The following Statements identify the most important differences between the conventionally held understanding of mass motion physics pertaining to Jet Powered Aircraft Flight and that offered by AVG in support of its concept of an Air Velocity Gearbox system claimed  here as suitable for many existing and, all future Jet Powered Aircraft.

We here at AVG Aerospace hereby invite the Worlds' Jet Powered Aircraft Industry to disprove the following understanding.

1. A Jet Powered Aircraft, so called, is in fact powered by two distinctly different Power Systems that are forced to act as if they are one.

Note:  These two Power Systems each possess their own distinctly different, physically acting, Action and Reaction Systems, (reference the  accompanying "Case File"on this web site for explanation).

Note. Throughout the history of Jet Powered Flight the determination and understanding of Jet Powered Flight and performance attainable has been built upon the belief and its uniform acceptance that, it possesses only one single Power System, this is not true.

Note:  While it true that the source of the power invested in the Aircraft's Air Mass Motion System is from its jet engine, nonetheless, the utilisation of the principle of the Jet Engine in this way, creates two distinctly differently Power Systems.

2. The first of these is that of the Thrust Power developed by the Aircraft's engine and delivered to it's thrust Bolts.  The second is that comprising the Air Mass Motion Power System created in Reaction to the physical Action upon the Aircraft of the jet engine's thrust via its mounting bolts.  The fact that the Air Mass Motion Power System is created in Reaction to the delivery of the Thrust Power received from the Aircraft's engine does not alter this truth.  Each of these Power System, the one, Thrust Power the other Air Mass Motion Power, are each required to perform two entirely different forms of physical Action and Reaction actionsupon the Aircraft's structure at one and the same time and, at totally different working rates.

3. It is the total failure of the Industry to recognise the need to establish a properly integrated "Cycle of Action" between the physical interaction of the respective Action and Reaction halves of each of these two totally different MotionPower Systems that has in fact limited both the Motion Efficiency and Payload capability per unit of Air Mass Flow employed per second which would otherwise have been technologically attainable ever since Jet Powered Aircraft were first invented.

4. The AVG System comprises a relatively simple yet practical means of establishing a fully integrated, controllable CYCLE of ACTION over the Action & Reaction halves of these two Power Systems as they are jointly caused to act and interact upon the Aircraft's structure.

5. Each of the aforementioned Power Systems employ and utilise in totally different ways the principle of Sir, Isaac Newton's 3^rd Law of Motion which states that to every Action there is an equal and opposite REACTION.  The first involves the transition of chemical fuel energy into a single point thrust force transmitted to the Aircraft via its mounting bolts.  The second of these results from the Reaction to the Thrust force received from the engine which is to also required to Act as, the Action half of the Aircraft's Air Mass Motion System; reference, the following "Case File" online at this web site..

Note: While the thrust delivered via the Engine/Aircraft thrust bolts is linear in its effect upon the Aircraft's Motion, its Air Mass Motion Power System is, Cyclic; however, as argued and explained in following "The Case File" this is an extremely inefficient system.

6. At no time since Jet Powered Aircraft were first invented has the fact been recognised that the Propulsive System of a modern Jet Powered Aircraft in fact comprises of two distinctly different forms of Power System which are in fact treated in the determination of an Aircraft's performance as if, they are one.

7. As a direct consequence of 3 the Aircraft as a Motion Vehicle that is caused to fly has never been able achieve the level of Motion and Payload Efficiency that the technology of the day, in fact, actually made possible.

8. The problem this vast Industry needed to address was not so much the need to improve technological efficiency of the Systems comprising the Aircraft and its jet engine but, also, the actual manner in which  the combining of these systems were actually themselves utilised.

9. The Jet Engine. A jet engine as it is employed today is required to act both as physical jet engine and as an integral physical part of the Aircraft's, "Air Mass Motion System Cycle". It is the resulting conflicting action between the Action and Reactionthrust forces of the Action and Reaction halves of the two Air Mass Motion Systems comprising the Aircraft's Motion System Cycle as they are caused to act throughout the Aircraft's jet engine (threw) and around the Aircraft's Structure  at one and the same time that is the single most critical factor determining therefore limiting both the propulsive and motion efficiencies of all Jet Powered Aircraft today. 

10.Propulsive Efficiency & Specific Thrust. You should know that we here at AVG do not agree with the Industry's understanding  of what these two efficiencies actually apply to.

According to AVG, the true meaning of Propulsive Efficiency in terms of fundamental physics is more correctly expressed as being the relationship between the Gross Thrust Force delivered to the Aircraft per unit of air mass flow/per unit of fuel consumed per second at, all demand conditions and, the actual productive propulsive thrust force remaining at the disposal of the Aircraft per unit of air mass flow per second i.e., after all negative thrust losses have been paid for.  This is otherwise known and referred to by the Industry as the Specific Thrust of the  Aircraft/engine.  This according to AVG is in fact the Aircraft's actual and only true measure of its Propulsive Efficiency.  

It is this Specific Thrust Force per unit of air mass flow/per unit of fuel consumed per second by the Aircraft however it is achieved that in the final analysis determines and therefore actually limits the potential speed, range and payload capability that it can possibly achieve. This Thrust value is itself finally determined in the Reaction half of the Aircraft's Air Mass Motion System Cycle where the end of the Reaction half of its Air Mass Motion Cycle and the start of its Action half meet, i.e., at, the Inlet to the Aircraft/engine. 

11. Propulsive Efficiency according to conventionally held Understanding.  The Propulsive Efficiency of the Aircraft/engine which according to the Industry is conventionally regarded and determined by taking the ratio of difference between the Velocity of thrust force delivered in feet per second from the final propelling nozzle of the Aircraft's/engine "Vj" relative to that of the Aircraft's Resultant Velocity "V" at, any demand condition.  It is this ratio at the cruise flight condition of an Aircraft that is conventionally accepted as  being the common comparative measure between the Propulsive Efficiencies of different Aircraft.  This understanding we here at AVG totally reject; Propulsive Efficiency we submit is about the relationship between propulsive thrust forces and not just their velocity components.   This, so called, Propulsive Efficiency equation accepted and treated as the correct measure of an Aircraft/engine's Propulsive Efficiency is in actual fact the measure of the Aircraft's Motion Efficiency i.e., how fast the Aircraft can in physical reaction fly in feet per second, relative to the Velocity in feet per second that its Thrust Force is delivered to it and as received from its engine; which in fact, is an entirely different matter.

12.For the conventionally held understanding of Specific Thrust Force read, Propulsive EfficiencyAccording to AVG it is the "Specific Thrust Force" at the productive disposal of an Aircraft that finallydetermines all that it is possible to achieve in terms of fuel economics, speed, range, payload capability and overall economics of the Aircraft.  The "Specific Thrust Force" is the measure of the  useful thrust force per unit of Air Mass Flow at the productive disposal of Aircraft after all negative Thrust Force losses have been paid for.

It is this factor above all others that determines the comparative difference between the economic and commercial capability of different Aircraft  and therefore the role the Aircraft is most suitable for whether this be as a fighter, bomber, commercial type of Aircraft or single stage to orbit vehicle.  This is particularly true at supersonic and  hypersonic flight speeds.

13. The Aircraft's, Motion Efficiency according to AVG. The Aircraft's Motion Efficiency is that described as the Aircraft's Propulsive Efficiency by the Industry which is in fact the measure of how well or poorly the Velocity of delivery of the engine's Gross Thrust Force has been translated into a comparative Aircraft Velocity/speed. This efficiency is in fact determined between the end of the Action half of the Aircraft's Motion System Cycle and the end of its Reaction half. This is in fact the measure of the Motion Efficiency of the Aircraft as a Motion Vehicle that is caused to fly and not its Propulsive Efficiency.

In the modern Jet Powered Aircraft, there is no gearing in effect established between the thrust power delivered to the Aircraft and its resulting Velocity.  In other words, there is no control exercised over the Interaction between Action and Reaction halves of the Aircraft's Air Mass Motion System Cycle and the Thrust Force as  delivered to Aircraft's thrust bolts i.e., between the single point influence and affect of the Aircraft engine's Propulsion System and its Air Mass Motion System Cycle upon, the Aircraft's actual performance capability (reference 2-8 above).

14.History.  For over fifty years this vast Industry has focused virtually all of its attention and endeavor trying to improve the Propulsive Efficiency of the Aircraft as it understands it, instead of, its Specific Thrust. The Propulsive Efficiency i.e., the Specific Thrust according to AVG actually determines and governs what is possible to achieve and not the Aircraft's Motion Efficiency/ Propulsive Efficiency as defined by the Aircraft Industry itself. Trying to improve the Aircraft's Propulsive Efficiency according to the Industry, and Motion Efficiency according to AVG, while undoubtedly improving the motion efficiency of the Aircraft, is too late in the Aircraft's Motion System Cycle to fundamentally improve the Specific Thrust value of each single unit of Air Mass Flow which is where the root problem truly lies.

15. Types of Jet Engine. Consider the adoption of the bypass, fan and variable cycle types of jet engine while undoubtedly improving the Motion Efficiency of the Aircraft, nonetheless, also in many instances seriously reduced the effectiveness of the Specific Thrust at the disposal of the Aircraft.  As things are, if we improve the Motion Efficiency of the Aircraft (Propulsive Efficiency according to Industry) we reduce its Specific Thrust (Propulsive efficiency according to AVG).  The reverse is also true, if we focus on improving the Specific  Thrust at the disposal of the Aircraft we inevitably reduce it's Motion Efficiency.  We could not, until now, improve both of these factors at one and the same time, and so, as things are, both are forced to work upon the Aircraft in uncontrolled conjunction which critically limits the Aircraft's potentially true performance capability hence its payload and therefore, its economic viability.  Nowhere was this fact  more manifestly proven than in the case of Concorde.  According to this Industry's understanding, the Propulsive Efficiency of Concorde at its cruise flight condition is on a par with that of a Boeing  747.  How can this possible be true? Technologically, there is nothing to choose between the physical efficiencies of their respective physical systems, and the aerodynamics of their respective Airframe  structures.  Why then, the miserable payload capability of Concord per unit of Air Mass flow compared with almost every other commercial jet powered Aircraft flying today?  Because of its supersonic speed,  absolute nonsense!  Even a junior aero engineer understands and knows that the faster the Aircraft fly's the more efficient the jet engine is supposed to be.  The answer is, the Specific Thrust of Concorde  (its true Propulsive Efficiency according to AVG) at its supersonic cruise speed and altitude is less than half that of a commercial Boeing 747-400 for example at its flight cruise condition each carrying their  respective maximum payloads.

16.The Issue.  The issue has nothing  whatsoever to do with jet engines as jet engines, nor with the aerodynamics of the Aircraft's Airframe but, the particular manner that the thrust force delivered to the Aircraft by its jet engine is actually  delivered and utilised by the respective Aircraft (reference the Case File).

17.  As far as any vehicle that is caused to fly is concerned a pound of thrust is a pound of thrust no matter whether delivered by a rocket, ram jet, jet engine or whatever type of propulsive system is used.

18.  Thrust developed within the Aircraft's engine is the resultant of the change in momentum of the air mass caused to pass through  it and takes place within the Aircraft's first "frame of Action reference" formed between the inlet face of the engine's compressor and the Aircraft/engine's final propelling nozzle.

19.  The fact that the Aircraft itself may be moving or flying at speed does not change the truth of according to AVG, consequently,  the thrust delivered to the Aircraft by its engine to the Aircraft's mounting bolts is at all times GROSS in value (reference 23 below for explanation).

20. The fact that "Inlet Momentum Drag" is incurred reducing the Gross Thrust delivered to the Aircraft to a Net Thrust value does not alter the truth of 19. This penalty is incurred not because of the Aircraft's relative speed to that of the Air Mass Flow through the Aircraft/engine but, the particular manner in which it is actually delivered to and utilised by the Aircraft.

21. "Inlet Momentum Drag", is caused to occur because the change in the Velocity of the Air Mass entering the Aircraft is caused to take place in the Reaction half of the Aircraft's Motion Cycle i.e., outside and cross the face of the Aircraft's first "Action Frame of Reference" formed between the inlet face of its engine compressor or fan and, the Aircraft/engine's final propelling nozzle.

22. Thrust is developed relative to the system itself regardless of whether or not the system i,e., the Aircraft is itself is moving at  speed: all motion on earth is relative to the earth itself regardless of the fact that it is spinning around its own axis and around the sun itself at over 11,000 MPH. The Specific Thrust Force i.e., the Propulsive Efficiency of a rocket in flight according to AVG is virtually 100% and its Motion Efficiency throughout most of its flight, is extremely poor. The rocket experiences no Momentum Drag owing to its speed only form and friction drag also gravity which is perfectly legitimate. 

23. The Specific Thrust Force of a Ram Jet Powered Aircraft at say Mach 2 would be virtually 100% at its cruise altitude condition but, virtually impossible to economically attain below this condition.  Here there is no Ram Drag, no Intake Momentum loss because the change of velocity state of the air mass entering the Aircraft takes place within its first physical "frame of action" reference, of the Aircraft formed between the Inlet to its Ram Jet and final propelling nozzle i.e., the Reaction half of the Aircraft's Propulsive System). Note : This becomes the Action half of the airctaft "Air Mass Motion System"

24.  It is the differences in the manner that the thrust is both delivered and utilised by a rocket, ram jet, or jet engine powered type of Aircraft which actually determines the level of Specific Thrust that the flight vehicle they power can actually achieve, hence, its payload potential.

25. The principal limitation imposed on the operational performance of all Jet Powered Aircraft has been primarily caused regardless of how  they are propelled by the simple fact that until now there has existed no means of establishing direct control "gearing" over the interactive rates of Action of the Thrust and Air mass Motion Power Systems,  comprising the Aircraft's Motion System as they jointly act and interact upon the Aircrafts structure.

26. Until this unification and control is established over the Thrust Power and Air Mass Motion System Cycle of the Jet Powered Aircraft,  economically viable supersonic, hypersonic and single stage to orbit flight will be impossible (Reference 1-25). 

Your attention is also drawn to the LEGAL terms of access to our Web site.