HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Michael F. Kamprath <kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: aerodynamics/speed question
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 13:15:35 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan, Aerospace Engineering
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d11
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A6F7428D5B01C4FC@sprl-mac2016.sprl.umich.edu>
X-Xxdate: Tue, 6 Oct 92 13:18:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.114949.15313@athena.mit.edu> James K. Kuchar, jkkuchar@athena.mit.edu
writes:
>In article <zari.718108764@siegel>, zari@math.ethz.ch (Alain Zarinelli) writes:
>
>|> When I flew with my instructor for the PP, he told (and showed to) me,
>|> that when the aircraft is properly trimmed, flying at a specific air
>|> speed, then, as you take back power, it will descent
>|> _WITH_THE_SAME_AIRSPEED_ it had, at a specific rate of descent. That's
>|> ok, I believed it since I saw it.
>
>|> ...
>
>|> But then I wondered "WHY is this so?". There is no "obvious" reason, why
>|> the speed should be the same, is there!?  ...
>
>For a quick explanation, consider this:
     .
	 .
  [Good explanation deleted]
     .
	 .
>probably is a false assumption), so large changes in power will probably 
>change airspeed/angle of attack as the aircraft adjusts to a new moment balance.
>
>Hope this helps...
>
>Jim Kuchar

A special case of this is to completely reduce the thrust to zero.  Then you have
a glide situation.  But it'd probally wouldn't work to well unlss you were
already going at the planes optimal glide speed.

========================================================================
| Michael F. Kamprath                   | The University of Michigan   |
|   kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu |      Aerospace Engineering   |
|   kamprath@engin.umich.edu            |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| This country is a _democracy_.  It is NOT a "Two Party Sytem."  DO   |
| NOT believe The Lie that not voting Republican or Democratic will    |
| waste your vote.  Vote for who ever you please, and let the          |
| politicians find out what a democratic government is all about.      | 
========================================================================
From: twh18@isuvax.iastate.edu (Phoenix)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Mig-31 and Su-35 at the air show
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:18:12 GMT
Reply-To: twh18@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa

I just read Aviation Weekly's 9/14's issue today, and there's a article
in there about the Mig-31 and Su-35.  I was wondering if anyone know
anything specifically of their performance.
	Acoording to the article, the Mig-31, a advanced version of
Mig-25 Fosbat, has a "exceptional radar" and can act as a "Mini-
AWACS".  Also, it said that the Su-35 Super Flanker's radar can
"track targets up to 225 miles, tracking at least 15 targets and
engage 6 of simoultaneously"  Gees, it sounds even better than
Navy's F-14 except that Tomcat can tracking up to 24 targets.
	Well, I thought russians are at least a little behind
US on technology, but after reading that article, I am very
confused.  Though the 225 miles is "up to", which means at
extremely maximum range, it still compareable to the
E-2 Hawkey based on US Carrier.  
	In addition, the article mentioned about a missile Russian made
just for the E-3 Sentry.  It has a range up to 100 km (62 miles).
Well, that's kind of nasty since E-3 are usually accompanied by 
F-15's.  If the Russian can sneak near 62 mles near the AWACS,
the F-15's Sparrow or AMRAAM would be way out of range to fire back.
(Though this situation is very very unlikely, I think it could happen
if Russians make some more progress on the stealth tech and use
the terrain cover)
	Well, that's it, any comments?  
					Ming
	(I always thought that V/STOL jets are subsonic until Russian
made this unstale Yak-141....:)
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: PAUL GARBER
Date: 28 Sep 1992 20:01:57 GMT
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
NNTP-Posting-Host: obsidian.wpi.edu

In article <1992Sep28.171847.18251@den.mmc.com> stote@tomcat.den.mmc.com (M. Stote) writes:
>What stupid idea!!! Imagine wanting a second site for the NASM so that people
>who live in the western part of the country could see some of the treasures
>restored by NASM!!!!   What an incredibly ridiculous idea!!!  Of course the
>annex should be built at Dulles.  That way all the politicians can tour it
>as they come and go on their junkets.  

Sarsasm??? :-)

Anyway, yes, it is a rather stupid idea, if only for monetary reasons. The
Garber facility houses many aircraft which are too large for the downtown
facility which will be housed in the annex. Now, most of these aircraft will
never fly again. So, how do you get them to a facility on say, the West Coast?
It would be extrordinarily expensive to ship them. (Actually, the closer to
coast the better, you can use a ship...) 

Then you have to consider administration, using Dulles allows easy access to
the administrators currently in place. Managing a site on the other coast,
from the east coast, is nigh-impossible to do efficiently. (It's government.)

The annex is designed for large aircraft which can't be housed downtown. Like
the Enola Gay, Dash 80, The Enterprise, etc. Plus there is talk of outdoor
display for airliners, like the 707, 747, etc... While the downtown facility
houses the smaller aircraft. Hell, even an F-15 is getting large for the
current museum.

The Annex is just that, an addition to the current museum, not a seperate
entity. The Annex won't stand on it's own as well as the current meuseum,
it just isn't intended too. It is a direct compliment to the current displays
NOT a stand alone facility.

Dulles means it is close to the aircraft waiting for display, the current
museum, and the restoration facilities. There is no need to build a new 
facility somewhere else, especially since to make any sense a new restoration
facility would need to be included so aircraft wouldn't all need to go to
Garber first and then the museum across the country. And that is a waste of
money, not to mention that skilled restorers aren't readily available. I would
rather my tax money weren't wasted replicating existing facilities. The Annex
is a Smithsonian facility (or should I say will be) and the Smithsonian is
based in Washington DC.

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo)
Subject: Re: Most evil looking mother that ever flew (was Re: F-23 Dead? Nahh....
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:45:34 GMT

I give the A-10 my vote to.  That is one bad mutha...

It is the most survivable by far, but I wanted to mention a true to life
F/A -18 story.  This hornet was in the gulf flying a low alt. attack mission,
when a sam came out of no where.  It just got off A/B shortly before.
so its engines were glowing with heat.  Anyhow, this sam runs right up the 
"tailpipe" and explodes inside the A/B casing.  Obviously he destroyed the 
engine.  But, the pilot simply cut fuel to that engine, and came home on 
engine number two.   Lets here it for the GE F404 that contained that blast
eh?  The pilot upon returning, shook as many hands of GE engineers and
manufacturers hands as he could inthe Lynn plant where the F404 is made.
Now everyone knows why we have 2 engines in every plane now adays (well
except for a few)


Derek H. Cedillo


Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: twh18@isuvax.iastate.edu (Phoenix)
Subject: Re: Most evil looking mother that ever flew (was Re: F-23 Dead? Nahh....
Reply-To: twh18@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:15:38 GMT

>>While technically not a plane, the AH-64 Apache is an "aircraft", so my vote
>>goes to it. If I was ever in a combat situation, the most horrifying sight
>>(assuming I was on the opposing side) would be a fully loaded Apache
>>appearing from behind a hill.
>> 
>
>The Iraqis certainly seemed to agree with you!  :-)
>
>-- Teresa
>

	Was it true that "Iraqi soliders dropped their weapon when they
saw the the sight of the Apache" in Op. DS?  
	I saw this quote from NewWeek a while ago with a picture of
Apache on it....
				Ming
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: PAUL GARBER
Date: 28 Sep 1992 20:13:59 GMT
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
NNTP-Posting-Host: obsidian.wpi.edu

In article <1a7oblINN2p7@bigboote.WPI.EDU> megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23) writes:
>Sarsasm??? :-)

ARG! I hate it when I make such stupid typos.... slink slink slink

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Monday, 28 Sep 1992 10:22:48 EST
From: <AERE7114@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: How can the F-117 fly...
 <cjfe1ps@Unify.Com> <19e1hhINNfht@bigboote.WPI.EDU> <Qtx-wW#@engin.umich.edu>

I'm not sure of the numbers, but the F-117 is nicknamed the "Wobbly Goblin"
and the pilots that train to fly the F-117 train in the A-7 (I think)
because the flight characteristics are the same.  So just check up on the
A-7 and you should have an approximate answer.

Check six.
Paul
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: jld@datascope.com (Jay L. Davis)
Subject: Re: Most evil looking mother that ever flew (was Re: F-23 Dead? Nahh....
Organization: Datascope Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 19:56:49 GMT

While technically not a plane, the AH-64 Apache is an "aircraft", so my vote
goes to it. If I was ever in a combat situation, the most horrifying sight
(assuming I was on the opposing side) would be a fully loaded Apache
appearing from behind a hill.

---Jay Davis

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: jem3@pyuxf.uucp (25312-mc killop)
Subject: Re: PAUL GARBER
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 15:44:45 GMT

In article <1a2jeaINN7vi@bigboote.WPI.EDU> megazone@dolomite.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23) writes:
>
>The Enola Gay has a HUGE role in history, being the first aircraft, and so far
>only 1 of 2, to drop a nuclear weapon in anger. (What happened to Bock's Car?)

Bock's Car is on display at the Air Force Museum, Wright-Patterson
AFB, Dayton, Ohio.

>
>And the ASM is (supposedly) establishing an Annex for the display of large
>aircraft, ie, Enola Gay, the Dash 80, B-47, B-52, Blackbird, etc. It was 
>supposed to be at a nearby field, the name of which I've forgotten


Supposedly, the NASM was to build an annex at Dulles International
Airport over in Virginia.  Then I read that some idiots in Congress
wanted to move it to several other states.  Does anyone know the
status of the annex project and did they finally shut these idiot
politicians up?
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: ahogan@av8r.uucp (Alicen Hogan)
Subject: Re: Most evil looking mother that ever flew (was Re: F-23 Dead? Nahh....
Organization: Daniel Webster College, Nashua, NH
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:47:41 GMT


> 
> 	Was it true that "Iraqi soliders dropped their weapon when they
> saw the the sight of the Apache" in Op. DS?  
> 	I saw this quote from NewWeek a while ago with a picture of
> Apache on it....
> 				Ming

Although the Apache did make quite the impression, I hear that it
really didn't take much to make most Iraqi's drop their weapons and
surrender.  In fact, one of the captured actually walked up to an
American soldier and said, "I was wondering when you guys were going
to get here!"  Granted he was educated in the US, but what can one
say.

With all this talk about impressive aircraft, I'm surprised no one has
mentioned the A-10, Warthog.  Granted, it's been out for a while and
it doesn't LOOK as impressive as most, but it delivers a hard punch
and can take more hits than some of the others previously discussed.

As always, IMHO
-- 
Bizarreness in the guise of morality!
Alicen Hogan						av8r!ahogan
Daniel Webster College				   ahogan@av8r.uucp
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: sonic@cray.com (Curtis L. Swanson)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Ram Jet
Date: 3 Oct 92 01:18:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: walter.1992Oct2.201839.5255


Bryan writes:

*None.  Rams (stovepipes) have no moving parts.  In fact, someone posted
*here last year that he made/saw one that was only a pipe (i.e. cylinder)
*with a fuel sprayer on the front that was entirely operational--although
*I have not seen such a ram jet.

There was an article in Smithsonian Air and Space about a while back about
the development of the ram jet in Germany.  They had a photo of a test
setup consisting of a 55 gallon drum minus both ends strapped to the
top of a car.  It reportedly proved the concept....


***  Curt Swanson  ***  sonic@romulus.cray.com  ***  IOTTMCO  *********
HOME:n - That mythical place where you can go and relax.......
I'd rather be in a coma.........
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: PAUL GARBER
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1a2jeaINN7vi@bigboote.WPI.EDU>
	<1992Sep28.154445.5331@walter.bellcore.com>
	<1992Sep28.171847.18251@den.mmc.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:23:39 GMT

MS> == M. Stote <stote@tomcat.den.mmc.com> 

 MS> Of course the annex should be built at Dulles.  That way all the
 MS> politicians can tour it as they come and go on their junkets.

Ha!  Like they ever fly into Dulles!  No, it's either DCA or Andrews
AFB.  (After all, they have their own special perk parking right next to
the terminal at DCA.)

ObAeronautics: I hate DCA.  I also hate LGA.  They are *not* jet-age
airports.  (At least not for airliners, IMHO.)

--
Christopher K. Davis      |       NET.INSIGHTS INTO ARTISTIC CRITICISM:
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   | ``[Y]ou don't cure bad art by locking it all up
System Administrator, EFF | in one museum, you cure it by throwing tomatoes
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   | at bad artists.'' --Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: why all this chit-chat in this group?
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:39:13 GMT
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

In article <lcktbeINNkej@dimebox.cs.utexas.edu+ werner@cs.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig) writes:
+
+
+	I hate to be a spoil-sport (and I love a good chat as much
+	as the next guy), but that should take place outside of
+	the sci.* hierarchy.  Otherwise folks who might have something
+	to contribute which might fit the group-name just go off elsewhere...
+
+	(I guess every sci.* group should be moderated, period!)
+
If you want to see what moderating a newsgroup does, check out sci.military.
-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.
From: eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: why all this chit-chat in this group?
Date: 6 Oct 92 05:43:28 GMT
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA

>In article <lcktbeINNkej@dimebox.cs.utexas.edu+ werner@cs.utexas.edu
(Werner Uhrig) writes:
>+	I hate to be a spoil-sport (and I love a good chat as much
>+	as the next guy), but that should take place outside of
>+	the sci.* hierarchy.  Otherwise folks who might have something
>+	to contribute which might fit the group-name just go off elsewhere...

	talk.aeronautics?
	sci.aeronautics.d?

>+	(I guess every sci.* group should be moderated, period!)

Agreed.

In article <28166@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM
(Bruce Watson) writes:
>If you want to see what moderating a newsgroup does, check out sci.military.

The amusing part about s.m. are the requests for information which are
classified or clearly sensitive (why, aeronautics is somewhat sensitive).
The readers in the know (I have exchanged email w/o the specifics, I have
no desire for a clearance) read, but won't post.  It's like the
Saturday Night Live Skit:  all the reporters asking:
"Where are the weak points in the defenses?" said the
reporter from the Bagdad Gazette in the dark glasses.  The little
technological nits (you can play with these, very heavy reliance on
technology), the lack of overall (synoptic) perspective (a strategy/tactics/
logistics group doesn't exist to discuss these), and many innocent,
but naive questions (free speech allows this).  Bill does an admirable
moderating all factors considered.  Examples of well moderated news.groups:
	comp.risks
	comp.research.japan
	comp.parallel
	comp.compilers
	numerous.others.
Poorly moderated groups:	
	comp.graphics.research (mod missing)
	comp.society (mod missing)
	numerous.others check ths list of moderators for this and above.
Poorly unmoderated groups:
	sci.space,talk.space.politics
	sci.astro
	sci.environment,talk.environment
	numerous.others.
Bill's problem is the sensitivity of the field.  He doesn't have a clearance.
One day he's probably going to get a visit from some investigators (maybe
like Sneakers).  People are lurking who are clearly monitoring traffic
without showing their presence.  Of course most moderation could be better
done.
	
Bye! 'u'

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
  Acting Associate Editor, Software and Publication Reviews
  Scientific Programming
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Seeking Books to buy:	Bongard, Pattern Recognition
			Imhof, Cartographic Relief Presentation
			Books on or by Benjamin Whorf
			Wulf et al, The Design of an Optimizing Compiler
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: Michael F. Kamprath <kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Inflatable aircraft
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 01:30:36 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan, Aerospace Engineering
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d11
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A6F69D527801C4FC@sprl-mac2016.sprl.umich.edu>
X-Xxdate: Tue, 6 Oct 92 01:33:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.041848.22747@nuscc.nus.sg> Perry Morrison, swkmorri@nuscc.nus.sg writes:
>
>When lying on my inflatable bed, I've often wondered if it would be
>possible to create an inflatable wing (with appropriate stiffeners for
>support). I had in mind something like a square shaped wing with a
>proper airfoil and decent wingspan. It would also require a short rear
>structure to control pitch and some ailerons. I would see a number of options:
>
>1. Suspension of the pilot a la paragliders with lines controlling
>appropriate control surfaces.
>
>2. A short boom descends from the tail structure to provide seating
>and/or 3-axis control.
>
>There is an ultralight sailplane called the monarch which has such an
>abbreviated tail unit and pilot enclosure.
>
>I see a couple of advantages:
>
>1. Footlaunchable with the portability of a paraglider (almost) with much 
>better aerodynamic performance perhaps even than some hang gliders.
>

The performance encrease you speak of I assume comes from the fact that you can 
shape the wing cross section into a cambered and thickened cross section, unlike
hang gliders which are essentially 2-D surface (the cloth).

>2. Cheap to  manufacture
>
>Cons?: 
>Subject to UV degradation
>Perhaps too much "stiffening" support would be needed to make it very
>portable.
>

This could be a subject of study: at what pressure must the "inflateable
wing" be at in order to break even weight wise when having the same flexural
strength as a framed wing of the same shape (crossection and span wise) and
having a thin cloth/paper surface attached to the frame.

I got a feeling the framed wing (as opposed to the inflated wing) will win
out.  Thew high pressure of the inflated wing would also make it prone to
bursting/leaking.  

I am almost certain that trying to maintain a inflated wing's cross sectional
shape when the pressure differentials from the airflow over the wing would be
next to impossible.

These comments, I must add, are just off the top of my head.  No serious
analysis has been applied.

>Comments?
>
>Perry Morrison
>
>

========================================================================
| Michael F. Kamprath                   | The University of Michigan   |
|   kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu |      Aerospace Engineering   |
|   kamprath@engin.umich.edu            |                              |
+---------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| This country is a _democracy_.  It is NOT a "Two Party Sytem."  DO   |
| NOT believe The Lie that not voting Republican or Democratic will    |
| waste your vote.  Vote for who ever you please, and let the          |
| politicians find out what a democratic government is all about.      | 
========================================================================
From: mxs53@po.CWRU.Edu (Mark Schoenenberger)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: How can the F-117 fly...
Date: 5 Oct 1992 23:40:42 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


I was talking with an eagle driver from minnesota who says that
the F-117 is definitely called the "wobbly goblin" and yes pilots
do train on A-7's.  He said that from talking to F-117 pilots,
they said that the overall flight characteristics were much like
driving a truck.  The only problem is in a stall, in which case
you're screwed big time (becomes very unstable, almost 
unrecoverable).
From: john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: PAUL GARBER
Date: 27 Sep 92 06:33:41 GMT
Organization: Newave Communications, Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN

In <1992Sep26.123729.21024@eng.umd.edu> lind@eng.umd.edu (Charles A. Lind):
> > I wonder what the logic of the NASM is in restoring the Enola Gay

> As far as PLANES go the B-29 is a common type of plane.  However,
> only one of these B-29's had a major inpact on the way we live 
> today: Enola Gay.

What about Bock's Car, the B-29 that dropped the bomb on Nagasaki?  It
is fully restored and on display at the Air Force museum in Dayton.
As far as the A-bomb goes, I am hard pressed to make a distinction between
the 125,000 people that died at Heroshima and the 75,000 that died in Nagasaki.

> I believe the NASM is a showcase of planes and other aerospace related
> vehicles which have had a major inpact on our lives, the B-29 is no
> exception.  There is no question as to where it belongs.

A B-29 will not fit in the NASM.  Once the Enola Gay is completed, it will
be disassembled and put into storage.  Nobody will get to see it.  If there
was a place to show the Enola Gay, I would be all for restoring it.

Since we do have space to show things like the the Me-163 and the Arado-234,
why is the B-29 getting all of the time and money?  For the cost of doing the
B-29, they could have probably restored all of the one of a kind planes in
the NASM inventory.  I think the one-of-a-kind planes are more historically
important than rebuilding a plane that will not go on display.

-john-

-- 
==============================================================================
John A. Weeks III		(612) 942-6969		    john@newave.mn.org
Newave Communications, Ltd.			    ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john