From: "Robert Ashley Ruiz" (cybrarian@cybrary-1999.com)
Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:13:05 +0000
Subject: Space1999: Eagle Use

Mike Lynch wrote:

> (Just a thought:  why would the aerodynamics of the Eagle ever fall
> under criticism?  The Eagle was designed primarily for use in low to
> zero atmosphere - where aerodynamics would be of little consequence.
> So it would just seem that criticizing the ship's aerodynamics would
> be... well... pointless.)

Except for the fact that it looks so smashing I could criticize the
Eagle on this point.

Remember, in terms of the story the Eagle was originally designed to
transport people from Earth (through an atmosphere) to the moon and
back, unless one considers that perhaps the more common means of
transport was to take a shuttle to an orbiting space station and from
there take an Eagle on to the moon. I don't think this was ever
mentioned directly, but I always assumed the Eagle was coming from
Earth directly to Alpha.  Remember, Simmonds arrived in a VIP Eagle
with a red passenger module, and if you look at the space station it
had a single docking pad but not really any hangar space (so, no
place to store different modules).

Incidentally, the next time you're watching Breakaway look at where
the spacesuit back- and chestpacks are stored in Koenig's Eagle.
They're on both sides in the space that would later be occupied by
weapons racks and container storage under the view screens as one is
facing forward.  This would be the default storage space
pre-Breakaway.



From: Mark Meskin (plastic.gravity@new31rock.com)
Subject: Re: Space1999: Evolution and Arkadia
Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 15:00:30 -0500

> (Just a thought:  why would the aerodynamics of the Eagle ever fall under
> criticism?  The Eagle was designed primarily for use in low to zero atmosphere
> - where aerodynamics would be of little consequence. So it would just seem
> that criticizing the ship's aerodynamics would be... well... pointless.)

Now you've opened a can of worms.

Yes, the Eagle was designed for *mostly* vacuum operation.  And when in a
vacuum no one has a problem, it when its in an atmosphere that its shape
becomes problematic.

And in nearly every episode the Eagle has to do just that.  The ship is SO
unaerodynamic, that its like trying to make a brick fly.  Well, you say,
thats no problem, the eagle has big rockets to overcome the drag!  That's
true, but using the eagles nuclear motors in the atmosphere would likely
cause the ship to melt from friction or break apart from the turbulence, if
it didn'f fly outta control first.   To leave the surface of a planet
requires a lot of speed, and the Eagle could NOT reach escape velocity *in
the atmosphere* in its current configuration.   The eagles sharp contours
and blunt surfaces would make it behave violently at moderate to high
speeds in the atmosphere.  At low speeds the aerodynamics aren't a problem,
and the eagle would fly just fine, until we started talking about fuel.
With no wings to provide lift in the atmosphere the eagle must rely
entirely on its VTOL thrusters on the underside of the craft.  Supposedly,
these motors are not nuclear, but conventional liquid chemical rockets.
This would require lots of fuel, which the eagle doesn't have room for.

I believe there is a way for the eagle to leave the atmosphere using its
current equipment and still not exceed the aerodynamic and fuel
limitations.

It would take off and climb as it does now, using the vtol system to
provide lift and the main motors(on very low power) to move it foward.  A
highly computerized FCS similar to that which controls the stealth
fighter(which is also inherently unstable, and could not be flown by the
pilot alone)would constantly adjust pitch, yaw, and roll using the attitude
rockets on the eagle, thus allowing it to fly smoothly up to say 250mph and
50,000 feet.  At this point the craft would veer sharply nose up, the VTOL
would cut out, and the nuclear motors would kick in to boost it out of the
now rapidly thinning atmosphere.  At a point above 100,000 feet they could
safely go to full power to either reach orbit  or accelerate to escape
velocity.

Well, thats my take on it, feel free to pick it apart.

Mark



Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 18:33:44 -0500
From: Jim Small (Eagle1@mb-sympatico.ca)
Organization: Alpha Spacecraft Maintenance
Subject: Re: Space1999: Evolution and Arkadia

Hi all! 

What I'm about to say here is not an arguement made against what Mark
said, but just a bit of data that adds to the concept, and actually
acknowletges a lot of it. In other words, just my two cents worth!

> The eagles sharp contours
> and blunt surfaces would make it behave violently at moderate to high
> speeds in the atmosphere. 

Y'know what though? (something to think about) Estes made a model rocket
of the Eagle that actually "flew"! (I'd like to find one actually!) It
worked the exact same as all other model rockets. True, the model had a
long tube stuck up it's rear and fins on the back for guidance (if I
remember right), but it helps prove that with enough POWER, anything can
be made to fly, despite aerodynamics! Also, anyone that has seen model
rockets fly has seen how bloody fast they go! WHOOOSH!!!

Now I know this doesn't mean anything really, but the principle is
sound. The reason that you had to have the long tube with fins on the
back of the model is because of the simplicity of the thing. It's just a
way to provide directional control in atmospheric flight. Now I hear you
saying, "See? You've got to change the design to make it work!" Well,
yes, because with the tiny model we don't have any other kind of
control. Also, because it moves so fast for it's size, we'd need control
systems that could react faster than our human impulses could (like a
radio controlled airplane for example. I know that with my experience,
the faster and smaller the model, the more "squirrelly" it is, and
conversely, the larger and slower the model is, the easier it is to
control) Anyone else on this list flown model planes? I saw a guy who
built a model lawnmower and make it fly R/C!!

I am assuming that the engineers who (would have) designed the Eagle
would have developed computer systems, not unlike those in modern
fighter jets, that would be able to react fast enough to stabilize any
unwanted directional varyations by quick firing of the attitudinal
thrusters to compensate for any variable buffeting of the atmosphere
against the uneven hull.

Also, anything at all that moves through the atmosphere can be angled in
such a way as to provide some lift, provided it's moving fast enough and
it's attitude can be controlled. You could literally make a brick have
enough lift if it had the right amount of nose-up attitude and enough
power to provide enough speed to overcome drag. That's actually true!
ANY SHAPE can provede lift for itself in the atmosphere if these
conditions are met. No joke. Even a baseball can be influenced in its
direction through the air when a spin (control) and lots of power is
produced! (ye olde curve ball!)

> At low speeds the aerodynamics aren't a problem,
> and the eagle would fly just fine, until we started talking about fuel.
> With no wings to provide lift in the atmosphere the eagle must rely
> entirely on its VTOL thrusters on the underside of the craft.  Supposedly,
> these motors are not nuclear, but conventional liquid chemical rockets.
> This would require lots of fuel, which the eagle doesn't have room for.

Unless they discovered a type of chemical fuel that doesn't take up much
room! (There's that ol' suspension of disbelief again!) :):):)

By the way, consider the real Eagle lunar module. It doesn't look like
it has much room for fuel either, but it had enough to decelerate, land,
and take off again and acheive escape velocity from the moon! Yes, I
know, no atmospheric drag and lower gravity, but still! The engines in a
1960's design would most likely be a lot less efficient than our
fictional Eagle, and then if you consider that they would have developed
a fuel that, say, took one tenth the space and provided ten times the
power. This could theoretically be possible, maybe, in the alternate
timeline that our characters live in...

> I believe there is a way for the eagle to leave the atmosphere using its
> current equipment and still not exceed the aerodynamic and fuel
> limitations.

Yup.

> It would take off and climb as it does now, using the vtol system to
> provide lift and the main motors(on very low power) to move it foward.  A
> highly computerized FCS similar to that which controls the stealth
> fighter(which is also inherently unstable, and could not be flown by the
> pilot alone)would constantly adjust pitch, yaw, and roll using the attitude
> rockets on the eagle, thus allowing it to fly smoothly up to say 250mph and
> 50,000 feet.

Uhhh... YEAH! Exactly! I guess I just reitterated what you'd already
said there...

> At this point the craft would veer sharply nose up, the VTOL
> would cut out, and the nuclear motors would kick in to boost it out of the
> now rapidly thinning atmosphere.  At a point above 100,000 feet they could
> safely go to full power to either reach orbit  or accelerate to escape
> velocity.

There ya go.

> Well, thats my take on it, feel free to pick it apart.

Just did! Thanx for the fun!



From: Robert Ashley Ruiz (cybrarian@at@cybrary1999.com)
Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 18:18:17 +0000
Subject: Re: Space1999: Evolution and Arkadia

> Estes made a model rocket of the Eagle that actually "flew"! (I'd
> like to find one actually!) It

I think it was from Centuri, not Estes.



From: vtaltos@earth52link.net
Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 22:29:49 -0400
Subject: Re: Space1999: Evolution and Arkadia

    Ok, I had refrained from throwing my own $.02 change into the works, but,
well, the aero- engineer in my blood screamed to be heard.  I like the argument
about speed and lift and all, and in concept it's correct.  Unfortunately,
through all the visual and episodic evidence we see, those poor Eagles are
downright FRAGILE beasties.. and the stresses on the system to control them as a
true atmospheric craft would just tear them apart.  The theorizing is all
wonderful, yet I've not heard the most obvious solution to the whole works...
given in "Breakaway:"  Victor makes the comment about gravitational regulators at
Nuclear Disposal Area 1, during the investigation of the "mysterious illness."
So, based from that one little comment, you have evidence that by 1994, mankind
has gained the technology to control gravitational influences.  Once you can
believe that fact, one can also presume that the equipment can be made
sufficiently portable to load onboard an Eagle and give it some control over the
gravitational influences it encounters, or at least enough to make the craft
atmosphere worthy.  That would make the re-entry slow enough to avoid the burn-up
of atmosphere drag, it would make the Eagle be able to operate at slow enough
speeds where it could stand the stresses of drag, and it could all be done with
technology that was available even in 1976.

    As it is, I have loved the Eagles since I first saw them, and always wanted
to see one fly.  ...maybe when the government releases that anti-grav unit they
use on the test aircraft at Area 51?  Ok, now, I'll shaddup and go back to
listening from the shadows.   Well,



From: "David C. Schweinsberg" (david@tauceti-demon-co.uk)
Subject: Space1999: Eagle's escape velocity
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 01:31:10 +0100

Hi All

I'm a new subscriber but an old fan - I watched Space:1999 circa 1979 (when
I was 8 years old) on Channel 7 in Sydney (though now I live in
Buckinghamshire, home of Pinewood studios!)

Anyhow...

The Eagle wouldn't need to acheve escape velocity if it was continually
powered, which always seemed to me to be the case.  Escape velocity only
needs to be achieved if you're going to cut the engines and go ballistic
i.e. massive blast-off and then fall - if you exceed escape velocity, you
(as Douglas Adams would have it) fall back towards earth and miss.  Well,
earth's gravity would slingshot you elsewhere.

What always worried me as a child was the fact that I couldn't corelate the
interior of an Eagle with the exterior - I had the models, but couldn't see
how they would dock with each other - especially if they didn't have any
attached passenger module!

Still, Space:1999 was the first SF program I saw with an Australian
character, and I thought he (Alan) had the coolest job :-)

Regards,
David Schweinsberg



Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 00:53:11 -0500
From: Jim Small (Eagle1@mb-sympatico.ca)
Organization: Alpha Spacecraft Maintenance
Subject: Re: Space1999: Eagle aerodynamics and such

Mark Meskin wrote:

> > long tube stuck up it's rear and fins on the back for guidance (if I
> > remember right), but it helps prove that with enough POWER, anything can
> > be made to fly, despite aerodynamics!
> 
> THis is true, but it sure isn't controlled flight.

Well, yes and no. It's passively controlled. By that I mean that
something has been added to the model that controls it's direction
through the air. It's not actively controlled, which means that once the
thing ignites, you have to rely on the aerodynamics and the knowledge
that the fins will assure it's planned trajectory. Also the launch rod
keeps it moving straight until it's speed is sufficient enough for the
fins to take effect.

> Ive seen semi-truck
> tractors that can go near 300mph, and outaccellerate a jet.  But even the
> semi truck must make some concessions to aerodynamics- a large spoiler to
> keep the air from getting under the truck and putting it airborne.

Exactly! (actually I must confess I've seen this happen to stock cars
but not to rigs, but I'll concede to your knowledge!) Even a blocky semi
truck has enough lift under certain conditions that given enough speed
can almost act as an (extremely crude) "airfoil". If the pressure
unmderneath the object, whether it be a truck, car, airplane or a rock
you're trying to skip across a pond, is sufficiently greater than on the
top, you have the potential for lift. The only reason it doesn't
continue to fly is because when the truck (in this case) leaves the
pavement, the power is instantly gone and it falls back to earth (the
cars i've seen doing this usually start tumbling over on the grond in a
flurry of flying parts!)
 
> Also, anyone that has seen model
> > rockets fly has seen how bloody fast they go! WHOOOSH!!!
> 
> How fast exactly does a model rocket go? 

Well, depending on the model, the faster ones accellerate to over a
thousand feet in less than three seconds, the bulkier ones go a few
hundred feet in that time. This would result in them achieving speeds
from 100 to maybe five hundred miles per hour or so. I don't know how
fast the Eagle model went but I'll assume it was one of the slower ones.
Let's say it went from zero up five hundred feet in three seconds. I
don't know how to calculate the acceleration, but an average speed would
probably be on the order of 113.6 MPH. If you calculated in the
acceleration curve (any math geniuses out there?), it's top speed would
be greater. The model was about 1/96th scale (same as the Airfix kit) so
the model Eagle rocket would be doing a scale speed of about 10,900
miles per hour... in the atmosphere!!!

> I say this because aerodynamics
> don't cause problems until the speed rises and then the air which normally
> is so easy to move through becomes a force to be reckoned with.  The speed
> at which the air can cause problems is related to the objects mass and
> shape.  More massive objects obviously are not as effected by aerodynamics
> as less massive objects.  And I'd say the Eagle qualifies as massive.

I'd say that makes sense!

> You
> know one thing just occurred to me?  The Eagle doesn't behave like a
> massive object on screen when it crashes, but thats probably just for sFX.

The 1/24th scale 44" model used in the crash scenes weighed around 35
pounds or thereabouts. Of course the model's construction forces us to
assume that it doesn't have a scale weight of course, but for fun, if
I'm calculating it right (thirty five pounds cubed times 24), that would
make the full size 88 foot long Eagle weigh about 514 tons (geez that's
heavy!). I think it's safe to say that something that long and weighing
that much would probably sustain heavier damage than the models did in
our favourite crash scenes! Actually you can't use the models weight to
calculate the weight of a "real" one, of course! But how d'you determine
the weight of a fictional ship? Guess you've gotta make it up!

> > Now I know this doesn't mean anything really, but the principle is
> > sound. The reason that you had to have the long tube with fins on the
> > back of the model is because of the simplicity of the thing. It's just a
> > way to provide directional control in atmospheric flight.
 
> Yes, and the attitude control rockets perform a similar function on the
> eagle.

Yup.
 
> Now I hear you
> > saying, "See? You've got to change the design to make it work!" Well,
>  Also, because it moves so fast for it's size,
> 
> Yes, but its behaviour is misleading.  It is relatively small and moving(to
> be fair) relatively slow, and the air does not affect it the same way it
> would the real thing.

Yeah, true enough, but do we assume that every time we see it cruising
through the atmosphere it's going as fast as a jet? Remember the
episode  "Full Circle" where an Eagle's majestically gliding over the
forest. Looks to me that it's doing no more than fourty miles an hour!
 
> > the faster and smaller the model, the more "squirrelly" it is, and
> > conversely, the larger and slower the model is, the easier it is to
> > control)
> 
> No but Ive flown real airplanes and the same principle applies.  It has to
> do with the mass and wing area.

Yes, but mainly power and attitude. For example, 95 percent of an
airplane's wing generates lift through angle of attack, not the shape of
the airfoil so much. This is why airplanes with a symmetrical airfoil
(as much curve on the bottom asurface as on the top) can fly too. My
Piper Cherokee has a nearly symmetrical wing and has very near the same
flight characteristics, as far as flying weight relative to power, as
the Cessna 172 which has a more flat bottom wing. An f-16 has razor thin
wings with almost no airfoil (relatively when you examine the thickness
relative to the chord). It acheives lift using lots of raw power and
correct angle of attack to the airflow.
 
> Anyone else on this list flown model planes? 
 
> No, but some day I'd like to try it.

Hey! It's a blast man! :)


> > Also, anything at all that moves through the atmosphere can be angled in
> > such a way as to provide some lift, provided it's moving fast enough and
> > it's attitude can be controlled. You could literally make a brick have
> > enough lift if it had the right amount of nose-up attitude and enough
> > power to provide enough speed to overcome drag. That's actually true!
> 
> Yes, but its not technically generating enough lift to support itself, its
> just vectoring the thrust in such a way that it flies and the body of the
> vehicle is "skipping or surfing".

Yes, that's exactly my point. That's actually what flying really is!

> A true airfoil pushes the air up above
> the wing and creates a low pressure area above the wing generating lift. A
> "lifting body" shape is another matter completely.

Not really. As explained above, all flight is achieved mainly through
the object's angle of attack relative to the airflow. That, coupled with
power and a means to keep the angle of attack and direction under
control.
 
> > Unless they discovered a type of chemical fuel that doesn't take up much
> > room! (There's that ol' suspension of disbelief again!) :):):)
> 
> Yeah, but this only can so far.  Even if its extremely powerful, it
> wouldn't last forever.  Another thing to keep in mind, the more powerful
> the fuel, the more hazardous it is to carry.

Not necessarily. Water, which is difficult to burn, is made up of
hydrogen and oxygen. Separate the two, put'em together again with a
spark and you've got a helluva bang! Gasoline won't burn worth a damn in
a vacuum. As long as you store your fuel with no oxygen present it's not
dangerous at all. Maybe the Alphans developed a fuel that, as I said
before, is just a hell of a lot more efficient than anything we
currently know of.

> > By the way, consider the real Eagle lunar module. It doesn't look like
> > it has much room for fuel either, but it had enough to decelerate, land,
> > and take off again and acheive escape velocity from the moon! Yes, I
> > know, no atmospheric drag and lower gravity, but still!
> 
> I think the Lunar Lander is irrelevant.  No one is questioning the eagles
> abilities in that sort of enviroment.  Did you ever see the movie of the LL
> leaving the moon?  The gravity is so weak, that one good puff at lift off,
> and that thing is gone!  Up, up and away.

Yes, I know. I acknowledged that, but they were also using inefficient
fuels compared to the fuel that powers the Eagles. Our Eagles use fuel
that, for example if powering the old L.E.M. would only need maybe a
spoonful rather than gallons of it. This fuel is made of hypernucleonic
radium carbides suspended in an acrylated amount of hypertext tyrillium
nonexistance that makes a clystronic orgasmic emission capable of
millions of blorks of thrust with no aliphatic heat residue.  Remember
we're dealing with FICTION here! :)

> Its a TV show, and I know a little suspension of disbelief is needed, but
> the whole question was why people carp about the aerodynamics.

Yeah, but aerodynamics are irrelevant. The Eagles looked cool even
though they were models hung on wires or mounted on stands, made of
plastic, brass and wood and flew just fine on screen, thanks to a
technique which can make anything fly better than any aeronautical
engineer can, and that's special effects! :)

...And THATS fun too!

L8er!



Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:29:47 -0400
From: Dave Walsh (voidspider@mind87spring.com)
Subject: Re: Space1999: Eagle aerodynamics and such

    I think it's about time I stepped in and offered some advice based on
experience. I did have the Centuri Space:1999 Eagle rocket, and launched it
only once. The stabilizing fin module on the aft end had 4 fins, each one
almost the same length as the Eagle itself, which was about the only
stability it had, and the Eagle itself was nothing more than a hollow
plastic nose cone. After launch, it went about 300 feet in about 2 seconds,
doing just over 100 mph, if my calculations are correct, and since the
parachute ejection charge malfunctioned, it took the Alan Carter landing
approach! Anyhow, I saw a hell of a lot of oscillation from the beast when
it took off, and the fin module started shredding itself by the time it
stopped ascending. This led me to believe that the real Eagle would have
some serious difficulties flying in an atmosphere. And there are other
considerations to remember when comparing this model to an actual Eagle,
mostly size, structural integrity and air density. Due to the rocket's
small size, it cuts a much smaller path through the air than a full-size
craft, plus the oscilations I saw in the model would have shaken a human
pilot into jelly! And as for the model itself, remember that it's just
hollow plastic, without the relative scale mass of an actual Eagle, thus
making it more structurally sound than an actual eagle, whereas a real one
would rip itself to pieces at speeds needed to keep it airborne. 



From: djlerda@juno.com
Subject: Re: Space1999: Evolution and Arkadia
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 19:08:07 EDT

>Y'know what though? (something to think about) Estes made a model rocket
>of the Eagle that actually "flew"! (I'd like to find one actually!) It
>worked the

I'm not trying to be a nit picker here but the Eagle model rocket was
made by Centuri, who are now out of business.  The Eagle was a hollow
plastic model which slid into the tube of the rocket and acted as a
nosecone.  The engine would eject the Eagle off and it would float to the
ground on its own parachute, separate from the tube.  I used to have one
but, alas, it went the way of so much 1999 memorabilia.  Anyone out there
have one?

David J Lerda, djlerda@juno.com

"Just because we haven't experienced something
doesn't mean it doesn't exist"  -  John Koenig



Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 21:11:00 -0500
From: Jim Small (Eagle1@mb-sympatico.ca)
Organization: Alpha Spacecraft Maintenance
Subject: Re: Space1999: Evolution and Arkadia

djlerda@juno.com wrote:

> I'm not trying to be a nit picker here but the Eagle model rocket was
> made by Centuri, who are now out of business.  The Eagle was a hollow
> plastic model which slid into the tube of the rocket and acted as a
> nosecone.  The engine would eject the Eagle off and it would float to the
> ground on its own parachute, separate from the tube.  I used to have one
> but, alas, it went the way of so much 1999 memorabilia.  Anyone out there
> have one?

Here's the thing that really ticks me off. I had a chance to buy one (I
just assumed it was an Estes because they seemed to produce everything
else! I apologize for my error!) in about 1990 or '91 from a small store
in Oshawa Ontario that had an original hanging on the wall! I'm kicking
myself now that I didn't buy it!!!!  AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!! I do remember
that the rocket was seemingly a duplicate of the airfix kit, but much
simplified. I think the Eagle was blow molded with a one piece fuselage
and you glued the four shoulder pods on, but I could be wrong. I never
had one, I just remember seeing the package. I remember noting that the
spine had the same horrible proportions (too damned wide) as the Airfix
kit.

Oh well. Opportunities lost.... yet again.....    story of my life.....



From: Pertti.Ruismaki@datex-oh44meda.com
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 09:07:34 +0300
Subject: Eagle physics again

 Returning from lurk mode back to my favourite subject:

>but it helps prove that with enough POWER, anything can
>be made to fly, despite aerodynamics!

Can you give any reason why would any spacecraft engineer design
the Eagle so non-aerodynamic and powerconsuming in athmospheric
flight, while it could be made aerodynamic without compromising
its usability in space.

>Also, anything at all that moves through the atmosphere can be angled in
>such a way as to provide some lift, provided it's moving fast enough and
>it's attitude can be controlled.

That is true. But there is so much energy and propellant wasted
when applying some aerodynamics could make things a lot easier.

>Unless they discovered a type of chemical fuel that doesn't take up much
>room!

One thing that is constantly being overlooked in this discussion
about Eagle physics is the difference between propellant and fuel.
In present day rocket engines they are the same, but for instance
in nuclear rockets they are not. Fuel is the stuff that contains
the energy and propellant is the stuff that is pushed backwards to
make the thing move.

No matter how efficient engines we have, we still need some
propellant and it is relatively easy to calculate the amount of
propellant needed in spaceflight. It is about linear momentum and
that is mass times velocity.

If we want to make an Eagle weighing 100 tonnes to go 10 km/s with
1 ton of propellant, the formula to calculate the exhaust velocity
of propellant is as follows:

100000kg * 10 km/s = 1000kg * X km/s

The needed exhaust velocity is 1000 km/s. I can still imagine an
engine that could give it that kind of speed, but somebody who
knows more about physics could probably say that this is
impossible. Besides, this is an easy case of flying in space
without athmosphere or gravity wells.  One can only imagine the
amount of propellant needed in athmosphere with aerodynamic
qualities slightly worse than those of a brick.

The propellant could be fitted in a small space but then it would
have to be some heavy metal or weird stuff. Anyway, it would have
to have enough mass.


> I believe there is a way for the eagle to leave the atmosphere using its
> current equipment and still not exceed the aerodynamic and fuel
> limitations.

There may be a way, but so much energy and propellant would be
wasted to gain nothing, except a cooler looks for the craft.
The Eagle is clearly designed by a film industry artist with
different set of criteria than a space engineer would have had.

-Pertti



Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 18:10:56
From: David Welle (dwelle@online4.4dct.com)
Subject: Space1999: Making an Eagle More Aerodynamic?

The discussion of the aerodynamics (or lack thereof) of the Eagle reminded
me of a book cover I had scanned and webbed a year or so ago.  The artist
basically took an Eagle and added what amounted to wings and a tail.

http://www.gbonline.com/~dwelle/s19/deriv.html
[Editor's Update:  no longer exists at this link, click here instead.]

----David