HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Re: A320/automation...
Keywords: A320, 747-400, FMS
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 22:59:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.213458.5811@cactus.org> rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes:
>When a need exists, innovate.  When a need doesn't exist, don't.  When there
are no
>"strains" on the technology, don't.  

Damned line noise. :-)





---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
From: nyberg@ctron.com (Jason William Nyberg)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Vanes on F/A-18
Keywords: A320, 747-400, FMS
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:45:01 GMT


I just went to see the Blue Angels in Brunswick, Maine this weekend
for the first time.  Actually this is the first airshow I've ever been
to and I have to say, it was incredible.  Anyways, I noticed an addition
to the upper surface of the wing fairing where the leading edge of the
wing joins with it.  It's about a foot long,  squared off and unaerodynamic
looking.  I have never seen it before and it isn't in any book I have,
and I was wondering what it is and when it was put there.  It looks like
it would interact with the vortex generated by the fairing at high AOA...
but i'm guessing :)

-- 
Jason Nyberg                Amiga... The Eagle Talon of Computers
nyberg@ctron.com

Disclaimer: My opinions are just that.

Work is the curse of the drinking class...       W. C. Feilds
From: br105@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeffrey A. Del Col)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: NASA pusher experiments
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:23:34 GMT
Reply-To: br105@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeffrey A. Del Col)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


While touring Lewis Flight Research Center in Cleveland I saw pictures
of what looked like a DC-9 fitted with pusher props.  It was a test-bed
for the high speed, "bent" prop blades, I think.


The Flying Wing with pushers was the YB-35 version. 


J. Del Col
-- 
Jeff Del Col      *       "I'm never lonely,...living in my heavily      
A-B College       *   populated solitude, a harum-scarum of infinity        
Philippi, WV      *   and eternity, and Infinity and Eternity seem to          
                  *   take a liking to the likes of me." Bohumil Hrabal.       
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Vanes on F/A-18
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 23:26:50 GMT

On 29 Jul 92 20:35:46 GMT, scotth@felix.filenet.com (Scott Hopson) said:

SH> In article <4592@balrog.ctron.com> nyberg@ctron.com (Jason William Nyberg) writes:
SH> [misc deleted]
>I noticed an addition to the upper surface of the wing fairing where 
>the leading edge of the wing joins with it.  It's about a foot long, 
>squared off and unaerodynamic looking.  I have never seen it before 
>and it isn't in any book I have, and I was wondering what it is and 
>when it was put there.  It looks like it would interact with the vortex 
>generated by the fairing at high AOA...
>but i'm guessing :)

SH> Based on your description it sounds like you saw the transponder antenna.
SH> The F-18 has a vane ontop of the wing which is about a foot long which is
SH> part of its transponder setup.

No, it doesn't.  All of the antennas are on the fuselage, mostly on
the centerline.  Transponder antennas are a lot smaller, too.  This
is about 6 in. high and 14 in. long.

The thing on the wing is a vortex strake designed to keep the Lex
vortex from fatiguing the verticals into failure.

I have six F-18s available for my inspection and I'm in the loop on
the aircraft because I'm a hnadling qualities engineer.  Trust me,
it's not an antenna.
--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: A-320 autocontrol
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:48:05 GMT

Mr> == Mr R D Felton <egb008@comp.lancs.ac.uk> 

 Mr> Just side-tracking a little.  Where can I get hold of a report of
 Mr> the above incident [the DC-10 crash as SUX]? Please e-mail me, or
 Mr> maybe a net-posting would benefit most.

There's a lot of good stuff on rascal.ics.utexas.edu, in the misc/av
directory, including a transcript of a talk by Capt. Haynes, and many
other interesting bits (collected by the net's own rdd ;-)
--
Christopher Davis * ckd@eff.org * System Administrator, EFF * +1 617 864 0665
   ``The First Amendment is often inconvenient.  But that is besides the
  point.  Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation
         to tolerate speech.'' --Justice Anthony Kennedy, in 91-155
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: lorcan@cix.compulink.co.uk (Lorcan Mongey)
Subject: Re: A320 yarns (Re: United drops 737-400 in favor of A-320)
Cc: lorcan@cix.compulink.co.uk
Reply-To: lorcan@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:44:35 +0000

In article <1992Jul20.211504.13924@en.ecn.purdue.edu>
dominop@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Philippos A. Peleties) writes:
 
>I think not. Witness the latest UA deal. Besides it is "serious" from
>Airbus's point of view which is what it is implied from the paragraph.
[...]
>Using technology to advance ones market share is not new :-)
 
I was about to construct a reply to Robert saying exactly this, but
you've saved me the trouble! :-)
 
Lorcan
From: pm@cs.city.ac.uk (Pete Mellor)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: A320/automation: forwarded from the aero list...
Date: 28 Jul 1992 14:04:56 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
Reply-To: pm@cs.city.ac.uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

> On the accident in Germany ... 

France. The place was Mulhouse-Habsheim in Alsace, close to the border with 
Germany, but on the French side. The area has changed nationality a few 
times in the past, and a lot of the places have both a German name and a 
French name. 

> Did you realize that the FD and the Fly-By-Wire on that A320 may 
> well have saved the lives of the passengers and crew? 

Yes. I have heard this argument several times. I first heard it from sources 
close to Airbus, which did not give me much faith in its objectivity! However, 
even *if* Bernard Ziegler supports an argument, that does not mean it is 
necessarily wrong, and I agree it should be considered coolly and carefully. 

All the DFDR data is available in the final official report, and it has been 
confirmed independently that the controls were behaving as Asseline claimed. 
As to whether the 'plane *would* have stalled if the AOA had been allowed to 
increase beyond what it was, I will leave to better-qualified people to 
comment. 

> Because the 
> pilot may have thought his new A320 gave him *complete* envelope
> protection, he did a manuver that was nearly un-recoverable. 

Given his position in charge of A320 training in Air France, I would have 
expected Asseline to have had a pretty good idea of what flight-envelope 
protections he had and didn't have. Protections change close to the ground. 
The fact that the crew may not have been aware of just how low they were 
may be at least a contributory cause. (Note that I'm hedging my bets here. 
I don't have time right now to go away and re-read the final report and the 
various re-evaluations of the evidence.) 

"Pilot error" should not be accepted as *the* sole cause of that crash (or of 
any crash). It should be the starting point for finding out *why* the pilot 
made the error. 

Pete
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gt5584e@prism.gatech.EDU (Edward Deering Boykin)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: goodbye Tomcat?
Date: 23 Jul 92 12:44:56 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

I just saw an intersting episode of Wings. On the show, tye narrarator said the Dapt. o Navy is going to remove all F-14s from active service and make more F-18 squadrons. This is due to the hig cost of the 'cat and its systems. They say in a war replacing the lost plane would be much higher than replacing several Hornets. Bummer. Does anyone know anymore about this?
 Gee.. wouldn't it be nice to be filthy stinkin rich and wouldn't it be grand if the gov't put the 'cats up for sale.......hhhrrrmmm just day dreaming of flying at mach.....


Edward D. Boykin                    Maximus Maximizer Ultimate        \  /|
gt5584e@prism.gatech.edu            Georgia Institute of Technology   'o.O`
                                                                     =(___)=
                                                                        U

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: dlevy@viper.engin.umich.edu (David W Levy)
Subject: Re: Vanes on F/A-18
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 09:15:00 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Originator: dlevy@viper.engin.umich.edu


In article <SHAFER.92Jul27101630@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov>, shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
> On 27 Jul 92 16:08:04 GMT, murty@ecf.toronto.edu (MURTY Hema Sandhyarani) said:
> 
> MURTY> In article <4592@balrog.ctron.com> nyberg@ctron.com (Jason William Nyberg) writes:
> >
> >to and I have to say, it was incredible.  Anyways, I noticed an addition
> >to the upper surface of the wing fairing where the leading edge of the
> >wing joins with it.  It's about a foot long,  squared off and unaerodynamic
> >looking.  I have never seen it before and it isn't in any book I have,
> >and I was wondering what it is and when it was put there.  It looks like
> >it would interact with the vortex generated by the fairing at high AOA...
> >but i'm guessing :)
> 
> It's a vortex fence or strake, designed to keep the LEX vortex off the
> vertical tail.  They were having a buffet problem on the verticals
> that was leading to a fatigue problem, so they came up with this fix.
> 
I believe the LEX fence also delays vortex breakdown.
From: zeke@wdl50.wdl.loral.com (Solly Ezekiel)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Pusher Propellers
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:24:32 GMT
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs

In article <1992Jul27.160806.25296@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> torgd@chinook.lerc.nasa.gov (Russell DeAnna) writes:

>We came to the conclusion that pusher propellers may
>interfear with the ground on smaller planes or on configurations
>which would put the engine near the runway during ground operations.
>But what about on large bombers where there is sufficient clearance
>between the propellers and ground?  

The Consolidated B-36, which was built (if memory serves) in either
the late 40's or early 50's, had 6 engines turning pusher props (later
versions also had twin turbojets near each wingtip, but I digress).
It was configured as a "high wing" monoplane, and apparently prop
clearance was not a problem.

The Northrop Flying Wing also had pusher props.

BTW, the pure-jet version of the B-36 (the YB-60? I'm not sure)
was _sleek_.

  +--------------------------+---------------+---------------------------+
  | "Asps!!  Very dangerous. |               | My opinions are not those |
  |     ...You go first."    |  Sol Ezekiel  |      of my employer,      |
  |          -- Sallah       |               |    Space Systems/Loral    |
  +--------------------------+---------------+---------------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: A320/automation: forwarded from the aero list...
From: <TXK9@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:41:29 EDT
Organization: Mythos/Xcalbrin Inc.
X-School: Penn State University

Doesn't this crash of 320 sounds very much like the one of Indian Airlines
flight which crashed in Banglore, India? The pilots didn't live to tell the
tale. However I read a report which showed that Pilots did realize that the
plane was losing the height too soon and try to activate manual throttle
control, but the response time for the engine being slow (compared to
fighter aircraft or 747 I am not sure)the plane could not recover and landed sh
ort of runway. Does anyone remember any other report of this crash?
Kesh
Penn.State
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: sonic@artgate.cray.com (Curtis Swanson)
Subject: Re: CFIT on takeoff
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:51:50 CDT


In article <1992Jul20.100838.28133@cs.ucla.edu>, coleman@rocky.cs.ucla.edu (Mike Coleman) writes:
> Ealier today, I was driving down Pershing Ave., which runs under the takeoff
> path at LAX, and observed a jumbo jet cross the road at what appeared to be
> less than a wingspan distance from the ground; i.e., the plane must have
> gotten off the ground at almost the last possible moment.  I've seen this sort
> of thing at least once before.  What gives?  How hard is it to get a jet off
> the runway?  Does the FAA really approve of this sort of thing?
> 
> Mike
> 
> -- 
> --Mike Coleman (coleman@cs.ucla.edu), Lord High Executioner of Anhedonia-----
> Safety Pup Says:
>                 Friends don't let friends drive in L.A. County

On my last two flights on 737's, the pilots deployed minimum flaps and took
off at the last possible moment.  After the second flight, I asked the pilots 
why this was done and was told that it was to have as much airspeed in case
of unexpected occurances.  Theory being (I suppose, being only an interested
passenger) that the extra speed will help prevent stalls which might happen
at higher flap/lower speed takeoffs.

Hope I wasn't snowed.....
--
***  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: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Re: A320/automation...
Keywords: A320, 747-400, FMS
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 21:34:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.180312.14995@en.ecn.purdue.edu> dominop@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Philippos A. Peleties) writes:
>What is in your opinion a *justifiable* reason from introducing a new design
>(more, next level of technology) whether in aircraft design, automobile design,
>etc (aside from fixing a previous problem)? Do you support the ex-Soviet
>approach (the approach might still not be ex- mind you :-) ) of pushing a
>given (current) technology to its limit before we jump to the next generation
>one?

When a need exists, innovate.  When a need doesn't exist, don't.  When there
"strains" on the technology, don't.  It's as simple as that.  In a safety-
critical system, it is irresponsible to introduce a marketing-driven 
implementation, with little advance research (and which ignores much of that 
which does exist), and which is guided in large part by the "sexiness" of the 
technology limitations or advances of the time.

Airbus is *very* frank about its approach; if this is what you disagree with, 
don't take issue with *me.*  The "technology for market share" approach is 
very well stated, as is the "test-it-in-the-field" mentality (unfortunately, 
they aren't adapting the environment as a result of such experience, as we
see with the A330/A340).

Aerospace is a discipline which has been guided by breathtaking advances 
of "utilitarian" technology--but, in general, which has *also* been guided 
by an awesome level of conservatism in design and safety (witness the fact 
that we can produce a transport aircraft which will perform to within 1 
percentage point of design expectations).  Incremental advances in 
technology, defined by *need*, are always more desirable than marketing-
driven, proprietary approaches: they produce well-understood, properly-
regulated, safe systems.  

I see Boeing/McDonnell-Douglas' new approaches as realization of the problems
Airbus has gotten itself into.  Airbus pushed the technology *too* far, 
creating more problems than it solves.  Boeing/MDC will likely *never* 
follow them on that dead-end path; they'll continue to "evolve," and skip 
it altogether.  That is, an *interface* standpoint: they share the
exact same fundamental problems of the "certification" requirements of 
safety-critical software (namely, the lack of a theoretical basis to claim 
to meet the 1e-9 catastrophic failure-case rule).  


If you disagree, fine, that's your right.   Take your A320/330/340; I'll fly 
a 727 or 757, anyday.  But note that the stakes are getting higher, as the
seating capacities of the airplanes equipped with these cockpits increase.






---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Vanes on F/A-18
Date: 27 Jul 92 17:16:35 GMT
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.

On 27 Jul 92 16:08:04 GMT, murty@ecf.toronto.edu (MURTY Hema Sandhyarani) said:

MURTY> In article <4592@balrog.ctron.com> nyberg@ctron.com (Jason William Nyberg) writes:
>
>to and I have to say, it was incredible.  Anyways, I noticed an addition
>to the upper surface of the wing fairing where the leading edge of the
>wing joins with it.  It's about a foot long,  squared off and unaerodynamic
>looking.  I have never seen it before and it isn't in any book I have,
>and I was wondering what it is and when it was put there.  It looks like
>it would interact with the vortex generated by the fairing at high AOA...
>but i'm guessing :)

MURTY> 	I think that this is probably the leading edge extension which
MURTY> 	i used to increase lift during manoeuvres.  However, it has
MURTY> 	 a side efect of creating vortices which burst near the
MURTY> 	fins and create flutter or buffet.

No, it's not the LEX.  It's just aft of the LEX, for reasons that
will become obvious below.

It's a vortex fence or strake, designed to keep the LEX vortex off the
vertical tail.  They were having a buffet problem on the verticals
that was leading to a fatigue problem, so they came up with this fix.

You're right that it's ugly.  When we first got these they were
painted matte Navy gray and we stuck them on our glossy white F-18s as
is, without delay, for safety's sake.  They really looked horrible.
As the planes have had a little down time for maintainence, we've
managed to paint the fences gloss white so that they look a lot
better.  They still don't look good, but the F-18 isn't a pretty
enough plane for it to matter.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: L1011 burns at New York
Date: 31 Jul 92 00:37:49 GMT
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

Isn't this just the third one to be lost?

