510 research outputs found

    Investigation of an underslung half-cone inlet with compression surface mounted outboard from fuselage at Mach numbers of 1.5, 1.8, and 2.0

    Get PDF
    An investigation was conducted to determine the performance of an underslung half-cone inlet mounted on a missile forebody model with the compression surface outboard from the fuselage. The inlet was designed for shock-on-lip operation at Mach number 2.0 with 25 degree half-angle spike. The cowling was attached to the fuselage through the boundary-layer plow and served as part of the fuselage boundary-layer diverter system. The performance of the half-cone inlet was compared with that of a scoop-type inlet and a normal-wedge inlet on a maximum-thrust-minus-drag basis. The increase in pressure recovery obtained with the half-cone inlet over that obtained with the reference inlets offset the slightly higher drags observed over the Mach number range for the half-cone so that the performance of this configuration was equal to that of the other inlets at Mach number 2.0 and was slightly superior at the lower Mach numbers. For a particular configuration, a peak pressure recovery of 0.879 was obtained at Mach number 2.0, zero angle of attack, and 4-percent throat bleed; the subcritical stability was 16 percent. Use of a fuselage-mounted boundary-layer splitter plate ahead of the inlet did not improve the stability. Subcritical distortion values were below 10 percent for all configurations. (author

    Counterfeit Components: A Method to Identify and Manage Risk for the Government Contracted Manufacturers and Challenged Small Businesses

    Get PDF
    Counterfeit electronic components have been infiltrating the electronics supply chain and as a result many manufacturer restrict their purchased to authorized distributors or original component manufacturers Military manufactures also require authorized distributors and original component manufacturer (OCMs), but need to support older systems that use obsolete parts or resold parts forcing them to purchase parts from other sources. Most small disadvantaged suppliers are not authorized distributors or OCMs and have difficulty selling material to military manufacturers. In addition, military manufacturers have obligations to use disadvantaged suppliers, but do not want the risk associated with non authorized dealers. This research paper develops a method to identify risk associated with small disadvantaged suppliers and gives both the manufacturer and the supplier a risk assessment to grade suppliers. With this information a military manufacturer can evaluate each supplier and quantify risk associated with that supplier and compare it to other suppliers. The evaluated supplier has a list of fault modes that can be prioritized and used to improve its position against other suppliers. The result is that each company is examined in nine categories and a numeric risk level associated with each category are established and documented. Both the manufacturer and the supplier have a quantifiable record to communicate with each other

    Performance of Twin-duct Variable-geometry Side Inlets at Mach Numbers of 1.5 to 2.0

    Get PDF
    Supersonic wind tunnel test of twin-duct variable geometry side inlet

    Choice of autogenous conduit for lower extremity vein graft revisions

    Get PDF
    AbstractBackground: Surgical revision to repair stenosis is necessary in about 20% of lower extremity vein grafts (LEVGs). Alternate conduit, especially arm vein, is often necessary to achieve a policy of all-autogenous revisions. Although basilic vein harvest necessitates deep exposure in proximity to major nerves, it typically uses a large vein unaffected by prior intravenous lines and as such appears ideally suited for revisions in which a segmental interposition conduit is needed for revision within the graft or for extension to a more proximal inflow or distal outflow site. In this report, we describe our experience with the use of the basilic vein for LEVG revisions compared with other sources of autogenous conduit. Methods: All patients who underwent LEVG were placed in a duplex scan surveillance program. LEVGs that developed a focal area of increased velocity or uniformly low velocities throughout the graft with appropriate lesions confirmed with angiography were candidates for revision. All patients who underwent graft revision with basilic vein segments from January 1, 1990, to September 1, 2001, were identified, and their courses were reviewed for subsequent adverse events (further revision or occlusion) and complications of harvest. These revisions were compared with revisions in which cephalic and saphenous vein were used. Results: One hundred thirty basilic veins were used to revise 122 LEVGs. The mean follow-up period after revision was 28 ± 27 months. Ninety-three grafts (71%) remained patent with no further revision, and 37 grafts (29%) either needed additional revisions (22 grafts) or were occluded (15 grafts). Only four of these adverse events (11%) were directly attributed to the basilic vein segment. Ten of 43 grafts revised with cephalic vein (23%) were either revised or occluded, of which three were related to the cephalic vein segment (P = not significant, compared with basilic vein). Twenty-four of 81 grafts revised with saphenous vein (30%) were either revised or occluded, of which 11 were attributed to the saphenous vein segment (P < .01, compared with basilic vein). Two patients (1.5%) had complications from basilic vein harvest (one hematoma, one arterial injury). No neurologic injuries resulted from basilic vein harvest. Conclusion: The basilic vein is a reliable and durable conduit when used to segmentally revise LEVGs. Stenoses rarely occur within interposed basilic vein segments, and excellent freedom from subsequent revision or occlusion is possible. We conclude the basilic vein can be safely harvested with minimal complications and is ideally suited for use as a short segment interposition graft for LEVG revision. (J Vasc Surg 2002;36:238-44.

    Comparison of axillofemoral and aortofemoral bypass for aortoiliac occlusive disease

    Get PDF
    AbstractPurpose: A comparison of aortofemoral bypass grafting (AOFBG) and axillofemoral bypass grafting (AXFBG) for occlusive disease performed by the same surgeons during a defined interval forms the basis for this report.Methods: Data regarding all patients who underwent AOFBG or AXFBG for lower-extremity ischemia caused by aortoiliac occlusive disease were prospectively entered into a computerized vascular registry. The decision to perform AOFBG rather than AXFBG was based on assessment of surgical risk and the surgeon's preference. This report describes results for surgical morbidity, mortality, patency, limb salvage, and patient survival for procedures performed from January 1988 through December 1993.Results: We performed 108 AXFBGs and 139 AOFBGs. AXFBG patients were older (mean age, 68 years compared with 58 years for AOFBG, p < 0.001), more often had heart disease (84% compared with 38%, p < 0.001), and more often underwent surgery for limb-salvage indications (80% compared with 42%, p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in operative mortality (AXFBG, 3.4%; AOFBG, <1.0%, p = NS), but major postoperative complications occurred more frequently after AOFBG (AXFBG, 9.2%; AOFBG, 19.4%; p < 0.05). Follow-up ranged from 1 to 83 months (mean, 27 months). Five-year life-table primary patency, limb salvage, and survival rates were 74%, 89%, and 45% for AXFBG and 80%, 79%, and 72% for AOFBG, respectively. Although the patient survival rate was statistically lower with AXFBG, primary patency and limb salvage rates did not differ when compared with AOFBG.Conclusion: When reserved for high-risk patients with limited life expectancy, the patency and limb salvage results of AXFBG are equivalent to those of AOFBG. (J VASC SURG 1996;23:263-71.

    Artificial Modifications of the Coast In Response to the \u3ci\u3eDeepwater Horizon\u3c/i\u3e Oil Spill: Quick Solutions or Long-Term Liabilities?

    Get PDF
    The Deepwater Horizon oil spill threatened many coastal ecosystems in the Gulf of Mexico during the spring and summer of 2010. Mitigation strategies included the construction of barrier sand berms, the restriction or blocking of inlets, and the diversion of freshwater from rivers to the coastal marshes and into the ocean, in order to flush away the oil, on the premise that these measures could reduce the quantity of oil reaching sensitive coastal environments such as wetlands or estuaries. These projects result in changes to the ecosystems that they were intended to protect. Long-term effects include alterations of the hydrological and ecological characteristics of estuaries, changes in sediment transport along the coastal barrier islands, the loss of sand resources, and adverse impacts to benthic and pelagic organisms. Although there are no easy solutions for minimizing the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon disaster on coastal ecosystems, we recommend that federal, state, and local agencies return to the strategic use of long-term restoration plans for this region
    corecore