the commissioners off as prisoners. Britain was furious; this was
essentially an act of war. Previously, the British government had mostly
sympathized with the South -- not least because the British textile
industry was hurting due to the blockade of Southern cotton -- but had
hesitated because of public opposition to slavery and the South's strong
association with it. (It wasn't then a clear-cut issue, because the North
was not yet officially *against* slavery: the Northern position then was
that the war was about national unity, not slavery.) But British distaste
for the South was swept away by public outrage over the Trent affair. The
Prime Minister dispatched an army expeditionary force to Canada for an
invasion of the North, ordered the Royal Navy to prepare for blockade
breaking, and wrote what was essentially an ultimatum to Lincoln. But
such a major diplomatic action had to be approved by the Queen, who punted
it to Prince Albert. He insisted that it was too harsh and too abrupt,
and personally rewrote it to offer Lincoln the face-saving option of
disavowing the captain's actions. Lincoln took this escape hatch and
quietly released the commissioners, and Britain cooled down and stayed
neutral. )
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

In article . net,
Craig Fink wrote:
but essentially everything the Queen says in public is cleared through the
Prime Minister's office first, and anything dealing with actual policy is
mostly written there.)

Are you sure it's not simply that the Queen is wanting to stay informed as
to what the Prime Minister and Parlement are up to...

Quite sure. The Queen has *zero* say in policy. None. Nil. All the
policy is written at 10 Downing St., not at Buckingham Palace.

...the [Prime Minister's] last official act was to see the Queen,
did he "tell" her he was resigning as Prime Minister, or did he "ask" her
to accept his resignation.

Formally, undoubtedly he asked her to accept it. But this was purely a
formality; he was leaving and she had no say in the matter.

"Cleared" is such a harsh word, like the
Queen's words are subject to the Prime Minister approval.

It is, however, accurate. They are.

Now mind you, there is one big caveat on this. In normal circumstances,
the Queen has no power and a purely ceremonial role. But she still gets a
lot of respect. In a major crisis, if the normal decision-making process
was paralyzed and she asserted herself decisively, saying "*this* is what
we're going to do", and it seemed a halfway sensible thing to do... most
likely, she'd be obeyed. Enough people still have sentimental respect for
the Crown that they'd find it hard to refuse her orders in such a
situation, however startled they might be. Mind you, if it didn't work
out well, that would probably be the end of the Monarchy. But she could
get away with it once.

(That's precisely what happened in Japan in 1945, when Hirohito intervened
to order a surrender. In law, he was a figurehead... but when he started
giving orders, nobody could refuse. Mind you, he had a much stronger hold
on the emotions of the Japanese of the time... but he also had a much less
favorable situation to handle -- the anti-surrender forces were firmly in
control, and there were deep psychological barriers to surrender in the
Japanese of the time.)

Of the checks and balances written into our Constitution, that's probably
one of the primary reasons we have the Second Amendment. All the weapons
that our armed forces have in Iraq are the "Arms" that are mentioned in the
Amendment.

I really don't see any plausible reading of the Second Amendment that
would say that. It refers to the militia, not the armed forces, and the
militia of those days normally provided their own weapons and equipment.
Hence, to be able to form a militia in times of need, people had to have
the right to own and carry suitable weapons. If you stretched a point,
you could reasonably say that the Amendment authorizes the people to own
and to exercise with any weapon that a modern militia could reasonably
need -- which would cover quite a few things that in fact are rather
difficult for private citizens to have nowadays -- but I see no way it can
be read to require that the government make them available for purchase.

...I'm pretty ignorant
on the origins of the inheritance tax, which is a tax on the middle class.
Not the upper class who seem to always have a loop-hole.

When it comes to the inheritance tax, there are a lot fewer loopholes than
you might think. (And the ones that do exist are later additions, not
part of the original scheme, which very definitely *was* explicitly aimed
at the upper class.) Bush Jr. wasn't trying to woo the middle class when
he drastically reduced that tax.

You don't have a Second Amendment to ignore, do you?

No, we don't. But then, we aren't under the illusion that militias count
for much in modern warfare. In fact, despite the romantic illusions, they
didn't count for much in late-18th-century warfare either, which is one
reason why the US lost so many battles in the War of Independence -- too
much faith in militias and not enough effort to raise and train a sizable
professional army. Their importance has diminished even further since.
(And yes, this applies just as strongly to resisting home-grown government
oppression as to fighting off foreign rule.) Weapons are not enough;
effective fighting requires training, organization, and discipline too,
and militias just don't do that well.

As for the relevance of political system to private aviation, note that at
one time, the few jet fighters in private hands "in the US" were mostly
kept in Canada, because the US government was so hostile to the idea. Ah,
the US, that bastion of individual freedom...

Humm, didn't know that little fact, but I can believe it.

Mind you, that particular problem eventually went away. But it did make
things difficult for US jet-fighter owners for a while.

Note carefully: I didn't say it was crazy to want to see F-14s, or to
want to ride in one -- only to want to *own* one.

What a cool conversation piece parked in my garage. I still don't think it's
crazy to what to *own* one.

Okay, I'll be still more precise: it's crazy to want to own and operate
one. If it's strictly a keepsake or a "gate guard", that's one thing.
But keeping it in flying condition is spectacularly expensive, and gives
you nothing in performance or glamor that you couldn't get from much
cheaper aircraft.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

On Jul 15, 6:31 pm, (Henry Spencer) wrote:
In article . net,
Craig Fink wrote:

....snip....

Note carefully: I didn't say it was crazy to want to see F-14s, or to
want to ride in one -- only to want to *own* one.

What a cool conversation piece parked in my garage. I still don't think it's
crazy to what to *own* one.

Okay, I'll be still more precise: it's crazy to want to own and operate
one. If it's strictly a keepsake or a "gate guard", that's one thing.
But keeping it in flying condition is spectacularly expensive, and gives
you nothing in performance or glamor that you couldn't get from much
cheaper aircraft.

One thought, Henry. An F-14--with its radar, not
weapon system--might conceivably be justified as
a chase plane for development of a space transport.
However, I'm not sure a chase plane of any sort is
would actually be justified.

Len

--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |