FAA PROOF THAT ALL BOEING ANTI-STALL SYSTEMS ARE UNSAFE -- SHOULD BE REPLACED BY F-22 JES-STANDARD by Prof.-Dr. Benjamin Gal-Or

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

FAA STUDY:

Safest Flight

Based on US PATENT 5 782 431 MILITARY TYPE [THRUST VECTORING F-22, Su-35/57] SAFE-TO-FLY IN [MODERATE] STALL

("STOFIS")

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

U.S. PATENT 5 782 431 Thrust vectoring/reversing systems Abstract The invention provides alternative flight control methods and structures which can prevent a crash of a passenger or a cargo aircraft under stall/spin and adverse flight conditions, failing Conventional aerodynamic! Flight Control CFC!, low landing speeds, asymmetric icing and partial loss of propulsion. That air-safety capability is provided by integrating roll-yawpitch engine-nozzle-nacelle thrust vectoring flight control TVFC! retractable/rotatable vane-doors, collectively operated in individual TVFCsectors, with modified conventional! thrust-reversing TR! door-structures in one method!, or with novel retractable/rotatable TR vane-door sectorial structures a second method! to form various TVFC/CFC/TR systems. The methods and structures are intended for transport jets, except one configuration which is intended for turbo-prop transports. Another configuration replaces heavy and complex conventional TR doors and TRnacelle-grids with an integrated, simpler and lighter TVFC/CFC/TRsystems.

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

Images (4)

Classifications F02K1/58 Reversers mounted on the inner cone or the nozzle housing or the fuselage View 6 more classifications US5782431A United States Download PDF Find Prior Art Similar Inventor Benjamin Gal-Or Michael Lichtsinder Valery Sherbaum

Worldwide applications 1995 US

Application US 08/516,870 events 1995-08-18 Application filed by Gal-Or; Benjamin, Lichtsinder; Michael, Sherbaum; Valery 1995-08-18 Priority to US08/516,870

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

1998-07-21 Application granted 1998-07-21 Publication of US5782431A 2009-12-16 First worldwide family litigation filed 2015-08-18 Anticipated expiration 2019-06-16 Application status is Expired - Fee Related

Info Patent citations (11) Cited by (17) Legal events Similar documents Priority and Related Applications

External links USPTO USPTO Assignment Espacenet Global Dossier Discuss

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

Description BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 1. Field of the Invention

Many lives can be saved and much damage prevented by a new aircraft technology called roll-yaw-pitch Thrust Vectoring Flight Control TVFC. From its early inception we have been involved with concept design, patents, jet-laboratory testing and sub-scale flight testing of roll-yaw-pitch TVFC. And this application is, in part, filed due to the supportive attitude of the U.S. Department of Transportation/FAA, NASA and leading U.S. engine and airframe companies to our proposal to convert, adapt and modify military TVFC technology to civil transport applications which are specifically aimed to reduce the frequency and damage of air catastrophes. Many air catastrophes are caused by the limited capability of conventional Aerodynamic Flight Control AFC to a priori prevent them or to actively save doomed passenger, business, and cargo jet transports during take-off, flight and landing under adverse conditions involving stall/spin, asymmetric icing, wind-shear/microbursts, partial loss of AFC and engines, total loss of all hydraulics, tire explosions and front-wheel collapse. Similar catastrophes are encountered by turbo-prop aircraft. Other catastrophes involve the loss of tail rotor or tail during helicopter flight.

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

2. Object of the Invention The invention relates to a family of retractable pitch, yaw/pitch and roll-yawpitch TVFC methods and systems, with and without thrust-reversing TR methods and systems. Its first purpose is maximization of air safety and energy saving in operating transport jets, turbo-props, helicopters and other, jet-generating vehicles. The integrated TVFC/TR methods and systems of the present invention are equally aimed to minimize installation complexity, weight and cost while allowing, under adverse conditions, the highest air-safety levels feasible in comparison with those extractable from conventional AFC means. In its deployed TVFC mode of operation, it is intended for catastrophic failure prevention. In its retracted mode it does not interfere with engine/nacelle/airframe aerodynamics. The retracted mode is therefore intended for cruise flight and for conventional altitude changes with minimal fuel consumption. An important purpose of the invention is to provide alternative flight control when AFC fails, or fails to function safely. Another aim is to save an otherwise doomed aircraft whose AFC elements have failed, or whose all airframe hydraulics/actuators are not functioning, or one or more of its engines is inoperative, or has separated, or the vehicle is subjected to adverse flying conditions such as stall/spin, asymmetric icing, and wind-shear/microbursts.

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

The object of the invention is also to provide the pilot with an improved capability to rapidly correct his mistakes under adverse takeoff, flight and landing conditions. In using one of the specific system configurations of the invention the loss of helicopter's tail or tail rotor may prevent a catastrophe by reducing the gasturbine nozzle cross-sectional area and providing anti-rotation moment by reverting to auto yaw TVFC mode of operation of the present invention. Similar, but more integrated and effective TVFC/TR/AFC modes of emergency operation, are provided by the invention for preventing turbo-prop transport catastrophes. In applying one of the preferred TVFC/TR/AFC system configurations of the invention to jet transports, the heavy, complex and costly conventional TR doors/rods/hinges, retracting/sliding gear, actuators and TR-grid-nacellestructures can safely be removed and cost-effectively replaced with a simpler and lighter-weight add-on TVFC/TR kit system. Another aim of the invention is to allow TVFC/TR-induced short landing via reduced minimum control approach speed to be followed by conventional, post-touch-down TR. All implementations and installations of present-invention-related structures and flight-control means are designed to take place without any change to the engine itself. Another purpose of the invention is to provide methods and structures to produce low-cost, low-weight, retractable/integrated, TVFC/TR add-on kits for upgrading extant vehicles and for improved design, construction and operation of new, cost-effective ones.

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

A final purpose of the invention is catastrophic failure and crash prevention in gas-jet or liquid-jet based air, land and marine applications, including water-jet based vehicles. More specifically it also means to thrust-vector surface sliding, out-of-conventional control, ground and sea vehicles to prevent collision and crash.

3. Prior Art No modern jet engine can function with prior-art rocket-engine thrustvectoring-nozzle mechanisms and methods. Rocket-type nozzles fail during the typical prolonged operations which characterize jet engines, namely, thousands of hours, instead of minutes. Moreover, unlike the fixed, and highly divergent, internal duct shape of the rocket-nozzle, that of advanced supersonic jet-engine nozzles is made to geometrically vary internally with throttle change and flight conditions. Consequently, all rocket-TVFC-nozzle prior art is inherently irrelevant and useless with respect to the present invention. Prior art related mainly to military uses of two-dimensional, thrust-vectoringnozzles is available in Israeli SEALED-SECRETS Trade-Secrets Applications 78402 April 2 1986, 80532 filed on Nov. 7, 1986 by Gal-Or. The present invention is partially related to the roll-yaw-pitch TVFC methodologies of Israeli Patent Application No. 111265 filed on Oct. 12, 1994 by Gal-Or, Lichtsinder and Sherbaum!.

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

However, unlike the present invention, the 1994/111265 application does not provide the design and operational methods as well as the specific TVFCstructures of retractable TVFC/TR-configurations for the aforementioned uses. The 1986/80532 invention is based on two-dimensional external-flap-type, split-type roll-yaw-pitch or non-split-type yaw-pitch TVFC-nozzles. It too does not provide the design and operational methodology, TVFC-means and stowed-away/actuation/rotations of retractable TVFC/TR-configurations of the present invention. By method, use, mechanical structure and operational means of specific and preferred retractable TVFS/TR integrated system configurations, the present invention is entirely different from prior art and not obvious to someone skilled in prior TVFC, TR, and AFC art, as clearly reflected by more than 400 papers and patents reviewed by: 1--Gal-Or, B., International Journal of Turbo and Jet Engines, Vol. 1, pp. 183194 1984!, with 103 references to prior art related to TVFC and TR. 2--Gal-Or, B., "Vectored Propulsion, Supermaneuverability avid Robot Aircraft", Book published by Springer Verlag, N.Y., Heidelberg, 1990, 1991, with 237 references to prior art related to TVFC, TR and conventional AFC. 3--Gal-Or, B., International Journal of Turbo and Jet Engines, Vol. 11, No. 2-3, pp. 1-21 1994!, with 367 references related to prior art related to TVFC and TR. 4--Gal-Or, B., "Multiaxis Thrust Vectoring Flight Control Vs Catastrophic Failure Prevention", Reports to U.S. Dept. of Transportation/FAA, Technical Center, ACD-210, FAA X88/0/6FA/921000/4104/T1706D, FAA Res. Grant-Award

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

No: 94-G-24, CFDA, No. 20.108, Dec. 26, 1994, May 30, 1995, with 410 references related to prior art related to TVFC, TR and air-safety methodologies.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION While aimed mainly for air uses based on gas-turbines, the methods and resulting structures of this invention are also intended for land and marine applications, including those based on liquid jets, such as water-jet based vehicles. In its deployed TVFC mode of operation, it is intended for catastrophic failure prevention. In its retracted mode it does not interfere with engine/nacelle/airframe aerodynamics. The retracted mode is therefore intended for cruise flight and for conventional altitude changes with minimal fuel consumption. Air-safety capability is provided by integrating roll-yaw-pitch engine-nozzlenacelle thrust vectoring flight control TVFC! retractable/rotatable vane-doors (thrust vectoring control means), collectively operated in individual TVFCsectors, with modified conventional! thrust-reversing TR door-structures in one method!, or with novel retractable/rotatable TR vane-door sectorial structures a second method! to form various TVFC/CFC/TR systems. The methods and structures are intended for transport jets, except one configuration which is intended for turbo-prop transports. Another configuration replaces heavy and complex conventional TR doors and TRnacelle-grids with an integrated, simpler and lighter TVFC/CFC/TR-systems.

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

Unlike CFC, TVFC does not depend on the external aerodynamic flow regime. Hence, the major advantage of the invention is the provision of significantly higher air safety potentials in comparison with existing aircraft CFC. The invention can be used to upgrade existing CFC/TR-based civil and military aircraft, or design new TVFC/CFC/TR ones. The integrated TVFC/CFC/TR systems are intended to minimize total/integrated installation weight and cost. The description provided in the text and drawings of this application shall not be construed as limiting the ways in which this invention may be practiced but shall be inclusive of many other variations that do not depart from the broad interest and intent of the invention.

A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS FIG. 1 depicts a cut through the axis of a typical turbo-fan engine equipped with configurations-1, -2 and -3 types of TVFC/TR vanes/doors of the present invention. Item 1 represents a nozzle-nacelle's aft section during conventional, non-vectoring, TR of fan-air. Item 2 represents a nozzle-nacelle's aft section during conventional non-vectoring, TR of core-gas. Item 3 is the inner nacelle's skin in the fan-air section. Item 4 is the inner engine/nacelle's skin in the core-gas section. Item 5 represents an internal TR structure/grid exposed as depicted during downstream, TR slide-motion of 1 and/or 2. Item 6 represents an integrated TVFC/TR vane/door, during a configuration-1 type of TR. Item 7 represents an available TR rod pivoted to 3 or 4, and to 10. Item 8 represents an added structure to transfer TVFC/TR forces/moments to engine non-rotating structures. Item 9 represents configuration-2 type TVFC/TR vanes/doors in a reclined/deployed position, and 9' at its retractable, stowed

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

away, non-operative position. In position 9 it individually, or collectively as in Israeli Patent Application No. 111265!, vectors the jet-engine thrust, or, optionally, by rotating it 90 degrees to one direction from the non-vectoring, streamwise/axial position depicted, and collectively, with all the other vanes/doors, back-deflects the axial thrust force by approximately 135 degrees. Cross-view A--A is depicted in more details in FIG. 2. These items are replaceable by other types of conventional actuators/mechanisms which can provide similar combined rotations and structural support. FIG. 2 depicts a vane/door system, as related to cross-view A--A in FIG. 1. A similar system operates on the hot-core-flow. Item 10 represents a bulge/locker/pivot firmly attached to the lower edge of vane/door 6 and pivoted to rod 7 irrespective of vane/door rotation to, say, orientation 6'. Item 11 represents an arresting/locking groove mechanism in the skin structures of 3 and 4, suitable to arrest bulge/pivot/locker 10. In that position, 10, 12, 15, 16, 16', the skin structures 3 and 4, rod 7 and structure 5 transfer TVFC/TR forces and moments to the jet-engine/transport structures. Item 12 represents a vane/door hinge rotatable inside a bearing sleeve 16' and firmly linked to a vectoring moment arm 13. By means of bearing-sleeve 16', and rails 15, it is also linked to the nacelle's aft section 1 or 2, and, thereby, to structure grid 5 and to engine non-rotating parts. Item 13 represents a thrust-vectoring moment arm. Item 14 represents a three-degrees-of-freedom pivot linked to 17 and 13. Item 15 represents a pair of axially-oriented locking rails firmly attached to the skin/body structures not depicted! of 1 and 2. Item 16 12

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

represents two lateral/tangential sliding hinges inserted/locked inside rails 15 and firmly attached to the outside of sleeve 16'. Item 16' represents an external sleeve inside which 12 rotates. 16' is also back-connected by a pivot to an axially pushing/pulling deploying/retracting actuator not depicted!. Item 17 represents a flexible, three-degrees-of-freedom TVFC/TR sectorial ring/rod which, with deploying/retracting rod 7, collectively rotates/moves/lowers vectoring/reversing vanes/doors into position. Items 13, 14, and 17 are replaceable with individual TVFC/TR motors/actuators see also 20 below! whose rotating mechanism is attached to hinge 12, and its static parts are firmly attached/supported by sleeve 16'. These items are replaceable by other types of conventional actuators/mechanisms which can provide similar combined rotations and structural support. FIG. 3 depicts a Configuration-2 type system. Item 18 represents the radial hinge of vane/door 9. Item 19 represents a flexible deploying/retracting sleevering-sectorial rod/bearing which, at any crossing pass with a vane/door 9, forms a sleeve-bearing around 18. It is rotatable inside 21 by sector actuator 22 and arm 24. Its rotation deploys vane/door from retracted position 9' to TVFC/TR position 9, or back to 9'. Item 20 represents a TVFC/TR individual motor/actuator, or a common sectorial rotating-arm-actuator, controlled by the aircraft TVFC/TR commands. It is non-operative in its stowed-away position 20'. Item 21 represents a non-rotating plate or flange supported, at least in two locations per sector, by structure 8. It contains, at least in the aforementioned two locations, sleeve-bearings for 19. Item 22 represents a retracting/deploying sectorial actuator. Item 23 represents firm links of 8 with

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

21. Item 24 represents a sectorially-commanded retracting/deploying moment arm of item 19. Item 25 represents a non-bulging hinged spring-cover for the rectangular openings in skin structures 3 and 4. The aforementioned rods/hinges/bearing-sleeves and actuators are replaceable by similar other types of conventional actuators/mechanisms which provide the combined required rotations and structural supports. FIG. 4 depicts a Configuration-3 type system. Each vane/door includes a nonrotating upper sub-vane/door 26 for partial flow-blocking and the generation of jet-efflux-acceleration. 26 is firmly attached to sleeve 16' and hinge 12 of each vane/door 9 passes through the center of 26. The resulting system is positioned inside nozzle-exits of turbo-prop gas turbines and helicopters for effecting flow-acceleration and TVFC during emergency. This mechanism is replaceable by other types of conventional actuators/mechanisms which provide similar combined rotations and structural supports. These Figures shall not be construed as limiting the ways in which this invention may be practiced but shall be inclusive of many other variations that do not depart from the broad interest and intent of the methods and structures of the invention.

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION Method 1 This control method relates to retracting/deploying thrust-vectoring/reversing vanes/doors in gas-turbine operated vehicles and fluid-jet operated systems, comprising the mixed/optional steps of: Grouping vanes/doors of thrust-vectoring/reversing type in sectors according to their yaw, roll, and pitch thrust-vectoring orientations with respect to the vehicle/system. Connecting and linking/pivoting each of these vanes/doors/sectors with sectorially-commanded thrust-vectoring/reversing motors/actuators. Deploying these vanes/doors/sectors from their thrust-vectoring/reversing stowed position into the nozzle flow considered, while simultaneously rotating each. Positioning by this deployment/rotation each of said vanes/doors at minimal drag orientation parallel to local flow at zero reference angle for thrustvectoring. Vectoring thrust in the aforementioned roll-yaw-pitch coordinates by sectorially-commanding rotations of said vanes/doors away from said zero reference angle. Retracting/rotating said vanes/doors back to said stowed position. Splitting said nozzle flow by asymmetric yaw, pitch or yaw/pitch deploying of a fraction of available conventional thrust-reversing doors and/or said vanes/doors/sectors without rotation, until effecting a partial nozzle-flow blocking, thereby forcing part of said flow through external/peripheral gaps/openings or grids in radially-out/upstream direction for providing coarse/emergency thrust-vectoring.

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

Reversing thrust by symmetric conventional deploying/sliding methods involving all said vanes/doors functioning as conventional thrust-reversing doors without simultaneous rotation. Method 2 This method relates to post-nozzle TVFC/TR. It allows total rejection/removal of all heavy, complex and costly conventional TR structures and replacing them with low-weight/low-cost TVFC means. It comprises the mixed/optional steps of: Deploying all or some of the TVFC/TR vanes/doors radially outward from a forward-pointing, stowed-away position inside the nacelle structure, to a flowparallel zero TVFC reference angle downstream of engine/nacelle nozzle-end. That deployment is conducted collectively in annular TVFC/TR sectors, each deploying radially-out into post-engine-nozzle axial flow position without the need to simultaneously rotate the vanes/doors as in Method 1. Rotating all or only an asymmetric fraction of the vanes/doors in a common direction until a flow-blocking blocking position, thereby forcing all or the asymmetric part o the flow through the gap between nozzle-end and upperend of the deployed vanes/door/sectors. The vanes/doors are collectively and rapidly rotating/vectoring engine flow in annular sectors by means of individual or collective sectorial motors/actuators/rods (actuator means) which, in turn, are linked with engine's non-rotating structures for effecting TVFC or TR without the conventional TR methods and structures. Method 3 Here the TVFC mode of control is applied to axially-oriented gas-turbine nozzles of turbo-props, and tail-damaged or tailless helicopters. It comprises the mixed/optional steps of:

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

Adding a non-rotating, laterally-oriented, sub-vane/door to each of said vanes/doors thereby forming split-type vanes/doors which, upon radial deployment reduce effective nozzle-cross-sectional area to provide accelerated nozzle flow for sufficient TVFC forces/moments. Performing thrust vectoring flight control as in Method 1 or 2. Retracting said vanes/doors back to their said stowed position for providing fuel saving during conventional altitude changes and cruise flight, as in Method 1 or 2. Method 4 This asymmetric/symmetric, TVFC/TR method introduces low-weight, lowcost, simply-shaped, semi-cylindrical nozzle or nozzle/nacelle ducting peripheral skin-sectors into nozzle's internal skin and/or onto nacelle's postnozzle skin. In its deployed mode these skin-sectors act as TVFC/TR flowblocking/vectoring objects. For instance, such two yaw and two pitch TVFC/TR retracting/deploying skin-sectors, having no said vanes/doors, are capable of splitting/deflecting part of the flow into a radial/yaw, radial/yaw/pitch or radial/pitch direction for providing coarse yaw/pitch TVFC. Without retractable sectorial dividing radial walls the remaining flow may be slightly distorted and only roughly axially-oriented. Upon symmetric deploying of all, say, four skin-sectors a radiallyout/upstream orientation, pure TR is effected. Otherwise all, say, four sectors are retracted to form smooth skins, say, post fan or core nozzles. Alternatively, just three or four deployable, simple internal nozzle skin sectors provide coarse yaW/pitch TVFC without TR to turbo-prop transports and tailless or tail-damaged helicopters. Retractable TVFC/TR eye-lids/paddles may replace skin-sectors. This motion control method may also provide coarse yaw-only or pitch-only thrust vectoring by employing only two deploying/retracting sectors of the eye-lid/paddle type of thrust reversing and each time deploying only one of them at controlled angles into the nozzle flow. This method comprises the following mixed/optional stages:

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

Selecting yaw and pitch thrust-vectoring retracting/deploying orientation for the required skin sectors with respect to the vehicle/system Splitting internal nozzle's skin and/or post-nozzle nacelle's skin into radially deployable, said skin sectors according to said yaw and pitch selection Vectoring thrust by deploying only an asymmetric fraction of said sectors from their skin-stowed position to a radially-in nozzle position and radiallyout/upstream inclined vectoring/reversing position Reversing thrust by deploying all said post-nozzle sectors from their skinstowed position into a common radially-out/upstream orientation Retracting all said sectors to form a smooth nozzle skin and/or smooth nacelle skin Optionally one can maintain by this method a coarse/emergency TVFC by asymmetrically deploying into said flow one or more post-nozzle-sector-eyelids/paddles at controlled angles, with or without installed said vanes doors onto its/their skin structures. By symmetric deployment of all said eyelids/paddles one can force flow through external/peripheral gaps/openings in radially-out/upstream direction for providing pure TR. Configuration 1: This system/structure is specifically designed according to Method 1 to upgrade extant transport jets which are already equipped with conventional TR doors, as depicted in FIG. 1. The available conventional TR-doors are to be re-hinged, re-supported, relocked and re-deployed/retracted. The resulting TVFC/TR doors are therefore referred to as vanes/doors. These vanes/doors can now deflect engine fan and/or core flows to maximize TVFC-induced air safety, and/or operate as TR doors with already available, on-board, conventional TR hardware. When available as add-on kits, this configuration is expected to add little weight and cost to extant or new transport jets. Configuration 1 is mainly based on items 6, 6', 7 and 10 to 17 depicted in FIG. 2. Each vane/door 6 is rotatable by hinge 12 and arm 13 up to about 90 18

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

degrees as it is deployed into its TVFC position, or retracted back to its stowed TR position under the skin structures of nozzle-nacelle 3 and/or 4. Its hinge 12 rotates inside the sleeve of bearing-sleeve 16'. The sleeve of 16' is firmly attached to two opposing lateral/tangential hinges 16. That sleeve is also pivoted to a push/pull axially deploying/retracting actuator not depicted!. In turn, the two hinges 16 are inserted/locked inside a pair of axially-oriented sliding rails 15, and these rails are firmly attached to the engine/nacelle's fan and/or core aft structures 1 and/or 2. This hinge/bearing-sleeve/rail system provides simultaneous deployment and rotation to each vane/door 6 as it rotates through orientation 6' to a parallel orientation with respect to the local flow direction, or, via retraction/rotation back into the conventional TR stowed position/configuration. Thus, two simultaneous motions are performed by the axial motion of bearing-sleeve 16' and the rotation of 12 by means of arm 13 and a flexible, three-degrees-offreedom TVFC-rod mechanism 14 and 17. Flexible sectorial ring/rod 17 is linked to TVFC-actuators not depicted!. Alternatively, each vane-door can be rotated and TVFC-operated by other means, such as an individual motor/actuator which performs sectoriallycommon TVFC-commands. The lower-edge bulge/pivot 10 of each vane/door 6 is pivoted to TR rod 7, which, in turn, is also pivoted to the inner nacelle's skin structure 3 and/or 4. The combined axial motion of 16' with about 90 degrees rotation of 12 while 10 is also linked to 7, radially `lowers`/deploys/rotates vane/door 6 into an arresting/locking groove 10, which, in turn, absorbs part of the forces/moments during TVFC operation. TVFC operation may be available from both partial and completely deployed/locked positions of vanes/doors 6. It is normally performed without operating the conventional TR mechanism. However, landing may be considered with high power settings and combined/partial TVFC/TR for reduced minimum control speed options.

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

All vanes/doors 6 are grouped into TVFC-sectors and/or effective nozzle-area reduction sub-sectors, which, in turn, are controlled collectively by flexible ring/rod 17 and/or alternative motor/actuators. Flexible ring/rod 17 is pushed/pulled by a sectorial TVFC motor/actuator. The cross-section of each vane/door 6 is close to an aerodynamically symmetric thin shape, with a slight deviation from symmetry on the TR upstream face. That face may be almost flat for extracting improved TR blocking. The TVFC-sectors are each independently actuated to deflect or block part or the entire fan and/or core flows in roll, pitch, yaw or axial coordinates of the aircraft. TR is performed in the conventional way by axially sliding 1 and/or 2. Vane/door 6 is then deployed or retracted, without simultaneous rotation, by the sliding motion of 1 and/or 2 while its lower-edge/bulge/pivot 10 is firmly held by rod 7. Configuration 2: This structure/system considerably reduces the complexity, weight and cost of Configuration 1 by first removing all heavy, complex and costly conventional TR doors, rods, actuators and grid-structures from the transport, while providing different roll-yaw-pitch TVFC vanes/doors. It is designed according to the principles of Method 2. In its non-operative mode this configuration is stowed-away FIGS. 1 and 3, items 9' and 20'! by being positioned under the inner nacelle's metal skin structure 3 and/or 4. In its operative mode it is deployed into position 9 and 20. During TVFC operation its vanes/doors 9' are deployed by means of links and motors/actuators 18, 19, 21, 22 and 24. These vanes/doors are deployed at some distance 9 downstream of the fan and/or core nozzle exits, 1, 2, and are inclined into the flow-upstream direction to allow TR upon a collective 90 degrees rotation of all TVFC-doors from zero reference angle to form a TR cone-cap. This cone-cap blocks most fan and/or core flows, and forces the flows upstream and radially-out through the gap between engine-nozzles exits 1 and 20

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

2 and vanes/doors upper edges, or their tangential upper shrouds not depicted!. During TVFC these vanes/doors are rotatable in either direction by means of individual or collective motor/actuators 20, and these motor/actuators and hinges are linked, by 21, 24 and 8, with engine non-rotating structures. Vanes/doors 9 are sectorially-commanded by means such as sectorial TVFCmechanisms 18, 19, 20, 22 and 24. 9 may be positioned/deployed or retracted by flexible ring rod/sleeve 19, which is rotatable by a common sector actuator 22 and moment arm 24. This rod/sleeve rotates inside a bearing positioned on plate 21, which, in turn, comprises links 24 with structure 8. Structure 8 is firmly linked to fixed engine sections/parts. Alternatively, each vane/door 9 is rotated by an individual motor/actuator 20', and each motor/actuator 20' is individually controlled by the transport TVFC computer system. Vanes/doors 9 can be tangentially toped by sectorial shrouds, arrested in place by radial-top hinges not depicted!, so as to minimize vibration/stress during operative TVFC/TR modes. The cross-section of each retractable vane/door 9 may be aerodynamically symmetric and thin. Spring-rotatable metal skin cover 25 helps minimizing drag in the retractable and deployed modes of operation. Configuration 3: This structure/system is designed for turbo-prop transports, gas-turbine operated helicopters and other jet generating systems. It is mechanically structured according to the principles of Method 3. Since TR in turbo-props is provided by the propeller gear mechanism, this configuration eliminates the TR option. Moreover, since the exhaust nozzles of turbo-prop and helicopter engines are designed with minimum pressure-drop, relatively large diameters, the present invention provides a temporarily reduction in that effective diameter during emergency TVFC. The laterallyfixed sub-vane/door 26 in FIG. 4 characterizes such applications. The resulting split-type vane/door 6/26 replaces the previously used non-split type vanes/doors 6 of FIG. 2. It is intended to provide turbo-prop transports and helicopters with TVFC-induced air-safety capabilities.

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

Here the TR options of configuration 1 are absent, and each of the vanes/doors includes an additional, non-rotating upper sub-vane/door for partial flow-blocking and the generation of jet-efflux-acceleration Fig. 4 item 26!. The lateral/tangential sub-vane/door 26 is firmly attached to sleeve 16' of the bearing-sleeve, and the hinge of vane/door 6 passes through the radial center of sub-vane/door 26 and is held in place by bearing-sleeves 27. The resulting system is positioned at axially-oriented nozzle-exits of turbo-prop and helicopter gas-turbines for effecting flow-acceleration with simultaneous TVFC, with or without AFC.

Claims (18) We claim: 1. The method of controlling motion by thrust-vectoring control means inside nozzles of gas-turbine operated vehicles and fluid-jet operated systems, comprising the steps of: a. Grouping radially-oriented thrust vectoring control means of low drag shape in sectors according to their yaw, roll, and pitch thrust-vectoring orientations with respect to the vehicle/system; b. Connecting each of said sectors of thrust vectoring control means with sectorially-commanded thrust-vectoring actuators; c. Deploying said sectors of thrust vector controlling means from their thrust vectoring stowed position into said nozzle flow, while simultaneously rotating each said thrust vectoring control means; d. Positioning by said deployment each of said thrust-vectoring control means at minimal drag orientation parallel to local flow at zero reference angle for thrust-vectoring; 22

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

e. Vectoring thrust in said roll-yaw-pitch coordinates by sectoriallycommanding rotations of said thrust vectoring control means away from said zero reference angle; f. Retracting said thrust vectoring control means back to said stowed position; g. Splitting said nozzle flow by asymmetric deploying of a fraction of available conventional thrust-reversing doors and/or said sectors of thrust vectoring control means without rotation, until effecting a partial nozzle-flow blocking, thereby forcing pair of said flow through openings in radially-out/upstream direction for providing course/emergency thrust vectoring; h. Reversing thrust by symmetric conventional deploying/sliding methods involving all said thrust vectoring control means functioning as conventional thrust-reversing doors without simultaneous rotation. 2. The method of controlling motion by thrust-vectoring means in post-nozzle flows of gas-turbine operated vehicles and fluid-jet operated systems, comprising the steps of: a. Grouping radially-oriented thrust vectoring control means of low-drag shape in sectors according to their yaw, roll and pitch thrust-vectoring orientations with respect to the vehicle system; b. Connecting each of said sectors of the thrust vectoring control means with sectorially-commanded thrust-vectoring actuator means; c. Deploying all or some of said sectors of the thrust vectoring control means from an upstream-pointing, stowed away position downstream of flow nozzles to an upstream inclined orientation with said thrust vectoring controlling means in parallel orientation to local axial flow direction at zero thrust vectoring reference angle;

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

d. Vectoring thrust in all said roll-yaw-pitch coordinates by sectoriallycommanding rotations of said thrust vectoring control means away from said zero reference angle; e. vectoring reversing thrust by symmetric or asymmetric rotations of all or a fraction of said thrust vectoring control means in a common said rollgenerating direction until all or only said asymmetric sectors block flow, thereby forcing all of said asymmetric fraction of said flow through a peripheral gap between said nozzle-end and upper end of said deployed sectors of thrust vectoring control means; f. Retracting said sectors of thrust vectoring control means to stowed position. 3. The method of claim 2 wherein said thrust reversing control method is canceled-out and its structure removed and the trust vectoring control mode is applied inside of or just aft axially-oriented nozzles, comprising the steps of; a. Adding a non-rotating, laterally-orientated sub thrust vectoring control means thereby forming split-type thrust vectoring control means which upon said radial deployment reduce effective nozzle-cross-sectional area to provide accelerated flow for sufficient thrust-vectoring flight control; b. Vectoring thrust in said roll-yaw-pitch coordinates by sectoriallycommanding rotations of said split-type thrust vectoring control means away from said zero reference angle according to commands; c. Retracting said split-type thrust vectoring control means back to their stowed position.

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

4. The system of claim 2, wherein thrust vectoring control means and sectors are held together by an upper tangential shroud and additional upper thrust vectoring control means hinges. 5. The system of claim 2 wherein thrust vectoring control means are deployed or retracted in a radial orientation without providing a thrust-reversal mode of operation. 6. The system of claim 2, wherein said hinges of said thrust vectoring control means are inserted inside structural opening-frames of conventional eye-lid bucket type thrust-reversing means and said thrust vectoring control means are curved according to the contours of said eye-lid buckets, and the conventional retracted position of said eye-lid buckets becomes the retractable position of the resulting curved thrust vectoring control means. 7. The system of claim 6, wherein said thrust vectoring control means are applied to add thrust-vectoring capabilities to other conventional-type thrustreversing means, and are deployed and operated when said thrust-reversing means are deployed. 8. The system of claim 2 wherein said thrust vectoring control means comprise internally-inserted telescopic-type smaller vanes, which in said retractable position, are stowed under the nacelle's skin structure, and said sub thrust vectoring control means are deployed during thrust vectoring and reversing modes of operation. 9. The system of claim 2 wherein said thrust vectoring control means and louvers are so shaped, configured and spaced as to block all flow when collectively rotated 90 degrees from the flow direction.

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

10. The method of controlling motion by introducing simply-shaped, semicylindrical, peripheral flow-ducting skin sectors into nozzle's internal skin and onto nacelle's post-nozzle skin, comprising the steps of: a. Selecting yaw and pitch orientations of said skin sectors with respect to the vehicle system; b. Splitting said skins into radially deployable sectors according to said yaw and pitch selection; c. Vectoring thrust by deploying only an asymmetric fraction of said sectors from their skin-stowed position to a radially-in nozzle position and radially-out upstream position; d. Reversing thrust by deploying all said post-nozzle sectors from their skin stowed position into a common radially-out upstream orientation; e. Retracting all said sectors to form a smooth nozzle skin and smooth nacelle skin; f. Maintaining coarse thrust-vectoring control by asymmetrically deploying into said flow one or more post-nozzle sectors of eye-lid paddle type thrust vector means at controlled angles; g. Symmetrically deploying all said sectors of eye-lids paddles to force flow through external peripheral openings in a radially-out upstream direction for providing thrust reversing. 11. The system of claim 10 wherein said thrust vectoring control means are contoured as doors and are synchronized to open and close with control commands. 12. A retractable roll-yaw-pitch thrust-vectoring and thrust-reversing enginenozzle-nacelle system for use in transport jets, comprising:

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

a. Retractable thrust-vectoring control means whereby each of said thrust vectoring control means is deployed from a stowed position inside said nozzle structure into engine nozzle axial flow as it also rotates around it longitudinal symmetry-line, and said rotations move said thrust vectoring control means to a radial thrust-vectoring position, whereby each of said thrust vectoring control means are oriented parallel to local axial nozzle flow direction at zero reference angle for thrust vectoring; b. Said thrust vectoring control means are each radially hinged at its upper edge center, and said hinge is firmly attached to a moment arm, and said hinge rotates inside a bearing-sleeve, and the sleeve of said bearing-sleeve is firmly attached to two lateral hinges, and said lateral hinges are each inserted and locked inside an axially-oriented sliding rail, and said rail is firmly attached inside said nozzle structure, and said sleeve is also pivoted to a push and pull axial actuator, and a radial bulge hinge attached to low-edge-center of each of said thrust vectoring control means is positioned inside an arresting, axial grove in the inner nacelle/nozzle skin structure, and said bulge hinge is pivoted and linked by a rod to said skin structure, and said moment arm is, by flexible sectorial pivoted-rod, attached to thrust-vectoring control actuators, and said thrust vectoring control means are collectively deployed as annular sectors, and from said reference angle, each of said thrust vectoring control means is rotatable up to 90 degrees into either direction to deflect and/or block part or the entire engine flow in roll, pitch, yaw, or forward or reversedaxial body coordinates of said engine and nacelle, and said retractable position is used during cruise flight, and said deployed vectoring position during thrust-vectoring and reversing, such as during landing, or for catastrophic failure prevention;

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

c. Said thrust vectoring control means are retractable back to said stowed position; d. Said thrust vectoring control means are deployed into nozzle and nacelle flow without said thrust-vectoring rotation during transfer to conventional thrust-reversing operation; e. Said thrust vectoring control means are retracted back to stowed position without said thrust-vectoring rotation during transfer to conventional aerodynamic flight control. 13. The system of claim 12, wherein said thrust vectoring control means each includes and additional, laterally-oriented, non-rotating upper sub-thrust vectoring control means for a partial flow-blocking and jet-efflux-acceleration, and said sub- is firmly attached to the sleeve of said bearing sleeve, and said hinge of each of said thrust-vectoring control means rotates inside said subthrust vectoring control means and the resulting system is positioned inside tail-pipe exits of turbo-prop and helicopter engines for effecting emergency or normal thrust-vectoring flight control. 14. The system of claim 12 wherein said upper hinges of said thrust vector control means are replaced by low-end hinges, and said thrust vectoring control means are deployed at some distance downstream of nozzle and nacelle exit, and said thrust vectoring control means are retractable into a stowed-away space under the inner metal skin of the nacelle, and at said deployed position, said thrust vectoring, control means are inclined in the upstream direction to allow thrust-reversing upon rotation of all said vectoring doors, which collectively, form a flow blocking object, and said blocked flows are thereby forced upstream and radially out, and said flows thereby pass through the gap between engine nozzle nacelle exit end and end of said thrust 28

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

vectoring control means upper edges, and said thrust vectoring control means are also rotatable into either direction by means of individual or collective actuator means and said actuator means are linked in their static parts, with engine's non rotating structures, and said thrust vectoring control means are collectively controlled in annular sectors and said sectors are deployed by a deploying rod-ring-sleeve-actuator, and said rod-ring-sleeve rotates inside a fixed plate flange and said plate flange is firmly attached to non-rotating engine structures, and the cross section of each of said is aerodynamically symmetric and thin. 15. The system of claim 12, wherein said thrust vectoring control means are each rotatable by an individual actuating means whose static structure is firmly attached to the outer sleeve of said bearing sleeve. 16. The system of claim 12 wherein additional peripheral louvers are laterally hinged inside covered conventional thrust-reversing grid structure, and are radially deployed simultaneously with said thrust vectoring control means when conventional nacelle's aft structures are axially sliding downstream to expose the conventional grid structure, and said peripheral louvers vector all or part of jets directly downward, upward or sideways. 17. The system of claim 12 adjusted to fit and operate inside a twodimensional engine exhaust nozzle. 18. The system of claim 12 comprising actuators serving to rotate said thrust vectoring control means and louvers in synchronized motions with other conventional control means of the same vehicle.

Patent Citations (11) Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

US2950595A *1954-11-011960-08-30Marquardt Corp Thrust reverser US3113428A *1957-03-131963-12-10Rolls Royce Silenced jet propulsion nozzle with thrust reversing means US3344604A *1965-12-141967-10-03Gen Dynamics Corp Apparatus for selectively reversing the thrust of front fan jet engines US3515361A *1966-09-121970-06-02Albert W Blackburn Control of aircraft by deflection of propulsion gases US3618323A *1968-09-141971-11-09Rolls Royce Combined fan turbine flow control and thrust reversing means US3685737A *1970-09-111972-08-22Rohr Corp Thrust controlling apparatus US3743184A *1972-07-071973-07-03Us Navy Cylindrical throat nozzle with movable sonic blades for obtaining dual area throat and thrust vector control US4356973A *1980-07-071982-11-02Rohr Industries, Inc. Thrust reverser geared linkage US4667899A *1984-11-281987-05-26General Dynamics, Pomona Division Double swing wing self-erecting missile wing structure US4838502A *1988-03-161989-06-13The Boeing Company Resiliently deployable fairing for sealing an airframe cavity US5511745A *1994-12-301996-04-30Thiokol Corporation Vectorable nozzle having jet vanes Family To Family Citations * Cited by examiner, â&#x20AC; Cited by third party

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

Cited By (17) Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title US6259976B11999-09-252001-07-10Jerome H. LemelsonFuzzy logic based emergency flight control with thrust vectoring US20060169508A1 *2005-01-182006-08-03Trojahn Charles JAir cushion vehicle and game WO2008045091A12006-10-122008-04-17United Technologies CorporationGas turbine engine fan variable area nozzle with swivalable insert system WO2008045067A12006-10-122008-04-17United Technologies Corporation Translating core cowl having aerodynamic flap sections WO2008045089A12006-10-122008-04-17United Technologies CorporationCore cowl airfoil for a gas turbine engine WO2008045065A12006-10-122008-04-17United Technologies Corporation Controlling ice buildup on aircraft engine and nacelle static and rotating components WO2008108847A1 *2007-03-052008-09-12United Technologies CorporationFan variable area nozzle for a gas turbine engine fan nacelle with drive ring actuation system US20100000220A1 *2006-10-122010-01-07Zaffir ChaudhryFan variable area nozzle with electromechanical actuator US20100005778A1 *2006-10-122010-01-14Zaffir ChaudhryFan variable area nozzle with cable actuator system US20100269485A1 *2006-10-122010-10-28Jain Ashok KIntegrated variable area nozzle and thrust reversing mechanism US20110121128A1 *2009-11-232011-05-26Balkus Jr Carl EHelicopter Auxilary Anti-Torque System US20130170950A1 *2007-06-282013-07-04United Technologies Corporation Variable shape inlet section for a nacelle assembly of a gas turbine engine US20150226156A1 *2013-08-052015-08-13United Technologies Corporation Non-Axisymmetric Fixed or Variable Fan Nozzle for Boundary Layer Ingestion Propulsion

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

US20170030296A1 *2015-07-282017-02-02Rohr, Inc.Thrust reverser providing increased blocker door leakage US9574519B2 *2013-08-232017-02-21Rohr, Inc.Multi surface blocker door system and apparatus US9670877B22013-07-152017-06-06United Technologies CorporationLink arm drag reducing device EP2562082A3 *2011-08-222017-11-22Rolls-Royce plcAn aircraft propulsion system and a method of controlling the same Family To Family Citations * Cited by examiner, â&#x20AC; Cited by third party, â&#x20AC;Ą Family to family citation

Similar Documents Publication, Publication Date Title US3592412A1971-07-13Convertible aircraft US3779010A1973-12-18Combined thrust reversing and throat varying mechanism for a gas turbine engine EP1438494B12017-01-04Confluent variable exhaust nozzle RU2218290C22003-12-10System for conversion of self-supported horizontal flight and horizontal takeoff aircraft into hybrid combination self-supported horizontal flight aircraft at vertical takeoff US6340135B12002-01-22Translating independently mounted air inlet system for aircraft turbofan jet engine CA2517563C2012-02-21Rotary adjustable exhaust nozzle EP1206384B12007-01-24Supersonic external-compression diffuser and method for designing same US5115996A1992-05-26Vtol aircraft EP0630807A11994-12-28Supersonic aircraft and method US5806302A1998-09-15Variable fan exhaust area nozzle for aircraft gas turbine engine with thrust reverser US4171183A1979-10-16Multi-bladed, high speed prop-fan CA1037933A1978-09-05Vertical takeoff and landing aircraft 32

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

US5529263A1996-06-25Supersonic airplane with subsonic boost engine means and method of operating the same EP2364401B12017-07-19Radially translating fan nozzle nacelle US8661781B22014-03-04Counter rotating fan design and variable blade row spacing optimization for low environmental impact US8869507B22014-10-28Translatable cascade thrust reverser US7162859B22007-01-16Variable cycle propulsion system with gas tapping for a supersonic airplane, and a method of operation EP1470328B12007-03-28Turbofan exhaust nozzle and method of reducing noise in such a nozzle US4050242A1977-09-27Multiple bypass-duct turbofan with annular flow plug nozzle and method of operating same US20030098388A12003-05-29Circular vertical take off &amp; landing aircraft US8127532B22012-03-06Pivoting fan nozzle nacelle JP2815206B21998-10-27Gas turbine jet engine US5351911A1994-10-04Vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) flying disc JP2004526619A2004-09-02High-speed aircraft of integrated and / or module system US6938408B22005-09-06Thrust vectoring and variable exhaust area for jet engine nozzle

Priority And Related Applications Priority Applications (1) Application Priority date Filing date Title US08/516,8701995-08-181995-08-18Thrust vectoring/reversing systems Applications Claiming Priority (1) ApplicationFiling dateTitle US08/516,8701995-08-18Thrust vectoring/reversing systems

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

Legal Events Date Code Title Description 2002-02-13 REMI Maintenance fee reminder mailed 2002-06-17 SULP Surcharge for late payment 2002-06-17 F PAY Fee payment Year of fee payment: 4 2006-02-08 RE MI Maintenance fee reminder mailed 2006-07-21 LAPS Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees 2006-08-23 STCH Information on status: patent discontinuation Free format text: PATENT EXPIRED DUE TO NON PAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEES UNDER 37 CFR 1.362 2006-09-19 FP-Expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee Effective date: 2006 07 21 Data provided by IFI CLAIMS Patent Services About Send Feedback Public Datasets Terms Privacy Policy

__________

TWO COURT ACTIONS AGAINST BOEING: (a) Case 1:19-cv-03289 40-page Complaint Judge Charles P. Kocoras Magistrate Judge M. David Weisman (b) Intervention-by-Right in 40+ cases against Boeing Consolidated Actions Boeing-737-Max-8-Crashes Judge Thomas M. Durkin Only Case (b) "Amended Intervention-by-Right"- copy is attached next.

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PASTOR, I. G. ABERIN, "MESSIANIC JEWS",§ § MONICA C. FERNANDEZ, § To: Judge Thomas M. Durkin, DAVID F. GALOR, intervention-by-right in consolidated BENJAMIN GAL-OR, Boeing-737-Max-8 Cases, e.g. 18-cv-07686; Applicants-Plaintiffs 19-cv-02394; ...1924; ... 2597; ... v. THE BOEING COMPANY Defendant

§ § § § JURY DEMAND

AMENDED "Intervention-By-Right" Reasons 737-MAX-8-Plaintiffs Should be Jury-Awarded Additional Relief 1. Pursuant to FRCP Rule 24(a), 26, U.S.C. 28A, this Intervention-by-Right is based on: 2. Federal statute explicitly conferring on these applicants unconditional right to intervene, 3. Applicants-plaintiffs' claims-of-interest relate to property or transaction of 737-MAX-8-Cases-Plaintiffs that should be Jury-Awarded additional relief for the following reasons: 4. KNOWINGLY, and protected by its criminal retaliations, Boeing designs, produces and delivers stall-(image-above)-sensitive, dangerous, sometimesdeadly, Aeronautics-Only-Obsolete-Flight-control (AOOF), as the AOOF-causing the B-737-Max-8Catastrophes, rather than the well proven U.S.-F-22-Safety-Inspired-Standard [E.g., defined by U.S. Patent 5,782,431] and enthusiastically praised-funded by FAA-20-Pilots, later Aerospace America, Aviation Week & International Aviation Conferences in China, Russia, Germany. 5.

Without changing engines or airframes, the F-22-Raptor-inspired-safety-revolution easily upgrades all (MANDATORY) air transports THRUST-REVERSERS to easily recover from ANY

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

6. Stall situation in takeoff, in flight, or in landing under strong side-winds, or during recovering from most pilot-errors, AND from ANY 7. Failure of all airframe hydraulics [jet-engines operate their own], AND from ANY 8. Failure of obsolete flight-control that causes, e.g., BOEING-737-Max-8-Catastrophes. 9. WORLD IMPACT was expected to positively affect all air passengers and airlines. 10. GLOBAL INDUSTRIAL BENEFITS were expected by marketing add-on-safety-kits manufactured

the

U.S.

thrust-reversing,

jet-engines-nacelles

companies:

www.zauba.com/importanalysis-thrust+reverser-report.html www.zauba.com/USA-import-data-analysisthrust+reverser/weight-501-1500/unit-PCS-report.html]. 11. But this SUPERIOR-FLIGHT-SAFETY-STANDARD WAS REFUSED BY BOEING. 12. SAFE-TO-FLY-IN-(moderate)-STALL STANDARD, [''STOFIS"] requires add-on, low-cost, simpledesigned-kits installed-in and integrated-with any and all Thrust-Reversers, which are mandatory on all extant and future air transports. 13. Under civil and criminal law, including prosecution under 18 U.S.C. Â§Â§ 1831-1839, charges below against Boeing are presented for KNOWINGLY, that its non-stop-denial of F-22-inspired-standard, would cause more to die in stall-induced crashes. 14. Furthermore, by DENYING the highest-feasible, F-22-inspired, re-certification-standard defined by US PATENT 5,782,431 and FAA-funded ACD-210, X88/0/6FA/921000/4104/T1706-STOFIS-project, Boeing liability is clearly determined. 15. Contended Conclusion: For the aforementioned reasons, the Court and JURY should award additional Relief to: (i) Consolidated-Boeing-737-Max-8-plaintiffs, (ii) Stand-Alone-737-Max-8-plaintiffs, (iii) Cases-Plaintiffs charging FAA-for criminally yielding to Boeing dictates, or for conspiring with Boeing's reported "poisoned, diseased philosophy".

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

16: In short: Cited FAA-REPORT, patent and minimal exhibits presented herein, provide the Court and Jury with verifiable engineering-evidence-proof of original, cause-of-action of B-737-Max-8-criminallyinduced-catastrophes, and beyond, by-prayed-revived-revolution. 17. RELEVANT, COURT-ADMISSIBLE-INFORMATION on: (i) Union-of-pilots accusing Boeing of "poisoned,

diseased

philosophy"

and

designing

"irrecoverable"

air-passengers

transports,

[www.businessinsider.com/2nd-boeing-737-max-crash-preventable-listening-pilots-union-says, (ii) 70Court-Documented-Boeing-Misconducts cited below, (iii) $1.5 billion civil and criminal Boeing-paidpenalties, (cited below), that, combined, with the aforementioned verifiable facts, lead to a contended, much further beyond conclusion: 18. Neither large-penalties, nor punishing individuals, can stop, change or repair reported Boeing's "Poisoned-Diseased-Philosophy" and its dictum: WE-ARE-SAFETY. PERIOD, as imposed on pilots, air passengers, airlines and GOV-Agencies. This dictum-"culture"-practice'' is tantamount to Deep-Rooted-Aviation Corruption, that only leads to growing trust-loss in whatever Boeing argues, predicts, states and signs under its fastdiminishing global reputation -- compelling federal issues, questions and reasons whose expected-outcome-verdicts would affect not only the future flight safety of all in the United States, but in all interconnected-nations, 19. Back to this intervention by right, a need arises for multi-national-panels and investigations of GOLIATBoeing's past-to-present contracts, billing-to-and-pays-by-Government, the legality-of-Boeing's-HiredCongress-Government-Lobbying-Armies, the ulterior drives of Boeing's countless misconducts cited below and of its president invitation shown next.

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

20. Known v. Unknown Reasons Behind Boeing President's Invitation: KNOWN: Declined profits from classified cruise missile program that was reportedly terminated for not being stealthy enough, or agile enough, and its Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) proposal to THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, was denied or rejected for not featuring required Stealth and Super Agility, or "supermaneuverability".

Should that be associated with the following Boeing Profile? Newly-Discovered 70 Boeing Misconducts | $1.459 billion in penalties

21.

[15 additional in Federal Contractor Misconduct Database (FCMD)]: Date

Total

Instance

Penalty

$1,459,435,145

5/15/2006

Illegal Hiring of Government Officials and Improper $615,000,000 Use of Proprietary Information, Boeing Company 3/28/2019 737 Max 8 Crashes Civil Litigation; Boeing Company; Pending 4/9/2019 737 Max 8 Crashes Shareholder Litigation; Boeing Company; Pending 2018-2019 1:18-cv-07686; 1:19-cv-01924; ... 02394, ... 2597; etc. Pending 9/29/2004 9/29/1998 9/21/2001 9/2/2008 9/1/1997 8/3/2000 8/2/2000 8/13/2009 8/13/1998 8/11/2009 7/31/2014 7/29/2013 7/28/2010 7/17/2009 7/16/2007 6/7/2012 6/30/2008

Delivering Military Aircraft Containing Russian Titanium $7,400,000 (Berry Amendment Violation); Boeing Company; Defense Services to Russia and Elsewhere (Arms Export $10,000,000 Control Act Violation); Boeing Company Werbowsky, et al. v. Boeing et al. (Securities Class Action) $92,500,000 Boeing Company Inflating the Price of B-1 Bomber Towed Decoy System $4,000,000 Boeing Company 777 Aircraft Program (Unallowed Costs); Boeing Company $6,000,000 Roby v. Boeing (Defective Chinook Helicopters); Boeing $54,000,000 Company Aircraft Quality Control Problems; Boeing Company $1,241,000 Defective Work and Overbilling on KC-10; Boeing Company $25,000,000 Defective Pricing; Boeing Company $1,850,000 Quintana v. Boeing (KC-135 Overbilling); Boeing Company $2,000,000 Failure to Negotiate in Good Faith With SPEEA; Boeing Com $0 Redd et al. v. Goodrich Corporation et al. (Product Liability) Pending Boeing Company, Rolls-Royce PLC December 2008 Hornet Jet Crash; Boeing Company Pending Bogota, Colombia Forced Landing Lawsuit; Boeing Company Pending KC-135 and RC-135 Overbilling; Boeing Company $1,093,236 Allison v. Boeing, et al. (Airplane Crash) Pending Boeing Company, United Technologies Corporation Exceeding Limits on Purchases From Foreign Suppliers; Boeing $ $3,000,000

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

Date 6/3/2011 6/27/2011 5/3/2011 5/16/2003 4/4/2003 3/4/2003 3/30/2001 3/28/2006 2/22/2016 2/18/2005 12/10/2012 11/19/1997 11/14/2001 11/1/2012 10/7/2011 10/21/2008 10/16/2013 10/14/2015 10/10/2014 10/1/2014 1/23/2014 1/20/2012 1/15/2010

Instance

Penalty

SolidFX v. Jeppesen Sanderson (Breach of Contract, Fraud); $$43,718,205 Boeing Company Improperly Installed Oxygen Systems on B-777 Airliners; $1,050,000 Boeing Company Contract Pricing Problems at Corpus Christi Army Depot; Boeing C $1,600,000 Company Defective Apache Helicopter Fuzz Busters $3,325,000 July 2013 Asiana Airlines Crash; Boeing Company Pending Uncertified Welders (False Claims Act); Boeing Company $492,164 Arms Export Control Act Violation (Transfer of Rocket Data to China); $6,000,000 Boeing Company Wedgetail Project (Arms Export Control Act Violation); Boeing Company $4,200,000 Arms Export Control Act Violation (QRS-11 Gyrochip); Boeing Co $$$$$$15,000,000 Bisht, et al. v. Boeing (Investor Class-Action Lawsuit); Boeing Company Pending United States v. Michael M. Sears (Boeing CFO); Boeing Company $250,000 Time Card Fraud at Integrated Defense Systems Facility; Boeing Company $400,066 Oberman v. McDonnell Douglas (C-17 overcharge); Boeing Company $2,000,000 Machine Tools Export Violation (China); Boeing Company $2,120,000 Violation of SPEEA Collective Bargaining Agreements; Boeing Company$$47,000,000 Alabama Aircraft Industries v. Boeing (Stealing Proprietary Information) Pending Boeing Company ICO Global Telecommunications v. Boeing (Breach of Contract); Boeing $10,000,000 Company October 2010 American Airlines Flight 1640 Emergency Landing; Boeing $2,271,652 Company U.S. ex rel. Webb v. Boeing (Improper Labor Charges); Boeing Company $18,115,000 U.S. ex rel. Craddock v. Boeing (Improper Labor Charges); Boeing Company $23,000,000 Intelligence Contract Time and Attendance Fraud; Boeing Company $24,024 Cancellation of A-12 Program; Boeing Co, General Dynamics

$200,000,00

Improper Billing on the Chinook Helicopter Program; Boeing Company Bond v. Boeing (Whistleblower Retaliation); Boeing Company

$4,392,780 Pending

•

22.

"Boeing to Pay U.S. Record $615 Million to Resolve Fraud Allegations"

23.

06-412, FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, FRIDAY, JUNE 30, 2006, WWW.USDOJ.GOV

https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2006/June/06_civ_412.html 24. "The United States reached final agreement with The Boeing Company on a record $615 million settlement. The $615 million settlement includes a $565 million civil settlement and a $50 million monetary penalty according to a separate criminal agreement. In documents filed with the criminal court, Druyun admitted that Boeing’s favors in hiring her children and in offering her a position influenced her contracting decisions. Boeing’s low pricing leading the Air Force to favor Boeing in awarding it 19 of the original 28 launch services contracts awarded in October 1998. Prior to this award, Boeing obtained more

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

than 22,000 pages of documents from Lockheed Martin, certain of which contained confidential competitionsensitive or other proprietary information that related to Lockheed’s EELV program and that some of this information was used to unfairly assist Boeing in the EELV competition. Boeing’s conduct resulted in a record 20-month suspension of three of its business units from government contracting.

25.

AMENDED "Intervention-By-Right"

26. Reasons 737-MAX-8-Plaintiffs Should be Jury-Awarded Additional Relief

. CLAIMS and PRAYERS FOR JURY-RELIEF

28. Wherefore, for the aforementioned reasons, this Amended "Intervention-By-Right" is submitted herein as Stand-Alone-Group-of-5-Claims prayed to be awarded according to:

29. CLAIM I*: Charging Defendant, The Boeing Company, to compensate (i) Consolidated-Boeing-737Max-8-Cases-Plaintiffs, (ii) Stand-Alone Boeing-737-Max-8-Cases-Plaintiffs, (iii) Plaintiffs charging FAA for (a) criminally yielding to Boeing's aforementioned criminal acts and "poisoned" dictates, (b) knowingly, FAA conspiring with Boeing's reported "poisoned, diseased philosophy", [as partly mirrored by relevant-70-Boeing-Misconducts, (§§ 21 to 24)], (c) For accumulated reasons defined and identified by §§ 4 to 19, [but not limited by], (d) For built deadly designs into all Boeing AOOF-Flight control rather than under FAA-F-22-INSPIRED-SAFETY-STANDARD DEFINED BY U.S. PATENT5,782,431 as defined above and presented herein before the Court and JURY, who should award these three-groups Plaintiffs with additional relief.

30. CLAIM II*: Charged herein against Boeing Company to compensate Applicant-Plaintiff Prof.-Dr. Benjamin Gal-OR, ("BG"), [and through BG, the additional three Applicant-Plaintiffs], for

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

31. (A) KNOWINGLY, and protected by its criminal retaliations, Boeing designs, produces and delivers stall-sensitive, dangerous, often-deadly, Aeronautics-Only-Obsolete-Flight-control (AOOF), as the AOOF-causing the B-737-Max-8-Catastrophes, rather than the well proven U.S.-F-22-Safety-InspiredStandard [E.g., defined by U.S. Patent 5,782,431] and enthusiastically praised by FAA-20-Pilots, Aerospace America, Aviation Week and International Aviation Conferences in China, Russia and Germany. 32. (B) Aforementioned Boeing's criminal retaliations caused, induced and inflicted, inside the United States Territories, irreversible, unequivocal loss of net $3.1 million income per year during 24 years since 1995*, (plus due legal, Court-approved, accumulated commercial interest), especially for causing loss of upgrading, extant, mandatory-TR-market supported by F-22-Modified-STOFIS-STANDARD, published and protected by US PATENT 5,782,431, which Boeing has been-criminally forcing FAA not to be imposed on it, first by FAA-funding-termination of BOEING-STOFIS-727 flight testing ACD-210, X88/0/6FA/921000/4104/T1706-project, just before proceeding to 2nd-year-funding of flight-testing STOFIS-B-737, STOFIS-B-747, STOFIS-MD-10, etc., AND for 33. (C) Effecting Frauds-on-Federal-Courts, such as there is no patent, no alleged damage, no alleged loss, no alleged-contract-breach with an unsolicited, non-American, coming here to charge Boeing with baseless, frivolous, bad-faith-allegations. 34. These, together, are charged against Boeing, plus the next:

CLAIM III*: Incorporating herein Claim-II vis-Ă -vis Boeing's additional caused and inflicted

34.

average annual $3.1 million net income lost from EXPORT during 1995-2019, namely $3.1 million times 24, as in Claim II (plus due legal, Court-approved accumulated commercial interest), specifically charged for 35. (D) Boeing's caused LARGE-GLOBAL-MARKET-EXPORT-LOSS of U.S. MANUFACTURING of

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

FAA-APPROVED flight-safety-kits, AND EXPORT OF U.S. certification of MANDATORY THRUSTREVERSERS IN POTENTIAL GLOBAL TR-MARKETS that had been intentionally destroyed by Boeing:

https://www.zauba.com/importanalysis-thrust+reverser-report.html

and

https://www.zauba.com/USA-import-data-analysis-thrust+reverser/weight-501-1500/unit-PCSreport.html *

36. CLAIM IV: Charging Boeing for unspecified amount for health-induced or caused damages, inter alia for life-quality-reduction with expected-life-longevity-reduction, accelerated by Boeing's non-stop, criminal retaliations AND its other, aforementioned actions, allegedly giving rise to (a) aggressive, Grade-D Colon Cancer [which had not been in the family before], (b) 1998-HADASA-HOSPITALJerusalem-operation, (c) 21-years treatments in hospitals, doctors-clinics, care-providers, medicines, transportation to Israel, EU, U.S., Philippines, (d) TEMPORARY STROKE diagnosed in Florida, U.S. post litigation against Boeing, that led to heart-stent-operation in St LUKE'S HOSPITAL, MANILA, in 2008.

37. CLAIM V: Charging Boeing for non-stop retaliations AND for its other aforementioned actions that adversely affect and reduce creation-time-ability to upgrade two revolutions: 38. New Astrophysical Thermodynamics based on Einsteinian-Gravitational-General-Relativistic-Dynamics, and JETONAUTICS-STEALTH-REVOLUTION, civil and military. ____________

* 1.

BRIEF REVIEW OF SOME RELEVANT SIMULATIONS

FAA cooperates as during funding of 14%-scaled STOFIS-BOEING-727, 737, 747, MD flight tests.

2. STANDARD of SAFE-TO-FLY-IN-(moderate)-STALL [''STOFIS"] is define in §§ 4 to 12.

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

3. STOFIS links from TR to pilot-stick are NOT as in

F-22-Raptor-Thrust-Vectoring-Engine-to-Pilot.

4. STOFIS links from mandatory TR-to-Pilot remain invariant, except extra link to pilot stick. 5. Optional-pilot-stick-system-designs: GRADUAL, ASYMMETRIC TR, [U.S. Patent 5,782,431]. 6. FIRST to be TR-STOFIS-Certified:

Private Jets with large jet engines in the back.

7. R&D AND COMPONENT GROUND TESTS:

LIMITED TO TR Manufacturers.

8. FAA TR-STOFIS-CERTIFICATION ARE FIRST WITHOUT

AIRFRAMERS.

9. Models do not specify FAA or venture capital sources prior to net income [may begin 12 years later]. 10. Models do not assume a new company to train STOFIS jet pilots. 11. FAA MAY BE ABLE TO CERTIFY THE FIRST STOFIS private jet 6 to 8 years post project start. 12. A FIRST AIRLINE ORDER MAY NOT BE BEFORE 10-15 years from project start. 13. NET INCOME MAY BEGIN 10-15 years post project start. 14. NET ANNUAL INCOME MAY PASS $20-40 million post 20 years from project start. 15. "Average", net annual income for 24 years post start: $2-4 million/yr, categories-dependent.

16.

Categories of Future Safest-Flight-Revolution:

17. PRIVATE JETS. 18. Extant jet transports. ** 19. Next-Generation private and jet transports. 20. Extant turbo-jet transports. 21. Safer, Tail-Less-Helicopters may be certified. 22. U.S. FAA ALONE LEADS ALL REVISED REGULATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS.

______________________________ ** As to the B-737-MAX-8-DESIGN "FIX": There is only one reliable FIX: Modify Engine TR.

APPENDIX A

39. Court Leave pleaded herein to SUBMIT supplements to this Amended Intervention-by-Right, e.g., Public-Notary-Certified Additional Exhibits, Records, Reports, References, Names, phone numbers, dates, known last locations, relevant Monetary Accounts, e.g.: a.

All original, 7 PIA-filed pages, and references cited

4 original and 4 translation pages of A78402, 80532,106145,106165.

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

Source of unclassified PIA-IMPORT BECOMING U.S. Patent 5,782,431.

Classified Israeli Committee vs. PIA-A78402-BASED EXPORT TO BOEING.

8-YEARS LITIGATION IN ISRAEL v. PRIME MINISTER BELATED ORDER

THE 1994 RELIEF PROVIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ISRAEL.

FIRST THEFT ATTEMPT OF PIA-78402-BASED-IP on AIR-COMBAT DESIGNS.

FIRST CRIMINAL RETALIATION AGAINST BG AT USAF-WPAFB DEFUSED.

CRIMINAL ACTIONS OF USAF-WPAFB-FLIGHT-DYNAMICS EMPLOYEE.

X-36-DEFRAUDING AMERICAN TAXPAYERS, GAO, CONGRESS, USG, BG.

RECORDS EXCERPTS of FRAUDS-ON-FEDERAL-COURTS.

WHISTLEBLOWER BG ON DOTAN/GE-FRAUDS-$69.5 million pay back to USG.

Cobra-SACOM, 1982-1987 lab-ground tests, early first flights, [3 Videos].

Photos, drawing and diagrams of Shirley Tark Jet Engines Laboratory, JEL, TIIT.

Photos-data of Tailless, Stealth early WIND TUNNELING TESTED MODELS.

How A78402 inventions are full-scale evaluated by the JEL laboratory.

How SACOM are calibrated for first in history stealth-JES flight-tests.

Post-stall instrumentation for PROTOTYPES to be flight tested, [Video]

Two-computers/VIDEO-instrumentation-calibration-recording methods.

Mathematical formulations of flight-tested civil and military full-scale prototypes.

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

Report/video: 1987-invited-visit-tvideo-

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

U.S. AIR FORCE & NATO DEFINITIONS, [U.S., UK, GERMANY, JAPAN] "Benjamin Gal-Or & Wolfgang Herbst have influenced the direction of fighter aircraft design." â&#x20AC;&#x153;Many of Gal-Or's ideas, and those of Herbst, are now being tested and flown operationally", "Their technology will offer new challenges." "Solving the inevitable human points problems that will emerge, involve questioning established doctrine and reaching for innovative and imaginative solution."

FAA 1995 STUDY: SAFEST FLIGHT is based on US Patent 5782431; In-Court-Claims v. Boeing

https://www.sto.nato.int/publications/.../RTO-TR-015/TR-015-$$ALL.pdf; (1)

2 VIDEOS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7845hysKs2s, [Short video introduction]

(2)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-YK6vTiINI, [Long video with captions].

Respectfully signed and submitted on

....... 3rd and 12 ...... of JUNE 2019, by

PASTOR Ireneo Gapuz Aberin of "MESSIANIC JEWS", maintaining religious activities at 2292 Emerald Street, Corner with Ruby Street, Rocka Village II, Tabang, Plaridel City, Bulacan, Philippines 3004, TEL. +63-906-386-1759, EMAIL igaberin@yahoo.com MONICA C. FERNANDEZ, residing at family residence at Baldosa Street, Phase 3, Block 10, Lot 11, La-Residencia, Calumpit, Bulacan, Philippines 3003, TEL +63-949-564-9788, email galor1benjamin@gmail.com DAVID FERNANDEZ GALOR, Minor residing with his family at same address. Corresponding Applicant-Plaintiff: Prof.-Dr. Benjamin Gal-Or, residing with his family at same address and same email.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THIS AMENDED INTERVENTION-BY-RIGHT REPLACES THE FIRST, MAY-30-2019 DELIVERED AND SIGNED FOR BY PETER W (LBC TRACKING No.

191392385078].

Following reading and understanding of the various notes and instructions posted by HON JUDGE Thomas M. Durkin, we, the undersigned, by LBC special delivery, air-express,

AMENDED "Intervention-By-Right" FAA-Report and Patent prove "irrecoverable" safe flight means of all Boeing' transports to the HON JUDGE Thomas M. Durkin, at Chambers 1446, U.S. COURTHOUSE, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL, 60604, USA, Tel 312 435 5840 or ... 6870 and on 06/12/2019 with Court Filed Summons via LBC

Express Tacking Numbers 191392385098 1913-9238-5116

Respectfully signed and submitted on .......3rd and 12..... of JUNE 2019 by Signature of PASTOR Ireneo Gapuz Aberin for "MESSIANIC JEWS", /s/ Signature of MONICA C. FERNANDEZ, /s/ Signature of DAVID FERNANDEZ GALOR, /s/ Corresponding Applicant-Plaintiff, Signature of Prof.-Dr. Benjamin Gal-Or. /s/