HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jb026939@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Jeffrey Bathke)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Sonic Boom stuff.        :-)
Date: 13 Apr 92 02:01:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: yuma.1992Apr13.020133.25790
Reply-To: jb026939@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Jeffrey Bathke)
Organization: Colorado State U. Center for Computer Assisted Engineering.

Concerning sonic booms, I've always wondered what would happen if you could
fly a second plane "in" the shock wave cone of another plane.  (Both planes
are moving the same speed).  I first wondered about this when I thought about
hearing a "continuous" sonic boom.  By definition, that couldn't happen, 
since the "boom" is the abrupt pressure change as the shock wave moves past
an observer.

Would the second plane be able to fly in the shock wave -- or would there be
so much turbulence that the plane would fall apart?

Jeff Bathke      jb026939@longs.lance.colostate.edu
From: jeffdude@IASTATE.EDU (Jeffrey W Ouellette)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Question about disposal of commercial aircraft
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:25:47 GMT
Reply-To: jeffdude@IASTATE.EDU (Jeffrey W Ouellette)
Organization: Iowa State University

I am a student at Iowa State University and am looking for information regarding
the disposal of "retired" commercial aircraft.  I am specifically looking for
sources of information as to the operations/procedures that occur from when the
aircraft has reached maximum flight time to some time of end, whether it be
stripped and stored or melted down.

I am aware of the "graveyard" facility in the Mojave Desert, but I cannot find
any information about it in our library.
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Sonic Boom stuff.        :-)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 20:48:23 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Apr16.124224.18962@news.larc.nasa.gov> dtice@avd23.larc.nasa.gov (David C. Tice) writes:
>>>The "compression lift" you refer to was a nice little technical white lie 
>>I think Alfred Eggers of NASA Langley, who discovered compression lift,
>>would be more than a little offended at this...
>
>My point was that the contribution of compression lift was very small on 
>the XB-70...

Before compression lift:  all WS-110 [the Weapons System requirement that
became the XB-70] proposals specified Mach 0.8 cruise and Mach 2+ dash,
and all were rejected by the USAF as grossly impractical (e.g. takeoff
weights exceeding 1Mlbs, twice what the USAF was after).

After compression lift:  all proposals specified Mach 3 cruise, all looked
practical, and the one that was picked, worked.

The empirical evidence very strongly suggests that you either asked the
wrong question or misunderstood the answer.  (In particular, your original
posting sounded like you asked about the drooped wingtips, which have
*nothing* to do with compression lift.)
-- 
ISDN, n:  Incredibly Slow and Dumb      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Networking                              |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: hsong%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Hwal Song)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: falling dynamics
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:58:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: hellgate.1992Apr7.145817.26694
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept


Hi!
Here is a question i want to simulate using computer.
All my knowledge in physics and aerodynamics is too old and
too primitive to use.

   when you drop a metal ball, it will fall straight.
   but when you drop a piece of paper or glass,
   the falling path will be affected by air resistance.
   for the piece of paper, it will be deformed.
   
Does anyone know any books which explain above phenomena?
And what will be a good introductory aerodynamics textbook
which has any possible link to this topic?

Thank you in advace!

Regards,
song
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: zeke@wdl50.wdl.loral.com (Solly Ezekiel)
Subject: Re: Sonic Boom stuff.        :-)
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:20:37 GMT

As I recall, the XB-70 (huge mach 3+ 1960's aircraft) more or less flew on
top of _its own_ shock wave.  It had a pair of canards just aft of the
cockpit, which generated shock waves.  The shocks were then channeled under
the main wings, whose wingtips folded down to keep the shocks there.
Apparently this added something like 60,000 lbs of lift to the aircraft
for virtually no penalty in fuel!

  +--------------------------+---------------+---------------------------+
  | "Asps!!  Very dangerous. |               | My opinions are not those |
  |     ...You go first."    |  Sol Ezekiel  |      of my employer,      |
  |          -- Sallah       |               |    Space Systems/Loral    |
  +--------------------------+---------------+---------------------------+
From: conradv@gauss.eng.clemson.edu (Conrad Vincent)
Subject: AIRCRAFT DESIGN
Originator: conradv@gauss.eng.clemson.edu
Reply-To: conradv@gauss.eng.clemson.edu (Conrad Vincent)
Organization: Clemson University Engineering Department
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:54:40 GMT




	Could someone recommend to me books on aircraft design.
Thanks in advance. 
ps : i would be obliged if you could e-mail me directly

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: scc53091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (TAIWAN!!! 5/18/92 )
Subject: How does riding in a supersonic plane feel?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 00:35:50 GMT

I am writing a paper on the HSCT (High Speed Civil Transport).  Can anyone
tell me how a supersonic flight feels like?  I heard it's pretty smooth...
Thanx!

Steve Chen
scc53091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
From: emeu08@castle.ed.ac.uk (ME3 Student)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Aircraft wing flutter
Date: 6 Apr 92 10:53:56 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University


I am doing an essay, as part of my final year Mechanical Engineering mark. 
This essay is for my dynamics course. One of the possible topics is 'Flutter
in Aircraft'. I am wondering if anyone has any good references on the subject.
Any books, journals etc would be good. Any info would be much appreciated.

	Thanx,
		Donald
		
	
	emeu08@castle.ed.ac.uk
From: sss@netcom.com (Small Systems Solutions)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Aeronautical misconceptions
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:46:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.7!qjzkj.sss
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

The misconception is that lift is *caused* by the curvature of the
airfoil, or that the Bernoulli effect is responsible for lift.  As I
said, a flat piece of cardboard will provide lift, if it has an angle
of attack. A properly shaped airfoil has the advantage of reduced drag
while providing lift.

The reduced pressure above the surface of an airfoil is caused by the
angle of attack.  The Bernoulli effect describes the propensity of a
fluid to adhere to the surface -- squirt a garden hose at a wall of
your house at a sufficiently low angle, and the flow will be entrained
rather than "reflected". It also describes the relationship between
pressure and velocity. In short,  it describes some of the epiphenomena
of lift, but not what creates lift.

-- 
Small Systems Solutions                   1563 Solano Avenue, Suite 123
sss@netcom.com                                  Berkeley, CA 94707-2116

The above-expressed opinions aren't necessarily
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: gbraun@beech.mitre.org (Gary A. Braun)
Subject: Re: Aeronautical misconceptions
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:13:12 GMT

In article <1992Apr08.025057.16856@bmerh2.bnr.ca> mkfeil@bcrki9.bnr.ca ()  
writes:
> In article <7!qjzkj.sss@netcom.com> sss@netcom.com (Small Systems Solutions)  
writes:
> >The misconception is that lift is *caused* by the curvature of the
> >airfoil, or that the Bernoulli effect is responsible for lift.
> 
> Be careful what you say. These are not misconceptions. They may not be
> intuitive explanations, or very complete explanations, but they are
> definitely true. Lift IS caused by the curvature of the airfoil. Bernoulli
> DOES account for 100% of lift.  However the stuff about the length along the
> top vs the length along the bottom is pure hogwash.
> 
> >                         It also describes the relationship between
> >pressure and velocity. In short,  it describes some of the epiphenomena
> >of lift, but not what creates lift.
> 
> Good point. (But not enough to make a myth.)
> 


I think you've all got it wrong.  Lift is a force and Force = Mass x  
Acceleration.  A wing is really a momentum generator, accelerating air (mass)  
downward to produce a force in the opposite direction.  It doesn't matter  
whether the airfoil is flat or not (although it will affect the efficiency).   


======================
Gary A. Braun
gbraun@beech.mitre.org
======================
From: cabruen@athena.mit.edu (Charles Alan Bruen)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Need info on In-flight Shuttle Simulator
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:44:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dear Netters:

        I am doing a project on automatic control, and I would like to
look into the inflight-simulator of the space shuttle. My understanding
is that it is a gulfstream aircraft that is design to behave
(dynamically that is), exactly like the space shuttle. I would
appreciate it if anybody could point me to some articles or literature
into this area. In addition, and other information anybody might have
would be appreciated. (Could I get a ride in it :-) ).

I will repost anything I receive i nemail, along with my summary report
when it is finished.

Thanks for the help.  


Charles Bruen
cabruen@athena.mit.edu
From: manuelp@bullet.ecf.toronto.edu (MANUELPILLAI Gerald N.)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: SFC of J58's
Keywords: J58 SFC SR71
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:54:43 GMT
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility

In article <!6mj05k@dixie.com> stan@dixie.com (Stan Brown) writes:
>barker@rigel.cs.pdx.edu (James Barker) writes:
>
>>In the Aerospace inventory issue of AvWeek, they listed the SFC of the j58
>>engine as being 2,174. IS THIS RIGHT??? No other engine comes even CLOSE
>>to that number.
>>Being that the SFC figures were all calculated @ max power, I can't believe
>>that they arrived at 2,174 because its primary user (SR71) runs in continuous
>>A/B.
>>How is SFC calculated?
>
>   Well what is SFC ?
>
At the risk of being oversimplifying : SFC is Specific Fuel Consumption.
Also known as Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption (TSFC) for turbojet/turbofan
engines, and Power Specific Fuel Consumption (PSFC) for shaft (prop) engines.
It is the amount of fuel consumed per unit time per lb. of thrust delivered
by the engine (TSFC = lb/hr./lb. of thrust). For shaft engines, it is the
fuel consumption rate per horsepower delivered (PSFC = lb/hr./hp) 

Well, I hope that helps.  

Gerald M
From: kvk@questor.sw.stratus.com (Ken Koellner)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Northrop Flying-Wing
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:12:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: transfer.2148
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering


What was the number designation of the Northrop Flying-Wing
prototype bomber (prop version)?

It was a pusher prop wasn't it?

It had four engines, yes?

-- 
Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control
a man's appetite by legislation and makes crimes out of things that are not
crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our
government was founded. - Abraham Lincoln
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: dtice@avd23.larc.nasa.gov (David C. Tice)
Subject: Re: Sonic Boom stuff.        :-)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 12:40:31 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.232037.8500@wdl.loral.com> 
zeke@wdl50.wdl.loral.com (Solly Ezekiel) writes:
>As I recall, the XB-70 (huge mach 3+ 1960's aircraft) more or less flew on
>top of _its own_ shock wave.  It had a pair of canards just aft of the
>cockpit, which generated shock waves.  The shocks were then channeled under
>the main wings, whose wingtips folded down to keep the shocks there.
>Apparently this added something like 60,000 lbs of lift to the aircraft
>for virtually no penalty in fuel!
>
The "compression lift" you refer to was a nice little technical white lie 
perpetuated by North American American and the Air Force to make the XB-70 
sound even more gee-whiz than it was.  When I worked at NAA (now Rockwell), 
I asked the older engineers about the whole compression lift deal, and 
it turned out that although there was a small amount of lift generated in
that fashion, the main function of the folding wing tips was to 
1) provide better lateral-directional stability and
2) reduce the travel of the aerodynamic center during supersonic flight.

The canards were basically for longitudinal stability, and perhaps also ride
quality/structural mode control.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Tice                                          uu   uu sssssss ccccccc
Lockheed Eng. & Sci. Co.     beat  the             uu   uu  ss     cc     
NASA/Langley                 spAztecs!            uu   uu    ss   cc
Hampton VA                   (9/5/92)            uuuuuuu sssssss ccccccc

The above comments do not reflect those of LESC or the Lockheed Corp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: chuang@athena.mit.edu (Weihaw Chuang)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: fly-by-wire
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:47:57 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology


	What are the benefits of "fly-by-wire" controls beyond greater 
manuverability?  More specifically why are the civillian jets starting using
digital controls systems.
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Airfoil shaped control surfaces
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:30:32 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

The cover story in this months "Kitplanes" concerns the latest Kitfox
from Denny Aircraft, his clipped wing speedster.  Among the several
aerodynamic modifications that allow it to go faster are some airfoil
shaped control surfaces and sealed elevators and rudders.

The older models had simple welded tubing around which fabric was glued
and stretched.  Same for the rudder.  So for all intents and purposes,
they resembled the mythical flat plane which has been bandied about
lately in arguments concerning lift.  Why would making the control
surfaces airfoil shaped make any difference, and why seal the rudder
and elevator?  I'm assuming that the airfoil shape was symetrical but
they didn't say that.

Thanks,  Corky Scott
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: XB-70 Valkyrie (was: Re: Sonic Boom stuff.        :-)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 20:13:34 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <kur6ceINNbk4@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes:
>I missed the first part of the show because of a late meeting :-(, so I
>didn't see anything relating to details of the XB-70's construction.  Was
>it made primarily of titanium like the Blackbird?

If memory serves, the forward fuselage was mostly titanium.  The bulk of
the aircraft, though -- wings and main body -- was stainless-steel honeycomb
sandwich:  strong, rigid, light, heat-resistant, and awesomely expensive.
-- 
ISDN, n:  Incredibly Slow and Dumb      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Networking                              |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: bdd0066@zeus.tamu.edu (Bryan, kick the tire and light the fire, Duke)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Sonic Boom stuff.        :-)
Date: 16 Apr 92 04:18:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr13.020133.25790@yuma.acns.colostate.edu>, jb026939@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Jeffrey Bathke) writes...
>Concerning sonic booms, I've always wondered what would happen if you could
>fly a second plane "in" the shock wave cone of another plane.  (Both planes
>are moving the same speed).  I first wondered about this when I thought about
>hearing a "continuous" sonic boom.  By definition, that couldn't happen, 
>since the "boom" is the abrupt pressure change as the shock wave moves past
>an observer.
> 
>Would the second plane be able to fly in the shock wave -- or would there be
>so much turbulence that the plane would fall apart?
> 
There was a plane (Valkyrie  (?)) designed a while back as a long range
high speend bomber that rode it's own shockwave.  The outer panels of
the wings were movable in flight to (ummmmm..) make use of the energy
lost in the shock wave.  The only prototype (i think) was lost in a 
*high* speed collision with an f-104.  They planes were flying in 
formation and the lillle fighter crept up knocked the bomber out of
the sky.  The project was cancelled.  Too bad.  Actually, I think
it was cancelled because somebody thought that the soviets could hit it
with their SAMs.   

Bryan.
From: stauffer@src.honeywell.com (Don Stauffer)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: FBW for GA aircraft
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:32:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: src.1992Apr6.193241.5396
Distribution: sci.aeronautics
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center

In article <STILES.92Apr6100650@quik.clearpoint.com> stiles@quik.clearpoint.com writes:
>
>
>
>
>
>I'm curious - is there anything happening with development of fly by
>wire systems for general aviation aircraft?  What type of sensor input is
>used for an FBY system?

I have just submitted an article to "kitplanes" magazine on FBW for
homebuilts.  That mag features pretty quick turn-around (machine read-
able submission), so it may appear in about 4-5 months.  BTW, I know there
was a topic on this group awhile ago about the origins of lift (Newton
versus Bernoulli ).  I have an article in the current issue (May), called
the Great Lift Debate, and get my two cents worth in on that question.
  --Don--
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: mkfeil@bcrki9.bnr.ca ()
Subject: Re: Aeronautical misconceptions
Organization: Bell-Northern Research
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 02:50:57 GMT

In article <7!qjzkj.sss@netcom.com> sss@netcom.com (Small Systems Solutions) writes:
>The misconception is that lift is *caused* by the curvature of the
>airfoil, or that the Bernoulli effect is responsible for lift.

Be careful what you say. These are not misconceptions. They may not be
intuitive explanations, or very complete explanations, but they are
definitely true. Lift IS caused by the curvature of the airfoil. Bernoulli
DOES account for 100% of lift.  However the stuff about the length along the
top vs the length along the bottom is pure hogwash.

>                         It also describes the relationship between
>pressure and velocity. In short,  it describes some of the epiphenomena
>of lift, but not what creates lift.

Good point. (But not enough to make a myth.)

--
Max Feil                 
Bell-Northern Research    Internet: mkfeil@bnr.ca
P.O Box 3511 Station C,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.  - What do I know? I'm just a Nerd on the Big Ranch. -
From: raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu (Raymond Man)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Sonic Boom stuff.        : -)
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:15:34 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson

Flying at the same speed as the source, one can only see a mach
wave (which may coalesce into a shock due to nonlinear effect)
which is stationary and so only spatial pressure variation but
no sonic boom which is of course temporal variation of
pressure.

Another note. As far as a vehicle is concerned, flying at exactly
mach 1 has little sihnificance.	All these vibrations, "turbulence"
and control problems are basically related to the appearance of
shocks which happens at transonic speeds which can be much lower
than mach 1, e.g. mach 0.7~0.8. The only indication for a Concorde
passanger when the plane is going through mach 1 is the machmeter
readout installed in the cabin.
-- 
Just call me `Man'. 
"And why take ye thought for "    --   Matt. 6:28
raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu
From: kdrolt@athena.mit.edu (Kenneth D Rolt)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Northrop Flying-Wing
Keywords: flying wing   northrop  XB-35  YB-49
Date: 13 Apr 92 23:23:37 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <kujtm9INN1uv@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes:
>In article <2148@transfer.stratus.com> kvk@questor.sw.stratus.com 
>(Ken Koellner) writes:
>
>>What was the number designation of the Northrop Flying-Wing
>>prototype bomber (prop version)?
>
>XB-35.  (The jet version was the YB-49.)
>
>>It was a pusher prop wasn't it?
>
>Yes.
>
>>It had four engines, yes?
>
>Yes.  I don't know what type offhand, but I suspect that it used the P&W
>R-4360 4-row radial that was also used in the B-36 and (K)C-97.  It also
>has contrarotating propellers, the gearboxes for which proved troublesome.
>Geoff Miller   geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM

according to the program 'Wings'  on the Flying Wing,  the contra-rotating
props were removed because of the gear box problems;  single props were
then used but this slowed the plane down considerably.  when the jets
were finally installed, the performance was good, but the plane had to compete
with the conventional-layout Convair B-36 and the (then) new B-47 intermediate
range bomber.  the politics of how the flying wing was dropped from development
is both interesting and perhaps typical for a defense procurement.

ken rolt   kdrolt@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Re: Question about disposal of commercial aircraft
Reply-To: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Organization: The Capital Area Central Texas Unix Society
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 01:44:29 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.142547@IASTATE.EDU> jeffdude@IASTATE.EDU (Jeffrey W Ouellette) writes:
>I am a student [...] and am looking for information regarding
>the disposal of "retired" commercial aircraft.  I am specifically looking for
>sources of information as to the operations/procedures that occur from when the
>aircraft has reached maximum flight time to some time of end, whether it be
>stripped and stored or melted down.
>
>I am aware of the "graveyard" facility in the Mojave Desert, but I cannot 
>find any information about it in our library.

The disposal and salvage of airliners was pretty widely covered in the
airline/airport-management-oriented magazines in the late 70's.  A good
business or engineering library should stock a good spread of titles.  You
will probably get better results by trying to do some basic research, then
interview some major salvage operators directly; your grade will likely
be much better. :-)  

My recollection is that the business got a real jump-start in the late 70's,
when the first 707's were taken off-line en masse.  They'd basically cannibal-
ize them for EVERYTHING, then scrap the basic structure.  The paperwork was
likely horrendous, but if one still ran 707's (i.e., most of Africa and 
Asia, at the time), these increasingly became primary suppliers for parts, 
from engine gages to seats.  At the time, a late-50's-vintage 707 was going 
for less than $200,000; its parts and salvage could net an entrepreneur 
$300K to $500K.  A few of the articles concentrated on *one* business, name 
escapes me, who was based in Florida.  I'm pretty sure this guy was
featured in FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL sometime between '77 and '81.

A good source for names is the World Aviation Directory, which should be 
found in any good library reference department.

To the best of my knowledge, the Mojave facility is less a scrap-yard than
a mothball-yard.  That's the feature: less humidity = less rain = 
less rust, corrosion, decay = the longer one can keep intact airplanes laying 
around.




---
Robert Dorsett
Internet: rdd@cactus.org
UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics