HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slan@teal.csn.org (Slan Markovic)
Subject: Aerospace, Engineering, and Other Textbooks for Sale
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 21:31:05 GMT


I recently finished my schooling in aerospace engineering
and have several texts I've accumulated over the years
which have no interest to me.  Most of these are either
obscure or old editions and so the university is not int-
erested in buying them back.  So, I'm offering them at
greatly reduced prices which don't include shipping.  If
you think my prices are too high, make me an offer.

Brekhovskikh and Goncharov, "Mechanics of Continua and
	Wave Dynamics", 1985, a pretty rare book on wave
	mechanics, translated into English from the original
	Russian by Germans, $35

Holman, "Thermodynamics, 3rd Edition", 1980, an older version
	of a common thermo text, $10

Moeller and Liedloff, "Deutsch heute: Grundstufe, 3rd Edition", 
	1984, I have two copies of this beginning German text, $5

Ebbing, "General Chemistry", 1984, $10

Hibbeler, "Engineering Mechanics: Statics and Dynamics, 4th
	Edition", 1986, $20

Cornman, Lehrer, and Pappas, "Philosophical Problems and Arguments:
	An Introduction, 3rd Edition", 1982, $5

Dobyns, "Programmed Guide to Calculus, 3rd Edition", 1985, a workbook
	to accompany Swokowski's "Calculus with Analytic Geometry", $2

"Pioneering the Space Frontier", 1986, this is "The Report of the
	National Commission on Space" with tons of illustrations, $5

Neff, "Continuous and Discrete Linear Systems", 1984, $15

Dorf, "Modern Control Systems, 5th Edition", 1989, $20

-- 
Slan Markovic    A7 Research Studio  (303) 443-6317
                 Visual Numerics     (303) 530-9000 ext 293
From: elf@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: anyone have WINGS schedule for Jan ? 
Date: 28 Dec 92 12:47:09 EST
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

I don't know if this is the correct news group, but I'll try it anyway. 
Does anyone have a listing of the "WINGS" programs for Janurary? 
I understand that they (Discovery Channel) is supposed to have some sort of
"Marathon" on New Years Day - does anyone know if this is correct?

Thanks in advance,
Eric
From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Aviation Fuel for Piston Engines Question
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 92 19:14:47 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa

Do any fuels presently available for piston-engine general-aviation
aircraft contain tetraethyl lead as an additive (it's an octane booster)?
If so, are there any deadlines with regard to the phase-out of these fuels?
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: SNOMCB <SNOMCB@mvs.sas.com>
Subject: Chalmers 'Slick' Goodlin
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 04:13:00 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.

 
Does anybody know whatever became of 'Slick' Goodlin?
 
    After Bell would not renegotiate to pay him $150,000
to continue to fly the X-1, did he just drop out of
the picture or what. Haven't seen anything in print about
him other than his infamous X-1 flights.
 
  Curious,
 
 Mike
 
SAS Institute Inc.
Cary, NC
From: jmmatthe@apgea.army.mil (Jeffrey M. Matthews <jmmatthe>)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Tire burn-out on landings
Date: 22 Dec 92 14:12:10 GMT
Organization: CRDEC APG

In article <1992Dec21.141754.28391@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>In article <BzHBrM.9uF@specialix.com> jim@specialix.com (Jim Maurer) writes:
>> todamhyp@unlv.edu (Brian M. Huey) writes:
>> 
>> >I realize this a relatively basic question (I think) nevertheless:
>> 
>> >	I am neither a pilot nor an airliner engineer. However,
>> >everytime I watch a airliner land, a cloud of smoke is produced when
>> >the wheels come in contact from the ground due to friction. Couldn't
>> >this cloud and the effect of friction be lessened by inducing a
>> >angular velocity upon the wheels to match the airliners speed with
>> >respect to the runway?
>> 
>> This has been tried.  It did reduce tire wear, but it did cause
>> some problems.  How would you like to try landing a 747 with a
>> bunch of gyroscopes attached?  It adversely affects handling qualities
>> of the aircraft.  :-)
>
>Doesn't a 747 already have four rather large gyroscopes slung
>under the wings?:-)  Or do the engines rotate in different direction?
>
>--
>Thomas Clarke
>Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
>12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
>(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu

    Keep in mind that right after liftoff, the tires are turning up pretty
fast.  On some large aircraft one has to brake the wheels to a stop to
prevent precession from stressing the gear in directions it wasn't designed
to take, and keep the tire from rubbing things in the wheel wells due to in-
creased diameter.  But braking right before retraction heats up the beads,
not a lot, but after a long run with a heavy airplane, any extra heat is un-
welcome.  Then the hot tires go into a snug well with lots of plumbing car-
rying combustible (sometimes) fluids.  The AF lost its first C5 that way.

    Gyroscopic precession isn't a problem unless you want to make rapid
changes in direction.  But even then, I doubt that the innards of a turbine
are a greater problem than a thirteen foot four blade prop.

    For myself, I prefer ragwings and grass runways.  Landings become one
of the more seductively pleasurable parts of the flight.  Just a skosh more
back pressure when the tops of the grass start tickling the tires, the gent-
ly increasing vibration as the gear takes the weight of the airplane.......
I try to make one like that every now and then.  And tires last til they
dry rot.  The Cub I soloed in 63 still had its original tires, the old
smoothies.

J. Matthews
Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.environment
From: drela@athena.mit.edu (Mark Drela)
Subject: Re: High-flying Perseus research aircraft ready for rollout [Re
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:24:13 GMT

In article <72013@cup.portal.com>, mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:
|> Hey, this plane sounds like it would be a great weapon, especially in the
|> role of a recce platform for third-world nations.  It would be cheap, and
|> few adversary third-world nations can shoot down a robot flying above 80K
|> feet.

Perseus was never intended to be a weapon.  The people at Aurora will be the 
first to point out that Perseus was developed without one cent of DoD money.

  Mark Drela                          First Law of Aviation:
  MIT Aero & Astro          "Takeoff is optional, landing is compulsory"

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Tire burn-out on landings
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:41:30 GMT

In <1992Dec21.141754.28391@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:

>In article <BzHBrM.9uF@specialix.com> jim@specialix.com (Jim Maurer) writes:
>> todamhyp@unlv.edu (Brian M. Huey) writes:
>> 
>> >I realize this a relatively basic question (I think) nevertheless:
>> 
>> >	I am neither a pilot nor an airliner engineer. However,
>> >everytime I watch a airliner land, a cloud of smoke is produced when
>> >the wheels come in contact from the ground due to friction. Couldn't
>> >this cloud and the effect of friction be lessened by inducing a
>> >angular velocity upon the wheels to match the airliners speed with
>> >respect to the runway?
>> 
>> This has been tried.  It did reduce tire wear, but it did cause
>> some problems.  How would you like to try landing a 747 with a
>> bunch of gyroscopes attached?  It adversely affects handling qualities
>> of the aircraft.  :-)

>Doesn't a 747 already have four rather large gyroscopes slung
>under the wings?:-)  Or do the engines rotate in different direction?

I was, or am, under the impression that there are turbine blades on
the wheels that do rotate them some after the undercarriage is lowered
but it still does not get them up to landing speed. BTW, doe anyone
know why one set of wheels on the 747 hangs at an angle? Is it some-
thing to do with autopilot landings?

>--
>Thomas Clarke
>Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
>12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
>(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu

bob.

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Seeking references for 6dof flight models... :-)
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 14:47:17 GMT

During a recent email exchange with someone, who is developing a transport-
category flight simulator (yes, someone else is at it... :-)), I was asked 
whether I knew of any good references for 6 degree-of-freedom flight models.  
The correspondent indicated that one place wanted $50K for a rudimentary, 
"made-up" model, which seemed to be based on public-domain stuff.

Having some "independent" interest in the subject over the past six years,
and never having run across anything useful, I answered "no."  But that 
strikes me as a really preposterous state of affairs.  I MUST have been 
looking in the wrong places.

So: any literature references (books, journal articles, papers, lecture
notes, etc) on *how* to develop and implement a 6 dof flight model would be 
of considerable interest, especially if any are representative of a
transport-category airplane.  

I'm aware of Rolfe's book, and have read it.  I'm also aware of Roskam's
notes, but haven't examined them.

While I'm at it, could someone suggest a place to find a formal definition
of "C*"?




---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd


Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: gburton@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Garland O Burton)
Subject: archives/faq?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 05:07:21 GMT

could someone e-mail me the address where i could find archives
and faq for this group?

thanks,
gob

-- 
gburton@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu.............copyright 1992 gary burton........
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: martinn@mksol.dseg.ti.com (niels r martin)
Subject: Re: MACH 8
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:37:53 GMT

In article <alien.020z@acheron.amigans.gen.nz> alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith) writes:
>In article <10302@ncrwat.Waterloo.NCR.COM> tjgerman@53iss6.Waterloo.NCR.COM (Trevor German) writes:
>>
>>       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.
>
>Mach 1 is defined to be the *local* speed of sound, so it varies with
>altitude, but not in the way you describe. To a rough approximation (from
>memory, so I may not have the figures exactly right, but it's certainly
>something like this), M1 is 1225 km/h at sea level, *falls* to 1062 km/h
>at 11,000 metres, remains more or less constant from there to about 30,000
>metres, then starts slowly increasing.
>
>

If the point of the question is:  "can you go faster at Mach 1 at sea level
or at high altitude?"  The answer is probably not yes or no, but rather
gets into the max dynamic air pressure that the structure can handle--for 
example, the SR-71 could apparently not go much faster than 200 mph at sea
level because of the dense air causing structural damage if it exceeded that
speed--therefore most high-Mach flight will be done at relatively high altitude
and I suppose that when that is translated into mph (or knots for you aviation
buffs) it's not as impressive as one might imagine.


-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
Niels Martin			   |                      
martinn@mksol.dseg.ti.com	   | Quos deus vult perdere prius dementat!
My opinions don't represent my employer's--but they're right!
From: jmmatthe@apgea.army.mil (Jeffrey M. Matthews <jmmatthe>)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Tire burn-out on landings
Date: 22 Dec 92 13:48:41 GMT
Organization: CRDEC APG

In article <1992Dec18.180933.15387@unlv.edu> todamhyp@unlv.edu (Brian M. Huey) writes:
>I realize this a relatively basic question (I think) nevertheless:
>
>	I am neither a pilot nor an airliner engineer. However,
>everytime I watch a airliner land, a cloud of smoke is produced when
>the wheels come in contact from the ground due to friction. Couldn't
>this cloud and the effect of friction be lessened by inducing a
>angular velocity upon the wheels to match the airliners speed with
>respect to the runway?
>
    Back a while ago (fifties or sixties?) tires were available with radial
pockets which were to perform that function.  I believe they fell into dis-
use because they didn't turn the tire fast enough (whacking a tire turning
50 mph onto a runway at 100 mph isn't much improvement over one that isn't 
turning).  Also, they would have been nasty to recap, a big factor in tire
design for the airlines.

    Rubber is considered a consumable, just like fuel.  There are a lot of
other factors which limit a tire's life--braking heat to mention one.

    That's a good observation, though.  I'm glad somebody questions the
validity of that movie cliche.

J. Matthews
Standard Disclaimers Apply
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: alaw@uucp (Alvin W. Law)
Subject: Re: MACH 8
Organization: Oracle World HQ, Redwood Shores, California
	<alien.020z@acheron.amigans.gen.nz>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 09:13:41 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith) writes:
>tjgerman@53iss6.Waterloo.NCR.COM (Trevor German) writes:
>>
>>       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.
>
>Mach 1 is defined to be the *local* speed of sound, so it varies with
>altitude, but not in the way you describe. To a rough approximation (from
>memory, so I may not have the figures exactly right, but it's certainly
>something like this), M1 is 1225 km/h at sea level, *falls* to 1062 km/h
>at 11,000 metres, remains more or less constant from there to about 30,000
>metres, then starts slowly increasing.

I guess when you talk about the speed of an aircraft, using the speed
of sound at a reference state (sea level at a certain temp. and
pressure, etc) makes sense.  But when you talk about the flow
characteristics around the aircraft, the local Mach number should
definitely be used.  

-- 
 Alvin W. Law ........................................... Oracle Corporation
 Senior Applications Engineer ............... 300 Oracle Parkway, Box 659306
 Oracle Manufacturing ............................. Redwood Shores, CA 94065
 Email: alaw@oracle.com ....... Voice: 415.506.3390 ...... Fax: 415.506.7299
From: alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: MACH 8
Date: 21 Dec 92 13:45:04 GMT+12
Distribution: world
Organization: Muppet Labs

In article <10302@ncrwat.Waterloo.NCR.COM> tjgerman@53iss6.Waterloo.NCR.COM (Trevor German) writes:
>
>       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.

Mach 1 is defined to be the *local* speed of sound, so it varies with
altitude, but not in the way you describe. To a rough approximation (from
memory, so I may not have the figures exactly right, but it's certainly
something like this), M1 is 1225 km/h at sea level, *falls* to 1062 km/h
at 11,000 metres, remains more or less constant from there to about 30,000
metres, then starts slowly increasing.


--
...... Ross Smith (Wanganui, NZ) ...... alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz ......
   Mine is the ship bound for Alpha Centauri
   We must be out of our minds
   For though we are shipmates bound for tomorrow
   Everyone here's flying blind                          (Crystal Gayle)
--
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Unflattering descriptions
From: alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith)
Date: 31 Dec 92 23:35:57 GMT+12
Distribution: world
Organization: Muppet Labs

I'm trying to compile a list of the more, shall we say, unflattering
descriptions that have been applied to various aircraft over the years.
Does anyone know any good ones? The short list I've been able to recall
myself goes something like this ... sources omitted to protect the
guilty :-)

Buccaneer : "The Banana Bomber." (The prototype was given the codename ARNA
(A Royal Navy Aircraft), and "Blackburn ARNA" soon became "Black Banana".)

E-3 Sentry : "A Boeing 707 being raped by a flying saucer."

F-4 Phantom : "So ugly I thought they'd delivered it upside down."

F-15 Eagle : "Living proof of the American theory that even a brick will
fly if you hang enough engines on it."

F-104 Starfighter : "A missile with a man in it."

F-117 : "The first aircraft designed by electrical engineers."

Mitsubishi G4M : "The one-shot lighter." (A Japanese bomber of WW2, with a
habit of catching fire at the slightest provocation.)

Tu-95 Bear : "A triumph of brute force over the laws of aerodynamics."

Any more? (The above are all military planes, but I'm interested in civilian
examples too.)

--
...... Ross Smith (Wanganui, NZ) ...... alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz ......

"I blame you for the moonlit sky and the dream that died with the Eagle's flight
I blame you for the moonlit nights when I wonder why are the seas still dry
Don't blame me, sleeping satellite"                              (Tasmin Archer)

--
From: pls@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Speed of sound (Re: MACH 8)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 04:30:31 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Dec16.101747.25799@cactus.org> <1992Dec16.230933.16563@cirrus.com>

> Mach 1 flying about 50-100 feet above the ground over the desert. 

> Gopal Ramachandran <gopal@cirrus.com>
> UUCP:  uunet!cirrus.com!gopal
> Cirrus Logic Inc, Fremont CA  PH: (510)-226-2138 FAX: (510)-226-2160

How low can you go in a supersonic aircraft before things like ground effect
and shock waves bouncing off the ground make flying difficult?

    ++PLS
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: jkkuchar@athena.mit.edu (James K. Kuchar)
Subject: Re: Tire burn-out on landings
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 15:37:25 GMT

In article <bob1.725146890@cos>, bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw) writes:

|> but it still does not get them up to landing speed. BTW, doe anyone
|> know why one set of wheels on the 747 hangs at an angle? Is it some-
|> thing to do with autopilot landings?

Also take a look at 757 and 767s: The 757 gear looks like it's 'toes up' and
the 767 looks like it's 'toes down'. (Or maybe its the other way around.) I would
guess that the gear angle is set by the deck angle at touchdown...

Jim Kuchar

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: chuckh@apex.com (Chuck Huffington)
Subject: Re: Tire burn-out during landings
X-Submission-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:57:30 GMT
Organization: Apex Computer Company
X-Submission-Message-ID: <1992Dec29.235730.7247@apex.com>
Date: 29 Dec 92 22:53:50 PST

In article <airliners.1992.192@royko.Chicago.COM> inc@tc.fluke.COM (Gary Benson) writes:
>RE: Maintenance
>
>Maybe there would be NO cost, for example if the tires were designed so that
>their tread caught the wind and got their spin from that. Or maybe the hubs
>could be fitted with fans.

This has been done.  I have seen old tires with molded in "scoops" on
the sidewall that spun them up in the airstream.

I'm not sure but I seem to recall the idea was dropped because the
the additional wear on the brakes more than made up for the reduced
wear on the tires.  Apparently a lot of braking action occurs
when the not spinning tires hit the pavement.


Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: barnett@convex.com (Paul Barnett)
Subject: Re: Tire burn-out during landings
X-Submission-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:37:40 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Submission-Message-Id: <barnett.725729860@convex.convex.com>
Date: 30 Dec 92 11:20:04 PST

In <airliners.1992.200@ohare.Chicago.COM> yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin) writes:

>In any case, the practicality of preventing tires from disintegrating
>depends on how fast tires presently disintegrate.  How much matter really is
>there in that cloud of smoke?  Perhaps a gram per cubic meter of smoke?  And
>how much tire is left on the runway?  Do they have to go out and scrape it
>off now and then?  (I imagine not.)  Seems to me the loss of tire material
>is negligible also.  Compared, that is, with the other costs of running the
>airplane.

Actually, yes, they do go out and "scrape" it off now and then.
One popular method is very high pressure water jets.

Having said that, I will comment that the most convincing argument I
have heard so far is that the additional weight added by any spin-up
system would negate any reduction in tire wear.
--
Paul Barnett
MPP OS Development     (214)-497-4846
Convex Computer Corp.  Richardson, TX

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard)
Subject: Re: Safety and design rankings (was Re: Flight controls)
X-Submission-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:01:22 GMT
Organization: Boeing
X-Submission-Message-Id: <C01pEB.7sA@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>
Date: 29 Dec 92 22:53:51 PST

In article <airliners.1992.173@ohare.Chicago.COM> hoyme@src.honeywell.com (Ken Hoyme) writes:
>
>In article <airliners.1992.163@ohare.Chicago.COM> kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes:
>> My understanding was that the 747-400 does *not* have a new wing but
>> rather a tweaked version of the original.  I recall some statement
>> from Boeing regarding the lack of winglets on the 777, which noted
>> that the 777 had a new wing and starting from a clean slate it was
>> more efficient to not have them, whereas working from an existing
>> design as with the 747-400 it was helpful to have them.

One further comment.  The 747 is constrained on span, therefore the
winglets were the optimal choice for improving the efficiency of the wing.
The 777 has chosen to offer two options:  folding wingtips, and 'ignore the
existing infrastructure'.  Both options allow an unconstrained span, which
gives better induced drag performance.

>I believe the winglets issue on the 777 was also complicated by the
>folding wing option.  Which no one has ordered -- even those airlines
>who originally expressed interest in the option.  Has development on the
>folding wing stopped??  I had heard that Boeing was getting tired of the
>investment required to keep the option open while not receiving any
>orders for it.

I don't think I'm giving anything away by saying that the folding wingtip
option is still being studied, primarily by the New Large Airplane
Division.  They apparently don't think they can get away with a 'damn the
infrastructure' attitude.  :-)


-- 
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