Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hhb.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!hhb!rob From: rob@hhb.UUCP (Robert R Stegmann) Newsgroups: net.aviation Subject: Is X-29 a boondoggle? Message-ID: <199@hhb.UUCP> Date: Fri, 28-Dec-84 14:54:57 EST Article-I.D.: hhb.199 Posted: Fri Dec 28 14:54:57 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 29-Dec-84 23:29:07 EST Organization: HHB-Softron, Mahwah, NJ Lines: 69 [prop wash] Hello, there, flying netters (or netting fliers), I was reading in the Dec. 24 1984 issue of TIME magazine (on p 14) about the recent test flight of the Grumman X-29A reverse-swept-wing aircraft. Says TIME, "The Pentagon and Grumman Corp. are gambling $130 million that the design will eventually give U.S. pilots an advantage in future dogfights." and yet "...it is so unstable that no pilot can react fast enough to keep it from dropping out of the sky ... three built-in computers check all flight control surfaces 40 times a second, automatically making adjustments to keep the plane airborne." The aircraft is designed to be inherently unstable, so that maneuverability can be enhanced. However, sophisticated fly-by-wire computer control is necessary to maintain flight. Now, you've probably all heard of the controversy about the vulnerability of any fixed-wing non-VTOL warplane when it is on the airfield. So I'm not even going to bother discussing the wisdom of building yet another expensive and hard to maintain plane of that type. What I do question is the wisdom of building such a plane as the X-29 in the light of what is known about nuclear warfare. To kill a 'conventional' plane, one must achieve a fairly direct hit with a missile. However, it would seem to me that, unless the X-29's control systems are effectively shielded, merely a nearby detonation of a nuclear missile not even intended for it would cripple the plane via the EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) effect. The planes would magically drop from the sky if caught in flight near an explosion. If they were on the ground, they could be rendered useless by a nearby burst which didn't even destroy the runway. And it might take longer to repair the electronic system of the X-29 than it would take to get, say, a Harrier or F-16 repaired after similar exposure. What say you? Is this plane, interesting as it is, destined to be another boondoggle? Or has EMP been designed against? How effective is such shielding? It is one thing to lose a target acquisition computer, quite another to suddenly lose all control of the aircraft. What about serviceability? How do you feel on the whole question of warplane design - VTOL vs conventional, a few sophisticated vs many simple? Please respond via Email, as I seldom have access to the net. rob {allegra,decvax,ihnp4}!philabs!hhb!rob I in no way represent my employer in this matter.