HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: El Al 747 Crash in Amsterdam
Date: 7 Oct 92 00:55:52 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <eric-051092093128@cider.cs.ruu.nl> eric@cs.ruu.nl (Eric Nieuwland) writes:
>Yersterday, Sunday Octobre 4th, at 18:45h local time an El Al 747F
>(frighter) crashed into a 9 storey high appartment building. At least
>40 houses completely vanished. Officials say perhaps 200 lives were

It was 40 apartments.  

>lost.
>The plane was heading for Tel Aviv and was completely fueled. The
>fire lasted til early this morning.

>The pilot reported a fire in two engines (I think they said on the right)
>ten minutes after the plane left Schiphol Amsterdam Airport. He wanted to
>return to the airport but failed. Eyewitnesses say the plane made one or
>two turns before it went down and crashed. During these turns it lost the
>burned engines. Some claim to have seen an explosion, possibly responsible
>for the loss of the engines.
>
>[..]
>Does anyone out there know how a 747 can have a fire in two engines at the
>same time? Personally, I was thinking about a leak in the fuel supply (or
>a leaking tank). This could explain why there was an explosion which ripped
>the engines off the wing.

The explosion story is unconfirmed so there may not have been a huge
explosion.  The liklihood of 2 engines catching fire is very remote as you know,
but last year another 747 cargo- a China Ail Lines- lost two engines 
shortly after take off and crashed into the ocean just off
of the tawain (i think) coast.  Just last week they pulled the engines 
out of the water.  Boeing has just issued a call to check all engine
mounting pins on boeing 747 lines (i dont think the -400 was included)
Two crashes of a similar nature just after take off certainly is fishy.
Pilots say you need a hell of a lot of altitude to recover from a 747 
dual engine loss, especially when loaded heavily like a cargo.
15 cases have been reported of microscopic cracks in these 4inch long
and 2 inch diameter steel pins that keep the engine mounts in place.
all 15 have been reported to be replaced.
I think boeing may have made a big boo-boo somewhere.

>Any comments?

These are mine  )
>
>--eric

Derek 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"He lived a life of going-to-do, 
   and died with nothing done"	       
		-J. Albery	     

In other words---JUST DO IT!
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: aatresa@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Teresa Kline)
Subject: Re: Most evil looking mother that ever flew (was Re: F-23 Dead? Nahh....
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Yeah, *right* !
Distribution: usa
Date: 30 Sep 1992 08:01 EST  

In article <1992Sep29.211538.22697@news.iastate.edu>, twh18@isuvax.iastate.edu writes...
> 
>	Was it true that "Iraqi soliders dropped their weapon when they
>saw the the sight of the Apache" in Op. DS?  
>	I saw this quote from NewWeek a while ago with a picture of
>Apache on it....

Yes, a fairly large number decided to put down their weapons and surrender 
to the Apache.  The problem was, the Apache couldn't hold them, so he just 
sort of herded them together until ground troops could arrive.  One 
journalist, trying to be funny?, asked the general during the media session 
that day if this was the first time Indians had taken prisoners in the last 
hundred years.  

-- Teresa

		Life -- just for the FUN of it!!!!
From: augustho@aludra.usc.edu (August Horvath)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: PAUL GARBER
Date: 27 Sep 1992 12:34:53 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

In article <155@newave.newave.mn.org> john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes:

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

Display space at the downtown facility is very limited, but the NASM is trying
to get some of the unique birds shown.  This year they started a new program
of rotating one of the heretofore undisplayed military types from the Garber
into the gallery at the south end of the building for 1-year periods.  This
year it is the P-47; next year it will be the Arado 234.  There are already
more unique types restored than there is display space, and other projects
(currently a Japanese scout bomber) share restoration time with the B-29.

Rare is, of course, not the same as historically significant.  Many of the 
one-of-a-kind types the NASM has are of interest only to specialized
historians and enthusiasts.  It may be debated whether these merit display
space in lieu of more familiar and numerically important types.

August Horvath <augustho@aludra.usc.edu>

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Most evil looking mother that ever flew (was Re: F-23 Dead? Nahh....
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 07:31:07 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <Bv59Io.11C@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Marvin the Paranoid Android ) writes:
>> ... That thing must have scared the hell out of the soviets...
>
>Yeah, so much so that they designed and built the MiG-25 specifically to
>counter the Valkyrie...

Actually, this turns out to have been a Western myth, I'm told.  A fairly
authoritative history of the MiG bureau -- written from within by a Russian,
not from afar by a Westerner -- was recently published.  I haven't seen it
personally, but I'm told that one of the surprises in it was that the
MiG-25 was *not* a dedicated anti-B-70 weapon, rather a general-purpose
extremely-high-performance interceptor whose design happened to solidify
at about the right time.

Remember that the West had two or three hypersonic interceptors in the
works at about the same time (the F-103 and F-108 qualify for sure; the
Avro Arrow Mk 2 was borderline, with perhaps MiG-25 performance, and
there were studies for a faster Mk 3).  These certainly weren't meant
as counters to the B-70!  The difference is that the West cancelled all
these programs, while the Soviets built theirs.  It could easily have
turned out otherwise.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: jkkuchar@athena.mit.edu (James K. Kuchar)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: aerodynamics/speed question
Date: 6 Oct 92 11:49:49 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <zari.718108764@siegel>, zari@math.ethz.ch (Alain Zarinelli) writes:

|> When I flew with my instructor for the PP, he told (and showed to) me,
|> that when the aircraft is properly trimmed, flying at a specific air
|> speed, then, as you take back power, it will descent
|> _WITH_THE_SAME_AIRSPEED_ it had, at a specific rate of descent. That's
|> ok, I believed it since I saw it.

|> ...

|> But then I wondered "WHY is this so?". There is no "obvious" reason, why
|> the speed should be the same, is there!?  ...

For a quick explanation, consider this:
When the aircraft is trimmed, it will try to maintain the same flight condition
(angle of attack & airspeed). Perturbations about the equilibrium condition will
result in a restoring force/moment back to equilibrium (if the A/C is stable).

When engine power is reduced, the plane makes up for it by using gravity. The end
result is the same airspeed, angle of attack, and thrust (engine + gravity).
Pitch _will_ change, however. Now the plane must descend to use the energy from
gravity. The opposite is true if power is increased: any excess thrust will be
used against gravity and the plane will climb.

All the plane cares about is airspeed and angle of attack such that lift=weight,
net thrust=drag, and there are no net moments on the aircraft. The particulars of
whether this state is attained by engine, gravity, etc don't matter. This
assumes that thrust from the engine doesn't apply moments on the aircraft (which 
probably is a false assumption), so large changes in power will probably 
change airspeed/angle of attack as the aircraft adjusts to a new moment balance.

Hope this helps...

Jim Kuchar
From: M21208@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: hy all this chit-chat in this group?
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 11:10:28 GMT

What?  There's unregulated and non-rigorous human communication occurring
in a sci group?  HORRORS!!!  There's hardly any bandwidth left!
From: morse@quark.mpr.ca (Daryl Morse)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: How can the F-117 fly...
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:16:45 GMT
	<19e1hhINNfht@bigboote.WPI.EDU>
	<Qtx-wW#@engin.umich.edu>,<92272.102248AERE7114@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>
	<1992Sep28.205559.28176@socrates.umd.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby, BC, Canada.


In article <1992Sep28.205559.28176@socrates.umd.edu> doug@UC780.UMD.EDU (Deac Moo of the UGC) writes:

   In article <92272.102248AERE7114@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca>, <AERE7114@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
   >I'm not sure of the numbers, but the F-117 is nicknamed the "Wobbly Goblin"

>   This is a myth started by Tom Clancy. From pilot accounts, it flies
>   quite quite well. Just gotta keep the speed up. 

Not quite. Clancy's myth was related to the F-19 in _Red Storm
Rising_, for which actual existence, or lack thereof, has been debated
endlessly in this newsgroup. And the name, I believe, was "Wobblin'
Goblin".

The official name of the F-117 seems to be subject to debate also.
I've heard that F-117 drivers refer to it as simply the "Black Jet."
Whether that is official or not is unclear to me.

--
Daryl Morse                     | Voice  : (604) 293-5476
MPR Teltech Ltd. 		| Fax    : (604) 293-5787
8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby, BC    | E-Mail : morse@mpr.ca
Canada, V5A 4B5                 |        : mprgate.mpr.ca!morse@uunet.uu.net
From: mvdl@et.tudelft.nl
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: El Al 747 Crash in Amsterdam
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:15:15 +0200
Followup-To: sci.aeronautics
Organization: TU-Delft, dpt of Electrical Engineering

article <eric-051092093128@cider.cs.ruu.nl>, eric@cs.ruu.nl (Eric Nieuwland) writes:
> Yersterday, Sunday Octobre 4th, at 18:45h local time an El Al 747F
> (frighter) crashed into a 9 storey high appartment building. At least
> 40 houses completely vanished. Officials say perhaps 200 lives were
> lost.
> The plane was heading for Tel Aviv and was completely fueled. The
> fire lasted til early this morning.
> 
> The pilot reported a fire in two engines (I think they said on the right)
> ten minutes after the plane left Schiphol Amsterdam Airport. He wanted to
> return to the airport but failed. Eyewitnesses say the plane made one or
> two turns before it went down and crashed. During these turns it lost the
> burned engines. Some claim to have seen an explosion, possibly responsible
> for the loss of the engines.

Many versions about this go around... it could also be a wing tip hitting
something, causing the plane to crash into the ground. The plane made only one
turn, tried to loose fuel (some say the pilot also dropped extra fueltanks,
whatever that may be), and headed back to schiphol as quickly as it could.

> 
> Since this was an El Al airplane, people started talking about a possible
> terrorist attack. Others say this is 'just' an accident. The 13 year old
> machine is said to have been in a fine condition.

It probably was not a terrorist attack. They almost never occur (I do not know
of any) at cargo-flights. Why would you want to bring down a plane stuffed with
flowers ?

> 
> 
> Does anyone out there know how a 747 can have a fire in two engines at the
> same time? Personally, I was thinking about a leak in the fuel supply (or

Some say the second engine probably got damaged by pieces of the exploding
first engine..

> a leaking tank). This could explain why there was an explosion which ripped
> the engines off the wing.

Why ?

> 
> Any comments?

Not really.. almost everything has been said at the moment. 

BTW: I never really saw a piece of the plane itself.. Did it completely turn to
ashes ? what happened to it ?

Michel.

> 
> --eric
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: viking@bnr.ca (Harold Henriksen)
Subject: Re: Most evil looking mother that ever flew (was Re: F-23 Dead? Nahh....
Reply-To: viking@bmerh66.bnr.ca
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Fibre Systems Development
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 12:38:57 GMT

What about the C131 (I think) configured as a gun platform.  I think it was
called 'Spooky'.  I imagine that must make quite an impression when it opens
up at relatively close range.  As far as inherently evil looking aircraft, I
would go with:

F117
A10
Apache

I would also include the SR71 (looks can be deceiving but what a great interceptor
it could have made), Valkyrie and F23.
--
Harold Henriksen                    Bell-Northern Research
email: viking@bmerh694.bnr.ca       Ottawa,Ontario,Canada 

Pillaging and plundering were more fun than programming!
(Opinions are not my employer's and sometimes not mine)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: joep@neon.dfrf.nasa.gov (Joe Pahle)
Subject: Re: X-31 Info needed.
Keywords: X-31,Info
Reply-To: joep@neon.dfrf.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Ames-Dryden FRF, Edwards, CA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:50:37 GMT

In article <s894214.717732220@minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU>, s894214@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Gareth John Coco) writes:
|> Gidday,
|> 	I was wondering if anybody knows how the X-31 project is
|> going.  I have read the info in the X-Planes book but this is very
|> limited in its information.  I know that flight trials have started
|> but I was wondering what tests had been carried out and if any
|> important information had been discovered.
-- 

A number of X-31 papers were presented at the high-angle-of-attack
projects and technology conference 4/92 (NASA CP-3173 vol 1). You
should be able to get a copy by requesting one in writing from your
friendly NASA librarian.  Current X-31 filght activity was spotlighted
in a DARPA press release early this week.  [some manuevering at 70 alpha,
etc.]. A paper covering some comparisons of recent high-alpha flight
activity [X-29, F-18 HARV, X-31] at Dryden will be presented at the
SAE aerotech in anahiem, CA next week by Robert Clarke. For "gee whiz"
info and maybe photos, try contacting the PAO office at NASA Dryden or
DARPA.

Joseph W. Pahle 
F-18 HARV flight controls 
phone: 805 258-3185
e-mail: joep@neon.dfrf.nasa.gov 
UUCP: ames!neon.dfrf.nasa.gov!joep

Comment: disclaimers attract lawyers ... here boy !  
NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards,CA

Xref: sparky sci.aeronautics:2193 sci.anthropology:979 sci.astro:10412 sci.bio:3458 sci.edu:1064
From: bwallet@apssgi.nswc.navy.mil (Brad Wallet)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.anthropology,sci.astro,sci.bio,sci.edu
Subject: Re: TEEN TALK BARBIE
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:41:33 GMT
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center

In article <1992Oct2.200215.7008@cs.ucla.edu>, quam@humpback.cs.ucla.edu (David Quam) writes:
|> >In <9210020414.AA23034@quaestor> carasso@inference.com writes:
|> >
|> >% Just heard that Mattel Toys has just made a talking Barbie that has
|> >% four canned messages it speaks.  One of the messages is "Math classes
|> >% are hard."  The other messages are supposed to pertain to hair and
|> >% shopping...
|> >% Yet another way to drive the M-F ratio in the sciences to even worse levels...
|> >% The official name of the product is "Teen Talk Barbie".
|> 
|> 
|> Don't be too hasty now!  The doll also says "I'm studying to be a
|> doctor".

Who can't add?

Brad
From: bdd0066@venus.tamu.edu (bryan duke)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Inflatable aircraft
Keywords: Duck
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:06:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: venus.6OCT199215063128
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <Bvoqv0.HCM@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, pwg25888@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Patrick W. Grady) writes...
>swkmorri@nuscc.nus.sg (Perry Morrison (Dr)) writes:
> 
>>When lying on my inflatable bed, I've often wondered if it would be
>>possible to create an inflatable wing (with appropriate stiffeners for
>		>>Lots of stuff deleted<<
> 
>>Comments?
>	Goodyear has done this already, and then shelved it because it was in
>part a military experiment. Looked awesome as an idea, even amphibious.  I saw
>this on Wings on the Discovery Channel.
> 
Yup.  The Goodyear GA-2 Duck.  It was a 3-place amphibian powered
by a 145 hp Franklin engine mounted pusher-like above the fuselage.

Interesting idea, however I don't know if you could get me to fly
an air mattress.  

--
bryan and his $.02
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: doug@alliant.com (Doug Bloomberg)
Subject: Re: Inflatable aircraft
Summary:   Goodyear made several. 
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems Corp.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:22:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.041848.22747@nuscc.nus.sg> swkmorri@nuscc.nus.sg (Perry Morrison (Dr)) writes:
>
>When lying on my inflatable bed, I've often wondered if it would be
>possible to create an inflatable wing (with appropriate stiffeners for
>support). I had in mind something like a square shaped wing with a
>proper airfoil and decent wingspan. It would also require a short rear
>structure to control pitch and some ailerons. I would see a number of options:
>

	During the 50's Goodyear made a pneumatic aircraft. A small 2 
	cylinder engine  was mounted on a pylon , in pusher mode, above
	the wing. The engine would provide not only propulsion but air
	pressure to inflate the craft and to keep it inflated.

	Intentions were to use it to extract downed pilots, also to use
	for front line observation platform.

	Several were made, they flew, they were controlable, but the
	military dropped the project.


	Doug Bloomberg
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Inflatable aircraft
From: frank@evax2.engr.arizona.edu (Frank Manning)
Date: 6 Oct 92 15:32:06 MST
Reply-To: frank@evax2.engr.arizona.edu
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona, College of Engineering and Mines, Tucson

Jim Bede also came up with an inflatable ultralight. This was some time in
the late '70s. Don't know what became of it...

--Frank Manning
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: lind@eng.umd.edu (Charles A. Lind)
Subject: Re: PAUL GARBER
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 11:50:25 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park
Originator: lind@valkyrie.eng.umd.edu


In article <155@newave.newave.mn.org>, john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes:
>In <1992Sep26.123729.21024@eng.umd.edu> lind@eng.umd.edu (Charles A. Lind):
>> > I wonder what the logic of the NASM is in restoring the Enola Gay
>
>> As far as PLANES go the B-29 is a common type of plane.  However,
>> only one of these B-29's had a major inpact on the way we live 
>> today: Enola Gay.
>
>What about Bock's Car, the B-29 that dropped the bomb on Nagasaki?  It
>is fully restored and on display at the Air Force museum in Dayton.
>As far as the A-bomb goes, I am hard pressed to make a distinction between
>the 125,000 people that died at Heroshima and the 75,000 that died in Nagasaki.
>

	Your right, but the point I was trying to make is that the B-29
is not just a common plane, it has history.  Furthmore, most people know
what the Enola Gay was, I do not think this is true for Bock's Car.

>> I believe the NASM is a showcase of planes and other aerospace related
>> vehicles which have had a major inpact on our lives, the B-29 is no
>> exception.  There is no question as to where it belongs.
>
>A B-29 will not fit in the NASM.  Once the Enola Gay is completed, it will
>be disassembled and put into storage.  Nobody will get to see it.  If there
>was a place to show the Enola Gay, I would be all for restoring it.
>
	Not true.  When I say NASM this includes it's annex which is due
to be constructed at the Dulles Airport not that far from NASM.  The plane
will not be disassembled but will be put into it's home at the annex along
with the shuttle Enterprise, a retired SR-71, and other vehicles, some of
which are too large the the NASM in DC.

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

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


Charles
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: PAUL GARBER
Date: 26 Sep 92 11:16:39 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

In article <154@newave.newave.mn.org> john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes:
>In <1992Sep25.121457.4802@eng.umd.edu> lind@eng.umd.edu (Charles A. Lind):
>> The Paul E. Garber restoration facility, outside of DC, was named in his
>> honor.  This facility restores aircraft for the NA&SM, its biggest project
>> at the moment being the Enola Gay.

>I wonder what the logic of the NASM is in restoring the Enola Gay, a plane
>that they will never be able to display, and of a relatively common type
>(as far as museums go) while some truely one of a kind German and Japanese
>planes of WWII remain hidden from view at the Garber facility.

>-john-

If you assume that Enola Gay was just a B-29, then you have a case.

If you think that Enola Gay was part of an event that divided the history
of man into two parts, then you can understand the significant role she
played in history.  Few other single artifcats of man have had such an
impact on the lives of humanity.  Enola Gay is the "genie's bottle" and
the genie won't go back in again.

She is a part of a pivotal event in history, the single most distinctive
plane since the Wright Flyer and I personally think she should be preserved.
Others may have other views and are welcome to them.  I am NOT justifying
the use of the atom bomb, simply saying that what has happened is history
and history should be preserved so the future may have the opportunity to
learn from it.  I dearly hope they have the will to do so.

Larry J

-- 
#L.W. Jewell Moderator at the Veterans Information Site (veteran@cc.purdue.edu)#
#& WWII-L Listowner: "Sunday's horoscope is note worthy because of its strange,#
#sudden and wholly unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all   #
#phases of life." "Your Horoscope" L.A. Evening Herald Express, Sat, 12/06/41  #