-- 
 __________________________________________________________________________   
|wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.com|    "Another Case of too many scientists and     |
|Bruce Watson            |     not enough hunchbacks." -- Gary Larson      |
From: rfedkiw@century.math.ucla.edu (Ronald Fedkiw)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Please send me all known info on Aurora!!!!
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:42:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department

In Article 4379 in sci.aeronautics
kopackm@lonex.rl.af.mil (Michael A. Kopack) writes
>From what has been said in this newsgroup lately, I have become rather
>intreigued
>with the Aurora. I first heard mention of a project called Aurora when I
>attended Space Camp in 1989 from a visiting engineer, but he couldn't disclose
>anything other than the projects name and the fact that it was something
>"Really advanced." I didn't hear anything else about it for a while, and
>had forgotten about it until Popular (Mechanics or Science) had an article
>about the next generation of spyplanes and mentioned the Aurora project.
>I speculated that these were the same projects.
>
>So, could somebody please send me any info that you have on the project.
>...

I'm currently doing some computational fluid dynamics work with
hypersonics. 
So, I too have an interest in this 'state of the art vehicle'.
Please send me carbon copies of this info.

Thanks,    

Ron Fedkiw



--
Ron Fedkiw (rfedkiw@redwood.math.ucla.edu)

A plan is made by someone who is sitting and thinking ...
while others are doing.
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.geo.geology,rec.aviation
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Seeking method of determining magnetic variation
Reply-To: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 06:32:02 GMT

I'm looking for a way to approximate magnetic variation data on the fly.
What I'd really like would be a method which produces a value given
a latitude and longitude, on a world-wide basis.

Barring that, a source of raw isogonic data would be of immense help, say,
organized by arc-second of longitude and latitude.  If this data contains the 
epoch year and annual drift information, all the better.

Please send any replies to rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu, or just reply to
this message.

I'll summarize any replies; this is a fairly frequently-asked question (which
never seems to get answered, at least in public :-)).

(the data's for use in what may someday be a free/share-ware navigation
program)




---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: lorcan@cix.compulink.co.uk (Lorcan Mongey)
Subject: Re: A-320 autocontrol
Cc: lorcan@cix.compulink.co.uk
Reply-To: lorcan@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 21:46:35 +0000

In article <1992Jul21.170144.8850@daa> root@daa (0000-Admin(0000))
writes:
 
>The current status of the Saginaw Mi. upset incident is that:
>The incident was NOT crew induced but was probably caused by a rudder
>actuator failure (hard-over).
 
If that's just "for information" then thank you. But I hope you're not
suggesting that the accident report should put an end to all speculation
about other causes. After all if this were the case then we would have
no grounds for continuing to discuss the A320 crashes. :)
 
Lorcan
From: root@daa (0000-Admin(0000))
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: A-320 autocontrol
Date: 21 Jul 92 17:01:44 GMT
Organization: Avia Leasing Inc.

In article <memo.529718@cix.compulink.co.uk> lorcan@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
>In article <1992Jul17.012542.4020@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
>wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher) writes:
> 
>Not a very good example, really. It is commonly believed (although
>unproven) that this incident was *caused* in the first place by the
>pilots failing to follow procedures, in that they (allegedly) extended
>flaps and slats in cruise, something which the FCS would probably have
>prevented. So, is this an example for or against fly-by-wire?
> 

The current status of the Saginaw Mi. upset incident is that:

	The incident was NOT crew induced but was probably caused by
	a rudder actuator failure (hard-over). The rudder caused yaw
        and roll that the autopilot ( 2-axis [ no control over rudder])
	tried to correct with aileron input. The pilot saw the wheel turn
	attempted an autopilot disconnect and the roll clutch did not
	disconnect correctly. the aircraft rolled and dove. In a attempt
	to regain control the crew dropped the gear at over 350kts and
	one of the main gear broke it's  mounting and sheared the gear
	hydraulic lines. The hydraulic system drained to empty and the
	loss of hydraulic pressure allowed the rudder to return to neutral.
	
	After landing the rudder actuaters were removed but the accident 
	report had NO indication of their condition.


=========================================================================
David A Avery				lll-winken!stanton!conexch!daa!daa
Avia Leasing Inc.			(714) 556-9061
Flight Simulator Engineering		Costa Mesa, CA USA 92626

-- 
=========================================================================
David A Avery				lll-winken!stanton!conexch!daa!daa
Avia Leasing Inc.			(714) 556-9061
Flight Simulator Engineering		Costa Mesa, CA USA 92626