HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wsbusr3@rwb.urc.tue.nl (Pieter Filius)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: PARAGLIDING; cheapest Icarussyndrome medicine?
Keywords: flight, joy, paragliders, looking stupefying fluorescent and all
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:05:10 GMT
Reply-To: wsbusr3@urc.tue.nl


  
  Hello regular sci.aeronautics readers and casual lurkers, 
 
  Since I failed to find a group matching 'hang-', 'para-' or just plain
  'gliding' I suspect some people on this group might help me out.
  Although science probably comes in somewhere, the simple Joy of Flight
  syndrome, the thrill of absolute control, the fulfillment of a youth's
  dream and all such thoughts that come to mind before crashing at
  unnecessary high speeds on a summer's day must be the very base
  that is shared by the majority of this group's posters - or so I hope.
 
  Therefore I dare to ask the following surprisingly dull questions:
  
  * WHO is heavily into hang- or paragliding?
  * And feels like supplying me with ANY data at all w.r.t. that mistake, 
    especially: - Great places (in Europe) to go for that
                - Prices of equipment in general
                - Usual deathrates in this line of business (It won't stop
                  me from going to try it - just to freshen my sense of
                  responsibility) (Do reports with comments exist on it?)
                - ... and furthermore: anyhting that spring to mind
                  and you feel like sharing with a complete stranger.
   
  I understood paragliding is a low cost, easy to learn and pretty safe
  way to initiate a hobby in this field ...
  
  Responses wrt ANY of the questions above please to
  at073@cleveland.freenet.edu
  or simply to this group.  
  
  Thanks in advance!
 
  With kind regards, 
  as well as only a minor experience in gliding, 
  cheers!
  Rowdy Blokland. (The Netherlands)
From: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Flying Car--Innovative Lift System?
Date: 18 Dec 92 16:46:34 GMT
Reply-To: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.  Engineering

In article <1992Dec17.213126.3022@cirrus.com>, gopal@cirrus.com (Gopal 
Ramachandran) writes:
> 	In the F104, which has very short wingspan (22 feet?) and high
> wing loading (25000 lbs weight ?) they took bleed air from the jet
> engine and blew it back over the flaps to keep the airflow attached at
> high angles of attack. I hear the problem was the engine had to be at
> 80% RPM or more to keep landing speeds reasonable, and that the
> scariest thing to practise was deadstick landings in an F104. No
> engine, no BLC, and approach speeds were probably 190 KIAS + with the
> nose pitched up so high the runway couldnt be seen on final (sort of
> like a Pitts).


According to Ron Bauman, who was a test pilot in the RCAF, and test
flew the CF-104G for the RCAF, anything below 92% power was suicide
when configured in the landing configuration.  He says they used
92% with flaps, gear and everything else hanging out to land.  Approach
was started at 220 KIAS, and bled off to about 170 KIAS (195.632 MPH) 
on short final.



Tom Pickett 
tpickett@auspex.com or 74616.2237@compuserve.com
SHO  GOZE
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: lorcan@avistic.demon.co.uk (Lorcan Mongey)
Reply-To: lorcan@avistic.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: SILENT HELICOPTER
X-Mailer: ReaderS for the Acorn Archimedes
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:18:49 +0000

In article <1992Dec6.235739.9736@athena.mit.edu> cid@athena.mit.edu
(Derek H Cedillo) writes:

> And, damn was that an impressive sight.  Id love to see the Mi-24 hind.
> Only one bigger than the 53 series 
 
Don't you mean the Mi-26 Halo? The Hind is a helicopter gunship and
considerably smaller than the 53.
 
Lorcan
From: gandalf@wpi.WPI.EDU (James Michael Sambrook)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Mach 1 is also density dependent
Date: 16 Dec 1992 15:51:52 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu
Summary: Right from a Gas Dynamics Book...

In article <1gnia0INNnev@rave.larc.nasa.gov> turnock@eagle.larc.nasa.gov (D. L. TURNOCK) writes:
>In article <1gn95vINNq3s@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, br105@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeffrey A. Del Col) writes:
>> 
>> If I am not mistaken, Mach 1 is also dependent on the density of
>> the transmitting medium. Mach 1 is faster in water than in air, and it
>> is higher at lower altitudes than at higher altitudes largely because of
>> the difference in air density. 
>> \
>>
>The speed of sound in any medium is
>
>						a  = SQRT(gamma*R*T)
>
>      a = speed of sound
>      gamma = ratio of specific heats - cp/cv
>      R = gas constant for particular gas
>      T = temperature (absolute)
>
>This should work for any gas

Yep, that's what my book says :^)

>
>Speed of sound (Mach 1) is largely used only for compressible flow.
>
>The speed of sound in a liquid or solid is at least an order of magnitude 
>greater than in a gas and is usually termed incompressible flow in which Mach
>number has no part.
>
>Hope this helps.

Another method for determining the speed of sound in ANY medium is to take the
sound wave as a weak compression wave travelling through a medium.  As the
compression wave passes through the medium, the pressure and the density of the
medium change.  The speed of sound is the square root of the ratio of the rates
of these changes...in other words...

		speed of sound = sqrt (d P / d rho)

In the above equation, the "d"s are really Partial Derivatives.  Now, assuming
this wave to be isentropic, this partial derivative must be taken with respect
to the entropy.  (Because in an isentropic system, the entropy remains
constant)
									
What's REALLY neat about this equation is that it says that, in a totally
incompressible substance, the speed of the compression wave is INFINITE!!! 
This fact does make sense, in a manner of speaking.  If the medium cannot be
compressed, then each molecule will react to the disturbance at the same time,
and the entire substance will move at the EXACT same time!!!

(Maybe my professor will see this article, and give me some bonus points?  :^)

Just thought I'd add my ideas to this discussion...

James Sambrook...A Nuclear and Aerospace Engineer at WPI

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: prasanth@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Ravi K. Prasanth)
Subject: Re: Mach 1 is also density dependent
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 92 01:02:11 GMT

In article <1gq9h0INN7ld@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, gandalf@wpi.WPI.EDU (James Michael Sambrook) writes:
> 			
> to that of the speed of light in the medium of the core (assume it to be air:
> c about= 3E+8 m/s)  As the electrons pass through the boundary of the core, and
> enter the moderator (assume water) the electrons are moving FASTER THAN THE
> SPEED OF LIGHT IN WATER!  This is allowed, believe it or not, and the result is
> a really nice blue glow around the core.
>

I have difficulty believing it. Since electrons have non-zero
rest mass, their motion in any medium at the speed of light 
should (may) produce enough heat to locally ionize the medium.
Wouldnt the electrons be lost in recombination ? The other
thing that is puzzling me is: how does one measure the speed
of something that is travelling faster than light ?


> sound in a diamond (which is the most incompressible substance I
> know of...), 

You mean most incompressible after black holes :-)

> Until next time...
> 
> *              James Michael Sambrook, Aerospace AND Nuclear Engineer         *
> *                  "Are you nuts?"           "Nope, just insane!"             *

RKP
From: tjgerman@53iss6.Waterloo.NCR.COM (Trevor German)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: MACH 8
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:42:48 GMT
Organization: Imaging Systems Division, NCR Corp, Waterloo, Ont., CANADA


	I have been following the thread about the Mach 8 spy plane
	and have a general question. What exactly is MACH 1. I understood
	it to be the speed of sound at sea level (or more accurately at
	an air pressure defined to be sea level). Is this the case or is
	MACH 1 the speed of sound at any pressure, ie is MACH1 a higher
	ground speed at 100,000 than it is at sea level. 

	If it is the former (ie sound speed at sea level) does a high
	altitude MACH 8 plane actually break the speed of sound at that
	altitude.

	If it is the later (ie pressure dependend) how fast would a
	Mach 8 plane be going in ground speed. 
	
	I would also like to know how high these things fly. I know it
	is very high indeed 100,000+ ft.

	Thanks.
--
       >|  "Only average people            | Trevor J German BSc    |<
       >|        never make mistakes."     | NCR, Waterloo, Ontario |<
       >| tjgerman@53iss6.Waterloo.NCR.COM | Canada.                |<
From: Robert.T.Warfield@dartmouth.edu (Robert T. Warfield)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Talking to a mach 8 airplane
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:32:45 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b2@newshost.dartmouth.edu


  If I remember correctly, mission controll in houston can communicate
with and recieve telemetery from the space shuttle shuttle during
launch. Escape velocity is about Mach 25.


**********************************************************************
* Arthur, king of the Britons    * King of the who?                  *
* King of the Brittons!          * Who are the Brittons anyway?      *
* I am, you are, we all are the  *                                   *
* Brittons and I am your king!   * Well, I didn't vote for you.      *
**********************************************************************
Robert T. Warfield@dartmouth.edu
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: smith@cyclone.mitre.org (Ralph N. Smith)
Subject: Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS)
X-Submission-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:21:25 GMT
Organization: Mitre Corporation, McLean, VA
X-Submission-Message-Id: <1992Dec11.172125.27058@linus.mitre.org>
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:42:31 PST

In article <airliners.1992.135@ohare.Chicago.COM> hfunk@src.honeywell.com (Harry Funk) writes:
>
>In article <airliners.1992.116@ohare.Chicago.COM> dmarble@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Duane F Marble) writes:
>>A small point with respect to the material quoted from the New
>>Scientist: Global Positioning System (GPS) birds do not "observe"
>>anything, they just permit a ground based unit to compute it's
>>location.
>
>My guess is that he was referring to Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS)
>systems based on SATCOM, which has even less to to with GPS/Glonass birds.
>
>The planes [would] communicate their positions by means of a satellite link
>to a ground-based tracking/control system.  United currently has a few
>747-400's that are so equipped.  The major benefit envisioned is for
>oceanic routes, where the fixed spacing (slots) system currently used
>results in suboptimal tracks for a number of users of the system.  ADS is
>the successor to the Oceanic Display and Planning System (ODAPS), which I
>think is currently installed at the Oakland and NY Air Route Traffic
>Control Centers (ARTCCs).  

A few clarifying remarks about ADS.  Technically, what United is currently
doing in the Pacific is position reporting, where the aircraft sends a
given set of information to the ground at fixed intervals.  ADS systems
involve more ground interaction, with the ground-based systems
specifying the types of information desired, and the circumstances under
which that information is provided, either periodically or at the
occurrence of certain events in a flight.

Also, there needs to be a differentiation made between the service
provided by the aircraft, in this case ADS, and the communications by
which the information is being sent.  With a proper communications
infrastructure, ADS and other air-ground communications based
applications, can run without being concerned which particular
air-ground data link is carrying the data, whether it be satellite, VHF
radio, or any of a variety of communications links.  ADS can also be
used to retrieve intent information from an aircraft, in addition to
current status information.

Work is currently under way to integrate ADS reporting into the ODAPS
system, rather than replacing it, at least in the near term.  Also, an
ADS-based application is one of the products to be produced by the
Aeronautical Telecommunication Network (ATN) Project (ATNP).  Several
organizations in the aviation community are involved in the ATNP,
including airlines (United is among them), avionics manufacturers, and
the FAA.

The potential benefits of ADS are substantial, including increased
safety, and substantial savings in fuel and flight time.

Ralph N. Smith					ralph@mitre.org
The MITRE Corporation				(703)883-6084
McLean, Virginia

All views and opinions are my own, so don't try to hold my employer
responsible.

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer)
Subject: Re: Safety and design rankings (was Re: Flight controls)
X-Submission-Date: 17 Dec 92 18:47:22 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
X-Submission-Message-Id: <palmer.724618042@news.larc.nasa.gov>
Date: 17 Dec 92 13:27:35 PST

In a previous post, somebody wrote:

>>Every first-generation 737 I've seen has a third seat for the flight
>>engineer.

Then, somebody else wrote:

>Hmm.  I have some vague recollection of a three-man 737, but I think I'm
>thinking of that 767.  The 737 was designed for a two-man crew.  If three-
>man ships were produced, there are precious few of them.  I wasn't able 
>to find any explicit references to three-man variants in my notes.

Well, NASA Langley operates Boeing B-737-100 Hull Number 1.  That's right,
Number 1.  I can tell you for a fact that it was designed for two pilots.


>Be careful to distinguish between a "flight engineer" and someone occupying
>the jump seat.  Quite a few airlines will run a "third man" due to either 
>union pressures, or to provide training experience for new-hires; one often
>sees "transients" (instructors, check pilots, deadheading pilots) in
>the jump seat.

Correct.  However, putting a third pilot on that tiny, flip/fold-down seat
would require hazardous duty pay.  I have ridden in that seat for quite a
few hours, and it is NOT repeat NOT like riding in a 767 cockpit!!  Still,
there is no rear "engineer's station" for a third crewmember anyway.  And
the seat blocks access to the cabin door!  It was never designed for constant
use.

-- 
Michael T. Palmer, M/S 152, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681
Voice: 804-864-2044,   FAX: 804-864-7793,   Email: m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov
RIPEM Public Key available soon --- Consider it an envelope for your e-mail

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: ctillier@phoenix.princeton.edu (Clemens Emmanuel Tillier)
Subject: Re: Control Sticks (was Re: Airbus safety)
X-Submission-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 13:01:53 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
X-Submission-Message-Id: <1992Dec13.130153.3984@Princeton.EDU>
Date: 13 Dec 92 18:07:13 PST

philip@rainbow.mentorg.com (Philip Peake) writes:

(discussion about control technologies deleted)

>I don't seem to have noticed any raving about the TGV, the latest versions of
>which achieve speeds comparable to that of aircraft, and use a side-stick ...
>(yes, I know, French again ...) There is MUCH more prior art in train design,
>and they can write off considerably more people than even a fully loaded 747/400
>if something goes drastically wrong.
>
>Philip

This may be a little bit off the subject, but I think comparison with the TGV
is unwarranted. The engineer in a train has control over only one degree of
freedom of motion; the pilot in an aircraft has control over all three. It is 
therefore not surprising that entrusting so much control to one component will
cause some questions.
Besides, the TGV is utterly devoid of any control sticks... It uses the same
throttle control as previous French locomotives (a horizontal wheel).
Commercial TGV speed (300 kph) is not quite comparable to airliner speed. The
maximum speed ever achieved by a TGV (515 kph) is also lower.

Clem <ctillier@phoenix.princeton.edu>

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: jongsma@esseye.si.com (Ken Jongsma)
Subject: FMS Suppliers (Was: Safety)
X-Submission-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 09:42:37 -0500 (EST)
        <airliners.1992.144@ohare.Chicago.COM>
        <airliners.1992.163@ohare.Chicago.COM>
X-Submission-Message-Id: <m0n1zxO-0001bIC@esseye.si.com>
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:00:43 PST


>>The FMS's used on these airplanes are generally done by Honeywell, except
>>that Boeing's using Smiths Industries for the 737, for some reason.

Perhaps because Smiths offered a better product at the time? Perhaps because
Boeing does not want to depend on one supplier for all it's FMS design?

>Boeing recently made a substantial change to the FMS on new 737s, and
>offers a retrofit kit for older new-generation 737s.  I believe this
>was a replacement ... perhaps away from Smiths?  Having observed the
>trials and tribulations of friends with MGs and their Smiths electrics
>I'm not enthusiastic about a Smiths FMS!  :-)

Ohh... It helps to know a bit about the corporate history before one
makes comments like "Smiths electrics."

OK. The division of Smiths that makes the 737 FMS is located in Grand
Rapids, Michigan. Prior to being purchased by Smiths a few years back,
it used to be known as Lear Siegler, Inc. (LSI) and was originally
formed by Bill Lear, the designer of the Lear Jet.

All of the FMS work that this division does was initiated well before
SI bought the division, so references to UK product lines aren't really
valid.

Some history on the 737 FMS. The original 737-300 FMS was based on work
done for the 727 and early 737s (Performance Data Computer) and a system
that was not fielded called the PNCS.

A few years ago, along with Update 4 of the software, the "Eagle" FMS
hardware was fielded. It had a faster processor and more memory. More
recently, Update 6 came with additional memory. I assume this is the 
update you were refering to.

Next month, the "Dual" FMS will be shipped. This system is a 4 MCU,
two computer system. 

In addition to commercial FMSs, SI also makes the Nav System for all
600+ USAF C-130s. This same system has been installed on some international
C-130s.

(Although I work on the military side of the house, I checked with our
commercial people to verify the above. Obligatory Disclaimer: I speak
for myself...)

Ken

-- 
Ken Jongsma                                          
Smiths Industries                               jongsma@esseye.si.com
Grand Rapids, Michigan                      73115.1041@compuserve.com
From: ncole@nyx.cs.du.edu (Noah Cole)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
Subject: Re: Hysterical movie goof
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:11:44 GMT
Organization: Macalester College, St. Paul Minnesota USA
X-Submission-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 04:11:44 GMT
X-Submission-Message-Id: <1992Dec14.041144.7723@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>

ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:

>I was just watching a movie on TV ("Gotcha").  One of the characters
>flew to Paris, and there was the obligatory "airplane landing" shot to
>establish that he "really flew" there...

>...on an Air France Cargo 747.  (The side titles very clearly had three
>words, though the last was hard to read; however, the "under-nose"
>titles indicated the 747 cargo variant with a nose door.)

I think that it would be interesting to list all of the errors that TV and Film
writers make in the airline/avation market.  For example, on Dir Hard II many
of the flights were not wide-bodied flights that came from the West VCoast
etc..
Anyone else seen things like this in films?

-MN, er Noah Cole
--
Noah Cole		"Outside is America,		     NCOLE@MACALSTR.EDU
Macalester College	and also the car park"	            ncole@nyx.cs.du.edu
St. Paul, MN 55105    	- Bono, 27 December 1989      cncole@coos.dartmouth.edu
612-696-7388 		 	Dublin	            aj909@cleveland.freenet.edu
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: pal@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Peter Loibl)
Subject: Re: Northwest cancels Airbus
X-Submission-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:41:31 GMT
Organization: Technical University of Munich, Germany
X-Submission-Message-ID: <pal.724588891@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de>
Date: 17 Dec 92 13:27:31 PST

drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) writes:

>In article <airliners.1992.114@ohare.Chicago.COM> rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu writes:
>>
>>It'll be interesting to see what ramifications this has on the UAL deal:
>>did United plan on using Airbus/NWA North American facilities?
>>
>It is my understanding from chatting with the maintenance engineers at UAL
>on separate occassions that UAL is forming an A320 maintenance group (I
>have a resume in, therefore might not be considered an unbiased observer)
>which may be based at their new maintenance facility in Indianapolis.

BTW: The Sueddeutsche Zeitung here in Germany (one of the best ones
here) wrote yesterday, that UA is negotiating with Boeing about
delays and cancellations of their orders. No other details given.

Peter Loibl
pal@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard)
Subject: Re: Northwest cancels Airbus
X-Submission-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:59:37 GMT
Organization: Boeing
X-Submission-Message-Id: <BzC0BF.184@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>
Date: 16 Dec 92 04:19:50 PST

In article <airliners.1992.114@ohare.Chicago.COM> rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu writes:
>
>It'll be interesting to see what ramifications this has on the UAL deal:
>did United plan on using Airbus/NWA North American facilities?
>
It is my understanding from chatting with the maintenance engineers at UAL
on separate occassions that UAL is forming an A320 maintenance group (I
have a resume in, therefore might not be considered an unbiased observer)
which may be based at their new maintenance facility in Indianapolis.


-- 
Terry
drinkard@bcstec.boeing.com
"Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has
more lawyers than sense."

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners