HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jerry@telecom.ksu.edu (Jerry Anderson)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
Subject: Boeing 747-300
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:41:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: ohare.airliners.1992.4
X-Original-Message-Id:  <9211171641.AA06619@pawnee.telecom.ksu.edu>

Is the Boeing 747-300 the largest commercial passenger aircraft
in the world?  Is the -300 the latest version, or are there
newer, possibly larger stretched versions of the 747?

I've heard Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas and Airbus all have plans
in the works for Really Big Planes in the 600-700 passenger,
7500-8000 mile range.  Does anyone know if these planes are
really going to get built, or is this the usual "if we can
pre-sell a couple of hundred, maybe we'll really build it?"
Does anyone have model numbers, specs (passengers, range), or
projected delivery dates?  These numbers come from memory, and
I have no faith in them at all:

    Company             Model    Delivery
    -------             ------   --------
    McDonnell-Douglas   MD-11    1993
    Airbus              AE-400   1994
    Boeing              777      1995-6

--
jerry@telecom.ksu.edu                     Jerry Anderson
                                          Kansas State University
vox: (913) 532-6936                           Telecommunications
fax: (913) 532-7114                       Manhattan  KS  66506
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: Dave Williamson <ditka!violin!dmw%piccolo>
Subject: Re: hydraulic problems with DC-10's??
Reply-To: <199211200503.AA03970@loiosh.eff.org>
Organization:  AT&T BL0512310
X-Original-Message-Id: <9211222144.AA09019@conch>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 16:44:33 EST

sdl@linus.mitre.org writes
> Perhaps now I can get a more definitive answer to the following:
> Some of my pilot friends have accused the DC-10 as having a
> particularly bad history of hydraulic problems (which have contributed
> to a few crashes).  But do the statistics really support the notion
> ...

I don't have anything statistical (others have covered that quite
admirably) but I had a similar experience.

Being a pilot myself (just small stuff), I tend to meet a lot of
airline pilots.  A former instructor of mine introduced me to a
friend of his who was currently flying for a major airline.  This guy
referred to the DC-10 as the "Death-Cruiser 10" and said he wouldn't
fly in it under any circumstances, especially not as a pilot.

My personal opinion is that flying is still safer than other forms of
transportation, DC-10 accidents notwithstanding.  While I prefer
flying in a B7[456]7 (when I can't fly myself), I have no problem
getting into a DC-10 if that is what is at the gate.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
              >|      David M. Williamson, d.m.williamson@att.com
              >|                  Commercial, ASEL, IA
 -->  -->  --> |    ---   ======   ---    ---    ---    ---   ---    ---
              >|          Proud part owner of Archer N7185F
              >|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: Helen Trillian Rose <hrose@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Boeing 747-300
        <airliners.1992.5@ohare.Chicago.COM>
X-Original-Message-Id: <199211182226.AA03203@rocza.eff.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:26:36 -0500

Karl> == Karl Swartz <kls@ohare.Chicago.COM> 

[....]

 Karl>     Mfr.      Type      MGTOW    seating  service
 Karl>     Boeing    747-400   870,000    430     1989
 Karl>     MacDAC    MD-11     618,000    250     1991
 Karl>     Airbus    A-340     559,000    230     1993
 Karl>     Boeing    777       515,000   ~220     1995

I hadn't thought the B777 was going to be in between the 757 (~200) and
767 (~250) passengers. I thought it was going to fill the niche between
the 767 and the 747 -- about the size of the old 747SP in number of
seats. The 777 is a widebody as wide as the 747's (3-4-3 seating in
economy) and was meant to fill the market left wide open by the L-1011
and DC-10 trijets (one big reason why it has optional folding wingtips:
to fit into a DC-10 gate).

 Karl> In the 600+ passenger market, Boeing has talked about both
 Karl> further stretches of the 747 and an entirely new aircraft,
 Karl> sometimes using the N650 moniker.  McDonnell-Douglas has most
 Karl> recently talked about the MD-12 -- once yet another stretch of
 Karl> the MD-11 -- as a new and much larger aircraft, also in the 600+
 Karl> passenger category.

McDonnell Douglas has put a hold on the MD-12 for lack of financing
(lets face it, would *you* get into bed with a company that produced the
DC-10?). 

 Karl> Airbus has said that if there is demand and/or if Boeing builds
 Karl> such an aircraft, Airbus will build one too.  The name A600 or
 Karl> maybe A2000 seems vaguely familiar though I can't locate any
 Karl> references.

Only Airbus would create a plane just to compete with Boeing. Just
imagine, Europe, your tax money is going to support the egos of a bunch
of political types. And inciting fear in any airliner fan. What a
worthwhile task.

--Helen
--
Helen Trillian Rose                     <hrose@eff.org, hrose@kei.com>
Electronic Frontier Foundation          email eff@eff.org for EFF Info
Kapor Enterprises, Inc.                 Flames to: 
Systems and Networks Administration     women-not-to-be-messed-with@eff.org

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: Robert Dorsett <rdd@cactus.org>
Subject: Re: TV programme on 777
Reply-To: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu
X-Original-Message-Id: <CMM.0.90.2.722295999.rdd@cactus.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 15:46:39 CST

In article <airliners.1992.14@ohare.Chicago.COM> bentson@CS.ColoState.EDU (Randolph Bentson) writes:
>Boeing is _very_ reluctant to use fly-by-wire.  Management
>trusts computer solutions no more than members of this forum.  I
>got the impression that this system has a pilot override as part
>of it's basic design.  (A sort of "do what I say, not what you
>think I want" mode.)

As I understand it, the FBW system is the only way the pilots can signal
the actuators.  Boeing is simply providing a "conventional" control law and 
interface, with "protections" that can be over-ridden by the pilot, if
necessary.  Redundancy/backup is at the hardware level, not in alternate
select modes.

So, rather than a simple joystick, Boeing's "simulating" a conventional 
interface, with feedback, in the cockpit cab: each control column inter-
connected with the other, each providing tactile feedback.  The FBW is there, 
one way or the other.


On the other hand, I do think it's a positive step that Boeing's not "re-
writing" the book by offering *artificial* control laws, as Airbus is doing.
Thus, to override the protections, the pilots just need to push or pull
*harder,* or click an overrride button: they don't have to deal with or 
anticipate the effects of *four* distinct control law modes, and the many 
permutations within each mode, depending upon system status, as is the case
with the A3[2-4]0.






---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
From: cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
Subject: 747 engine mounts
Date: 16 Nov 92 04:26:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: ohare.airliners.1992.3
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
X-Original-Message-Id: <1992Nov16.042657.19926@athena.mit.edu>


I would like to merely offer up a first topic for discussion.
Boeing and the FAA have conducted fuse pin inspections on
the 747 fleet.  A few of these inspections found cracked
pins, and quite a few found a large amount of corrosion.

Inspections have been expanded to include the engine mount
pylons.  What Im looking for is some specs on the shear yeilding of these
pins and and the stuctural integrity of the pylons.

Thanks a bunch,

Derek


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There Are Two Great Tragedies In Life,
	One Is Not To Get Your Heart's Desire.
		The Other Is To Get It.
				-Bernard Shaw 
--[20968]--
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard)
Subject: Re: Boeing 747-300
Organization: Boeing
X-Original-Message-Id: <9211190615.AA02738@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 22:15:02 PST

In article <airliners.1992.4@ohare.Chicago.COM> jerry@telecom.ksu.edu (Jerry And
erson) writes:
>Is the Boeing 747-300 the largest commercial passenger aircraft
>in the world?  Is the -300 the latest version, or are there
>newer, possibly larger stretched versions of the 747?

No, actually, I believe the 747-400 is currently the largest production
passenger aircraft in the world.  Wingspan of 211' and max takeoff weight
of 870,000lb, I believe.  Not that I do Everett products...  :-)

>I've heard Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas and Airbus all have plans
>in the works for Really Big Planes in the 600-700 passenger,
>7500-8000 mile range.  Does anyone know if these planes are
>really going to get built, or is this the usual "if we can
>pre-sell a couple of hundred, maybe we'll really build it?"
>Does anyone have model numbers, specs (passengers, range), or
>projected delivery dates?

The Boeing and the Airbus offerings in this market seem to both hover
around 600 seats and 7,000 mile range.  Takeoff weights in the million
pound plus range.  The anticipated market, as described by John Hayhurst,
Director of New Large Airplane Division, is only a couple hundred airplanes
TOTAL.  From my knothole, it looks like a prestige fight.  But there are a
lot of interesting questions that must be answered before anyone will build
one of these monsters.

>            These numbers come from memory, and
>I have no faith in them at all:

Rightly so.  :-)

>    Company             Model    Delivery
>    -------             ------   --------
>    McDonnell-Douglas   MD-11    1993

I think you'll find that the MD-11 has been delivering since 1990.  Very
nice airplane overall.  My writer flew on one to Europe, he liked it
better than the 767.  :-)  It is probably the MD-12 that you have in mind.
It is on hold until somebody comes up with $2Begabucks to finance the
development.

>    Airbus              AE-400   1994

You may be thinking of the A-340, which should certainly be delivering by
then.  I think it is the A-350 that is the number being kicked about for
their UHCA (Ultra High Capacity Aircraft).

>    Boeing              777      1995-6

Pretty close.  March '95 sticks in my mind for some reason, but I'm not
that familiar with the 777's schedule.  My wife probably knows...  :-)

Terry
drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com

Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: Swift_tuttle's orbit
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 12:05:01 GMT

Graeme Waddington writes:

>           The following should put all of the recent hoo-hah over 
>           comet P/Swift-Tuttle's next apparition into perspective.
> 
> 
> The 2126 apparition of P/Swift-Tuttle
> =====================================
> 
>    As a result of the uncertainty in deriving the nongravitational 
> parameters (A1 and A2) and their possible time-dependence, much has been
> made of the possibility that P/Swift-Tuttle represents a threat to the
> Earth at its next apparition in 2126.   The intersection of the comet's
> orbit and that of the Earth at the former's descending node gives rise
> to the annual Perseid meteor shower.  In 2126 the Earth will intersect
> the shower maximum on August 14.3, when it will have  r = 1.01338 au.
> For the comet to be at its descending node ( r = 1.01001 au ) at the
> same time requires that it have a perihelion passage time of July 26.43.
> Thus, to represent a collison threat to the Earth, the comet's time of
> perihelion passage has to be delayed by 20 days with respect to the 
> purely gravitational integration

Which implies that your orbit solution gives a perihelion date of July 6.
Interestingly, both Marsden and Nakano find purely gravitational perihelion
dates between July 11 and 12.  A more recent orbit solution by Yeomans has
verified their results.  Somehow your solution disagrees by six days.  Of
course, in their cases, they actually solve for the orbit, whereas you are
apparently only integrating the given orbit, which was given with a limited
number of digits of precision.

The problem, of course, is that some comets show secular accelerations and
decelerations due to non-gravitational effects (that is, they change).
Makes sense.  Comets are notoriously irregular in their brightness behavior
(recall the outburst of P/Halley at 14 AU, the famous Kohoutek that turned
into a dud, and even more recently, Austin), which implies variations in
gas and dust production.  If only it were so easy to reliably predict
non-gravitational forces, but it's not.

As has been pointed out, the best strategy is to follow this comet until
non-gravitational forces become negligible.  Then the orbit can be integrated
forward to 2126 with a much more reliable close approach ephemeris.  Although
collision is extremely unlikely, it's still within several standard deviations,
if the true variability of non-gravitational forces is allowed for.  Nobody
has successfully fit the 1862 October observations yet.
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: ka1gt@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (robert.m.atkins)
Subject: Re: Experiences with telescope mail order
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:31:09 GMT

In article <37770004@hpopd.pwd.hp.com>, stevep@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Steve Pearce) writes:
> A couple of years back I decided to purchase a Celestron C8. I already had a
> C80 and to save money I wanted to unload the C80 tube and purchase just the
> C8 tube assembly. I was living in California at the time and decided to use
> the services of Pauli's Optical of Danbury CT. They agreed to purchase my old
> tube and could supply the new tube standalone. Some weeks later the new C8
> tube arrived. After a few minutes checking it out I noticed what looked liked
> a defect on the corrector plate, it appeared that the plate was chipped around
> the center. I called the dealer up and as soon as I started to explain what I
> was seeing the guy on the other end said something to the effect of "Yes we saw
> that too, don't worry about it its only a little glue thats seeped out". 

I've visited (and purchased from) Pauli's. They are a little unorthodox (to
say the least) but do have some good stuff. My impression was that they (or
should I say Mr. Pauli?) are mainly brokers, buying up bankrupt stock from
other dealers and acting as worldwide distribution agents. Their "store" is
a couple of rooms in an office complex - full of telescopes. They have a
warehouse someplace else nearby. The cash price for what I bought included
a case of Coke (the drink that is) for Mr. Pauli as part of the deal! 
My impression is that they have some good stuff at good prices, but you don't
get the dealer service that you would from, say ORION or other consumer
oriented stores. On the other hand they are probably no worse than a lot of
the NYC discount houses. They are a little wierd though, so be warned.

===============================================================
Bob Atkins  AT&T Bell Labs  email (direct)  att!clockwise!rma
===============================================================

Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: bwebster@pages.com (Bruce F. Webster)
Subject: Re: Lunar astronaut covers earth with thum
Reply-To: bwebster@pages.com
Organization: Banzai Research Institute
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:18:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.122236.26582@hemlock.cray.com> dadams@cray.com (David  
Adams) writes:
> In article 15162@mav.com, kevin@mav.com (Kevin Bagley) writes:
> 
> |I'm always impressed with the illusion of the moon appearing larger
> |near the horizon.  Yes, it's only an illusion.  Anyone want to
> |explain the illusion?
> |
> 
> Let's see if I can get it right.  When the moon appears near the horizon
> it's light must traverse a greater amount of earths atmosphere.  The
> light rays are bent more and thus the atmosphere actually acts like
> a magnifying lense when the moon (or sun) is in this position.  (Did
> I get it right?)
> 

In article <1e9h76INN4nl@fido.asd.sgi.com> davep@paladin.corp.sgi.com (David  
Packer) writes:
> Gee,
> 
> A) Maybe lovell has extra small eyes...therefore reducing his
>    field of vision..making closer objects seem much larger than
>    objects farther away (look through a refractor from the wrong end).
> 
> B) Don't atmospheric effects play a part in this?? Maybe it was an
>    exceptionally cold day on the moon...(so many errors in such a 
>    short sentence).
> 
> C) Reletively speaking...it is possible that the gravitational forces
>    of the earth bend light in slightly as they leave the earth. causing
>    the opposite of Eiensteins gravitational magnifyer...
> 

Actually, it's just an honest-to-goodness optical illusion, i.e. your mind is  
playing tricks on you again. If you "measure" the moon's diameter using a ruler  
held at a fixed distance from your eyes at moonrise and then again when the  
moon is directly overhead, you'll find it has the same diameter both times.  
..bruce..

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce F. Webster             |  I grow old...I grow old...
CTO, Pages Software Inc      |  dBASE II and Wordstar are no longer sold.
bwebster@pages.com           |  			-- Jeff Duntemann
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: taylors@hubcap.clemson.edu (C. Taylor Sutherland III)
Subject: Re: Lunar astronaut covers earth with thum
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:44:38 GMT

dadams@cray.com (David Adams) writes:

>Let's see if I can get it right.  When the moon appears near the horizon
>it's light must traverse a greater amount of earths atmosphere.  The
>light rays are bent more and thus the atmosphere actually acts like
>a magnifying lense when the moon (or sun) is in this position.  (Did
>I get it right?)

Nope.  Sorry.  It's just an illusion.  When the moon is on the horizon,
your brain puts it in relation to the things that are in the line of sight,
like trees and buildings and it looks big against them.  When the moon is
overhead, there are no such things and it "looks" smaller.  The actual size
of the moon that you see does not change.  That's why it is called an illusion.


-- 
	     We're not hitchhiking anymore.  We're riding!
		     -The Immor(t)al Ren & Stimpy-
         The Fly Boy  <| E-MAIL:  taylors@hubcap.clemson.edu |>
+--<| My life is a math question with one equation and 42 unknowns. |>--+
Newsgroups: sci.astro,comp.edu,sci.bio
From: lcardina@norfolk.vak12ed.edu (Loretta Cardinale)
Subject: Re: CROSS-posting!
Organization: Virginia's Public Education Network (Norfolk)
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 13:51:29 GMT

Maybe if you explain what you're talking about instead of
reprimanding people who may be new users someone would listen.
Clarify!
--
From: max@west.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Distance of horizon
Date: 21 Nov 92 03:48:59 GMT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM

fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes:

> Anyone have handy a function for figuring the distance of the
> horizon from a viewer based on the viewer's height from the
> surface?

I calculated it a while ago to be 

    s = r arctan [(h^2 + 2 h r)/r^2]^(1/2).

That's where r is the radius of the Earth = 6.37 x 10^6 m and h is the 
height of the observer above the Earth's surface.  Note that s is 
measured along an arc, and is not the direct line-of-sight distance; the 
direct LOS distance t = (h^2 + 2 h r)^(1/2).

> This has to do with amusing my kids a bit during our next
> science discussion.  Dad's got to stay ahead *some* way... :}

Regular science discussions for your children?  Good man.

----------
Erik Max Francis   Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.  Coming soon:  UNIVERSE _ | _
USmail:  1070 Oakmont Dr. #1 San Jose CA 95117  ICBM:  37 20 N  121 53 W _>|<_
UUCP:  ..!apple!uuwest!max   Usenet:  max@west.darkside.com   464E4F5244   |
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: anderson@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Gravitational lenses
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 04:02:23 GMT

In article <17NOV199216484347@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu>, millnerrl@vtcc1.cc.vt.edu (CALLABLE_TPU) writes:
> 
> 	Hello.  I can't recall off hand where I saw it, but I saw a picture of
> an odd stellar object called I believe "The Einstein Cross" that was explained
> as four images of a star that were really the same one bent around the star in
> front of it.  I apologise for not being able to recall the source of the
> refrence and if someone could tell me where to find data, I would be most
> appreciative.
> 	My question about it is:  Why the four images, one at top, bottom, left
> and right?  The way I misunderstand it, a gravitational lense behaves similarly
> to a spherical lense with a changing index of refraction starting at infinity
> in the exact centre and going to zero as 1/(r^2) along the radius.  My
> intuition and my raytracing says that it should be a circle or some kind of
> ellipse depending on how the image is offset for relatively small offsets.  I
> do not understand how it forms the cross pattern.  Any help on this matter
> would be greatly appreciated.
> 	Robert Millner
> 
> Budget cuts, no sig file.

You and others have pointed out, correctly, that a spherically symmetric lens
will produce an Einstein Ring.  Four images are produced in the case of a
non-spherically symmetric lens (in this case, a lens which is elliptical in
the plane of the sky as seen from Earth).  Two images of the background QSO
are deflected around the lens in the plane of the minor axis, two are deflected
in the plane of the major axis.  Of course, photons are deflected around the 
lens in other planes as well--they are just a lot fewer of them.

There have been two such crosses found, informally named Einstein's Cross and
Huchra's Cross.  Hubble has indeed imaged them both and done spectroscopy on
components of at least one.

Chris Anderson			Science Operations Specialist
ANDERSON@STSCI.EDU		Science Planning & Scheduling
				Computer Sciences Corporation
				Space Telescope Science Institute
From: randolph@est.enet.dec.com (Tom Randolph)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Supernova (Was Re: P/Swift-Tuttle at last!)
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:06:55 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <1992Nov14.043817.3016@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, ins894r@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Aaron Wigley [Wigs]) writes...
>Until the next day, when I read about it in the newspaper. I happened to
>have witnessed Supernova 1987A :-) I suppose it is one way of guaranteeing
>an Amateur interest in Astronomy .. 
> 
>The Wigs of Oz,
>Aaron Wigley

Cool! I've never heard of such an observation... How'd it look: magnitude,
duration, color ?
-Tom R.   randolph@est.enet.dec.com