HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Sonic Boom stuff.        :-)
Date: 16 Apr 92 03:28:49 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Apr14.124031.9795@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 
>perpetuated by North American American and the Air Force to make the XB-70 
>sound even more gee-whiz than it was...

I think Alfred Eggers of NASA Langley, who discovered compression lift,
would be more than a little offended at this characterization.  That
"little technical white lie" more than doubled L/D ratio at Mach 3.
It wasn't just marketing hype.  However, it had absolutely nothing to
do with either the canards or the drooping wingtips.  The requirements
for compression lift, at least as it was understood back then, were
(a) a slim delta wing, (b) fuselage under the wing and none on top,
and (c) very careful fiddling with wing and fuselage shape to get the
shock waves and airflow in the right places.

David is correct in saying that the drooping wingtips were for better
directional stability and less shift of center of lift.  They looked
weird but weren't really anything special.
-- 
ISDN, n:  Incredibly Slow and Dumb      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Networking                              |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: XB-70 Valkyrie (was: Re: Sonic Boom stuff.        :-)
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:13:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

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?

At the time it was designed, titanium was quite a bit more exotic than
it is now.  That, and the...um...acreage involved, induced North American
to try something else.  Aluminum was out.  They settled on stainless
steel honeycomb for much of the structure.

This was pretty new, too, and they had to work out some problems with
bonding the honeycomb structure (and getting the glue to stick, what
with heating cycles and lots of flexing in some areas).

I think that one of the ovens used to cure large honeycomb panels
was pretty large...

I can't find the best of my sources on the XB-70, but I recall some
cooling of the airframe involved pumping fuel through some chosen
areas on its way to the engines.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: bluejay@feathr.enet.dec.com (Bluejay Adametz)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Aeronautical misconceptions
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:29:09 GMT
Reply-To: bluejay@feathr.enet.dec.com (Bluejay Adametz)
Organization: Technical Support & Magic


This whole thread is a misconception. Sorry, but you've all got this 
production-of-lift thing totally wrong.

As any aircraft owner can tell you, the thing that creates lift has 
nothing to do with airflows or Bernoulli or any of that junk. It's 
*money* that creates lift.

:)
						- Bluejay Adametz
						  AA-5B N45210
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: hoyme@src.honeywell.com (Ken Hoyme)
Subject: Re: Flight Control Bus Spec
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 18:17:05 GMT


In article <1992Apr15.091823.10835@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> eeyore@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Mark Anthony Brown;E200) writes:

> In <1992Apr8.214700.23888@cs.ucla.edu> kanekawa@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Nobuyasu Kanekawa) writes:

>>Does anybody know about the Flight Control Bus Spec, called
>>ARINC [something] ?
>>What is the difference from Mil-1553B ?

> Its called ARINC 629 or DATAC. I worked with it a few years ago whilst I was
> on what was to later be the 777 FCS team as a student engineer, but can't
> remember any details. I don't think its a bus master-slave system like
> MIL-STD-1553, however --- I think each box has a time slot on the bus
> with random retry interval in case of collision, which means you get graceful
> performance degradation as the bus becomes overloaded.

> It should feature on the 777, and was being promoted by Boeing. That could give
> you a lead in getting more information.

ARINC 629 is a masterless broadcast bus which uses a CSMA - clash
avoidance media access protocol.  There are fixed timers so each
terminal is required until it sees an idle gap which matches its timer
before it can transmit.  By making sure each terminal is programmed to a
different Terminal Gap, you can avoid conflict altogether.  No random
backoff and retry is allowed since that would introduce non-determinism
which would make it unacceptable for use in flight-critical applications
(such as the 777).  An additional timer is used to make sure that each
terminal gets a chance to transmit before one of the low valued timer
terminals gets a second chance.  Appropriate settings of these timers
can guarantee that the bus operates in a periodic mode, which is
important in control systems.  However, terminal failures can introduce
some level of timing jitter within the periodic pattern.  

The bus can transition to an aperiodic mode when heavily loaded, but
this is being avoided by design on the 777.  

During the ARINC standards process, a Combined Mode Protocol was added
which allows mixed periodic and aperiodic data transfers.  The existing
DATAC chips (funded by Boeing) do not include this enhanced protocol and
it will not be used on the 777.

It supports a 2 Mbps transfer rate, but the gap timing and other
considerations makes about 1.6 Mbps the max that can be eeked out of it.
A fiber-optic version is being discussed, but there is not heavy
activity in its development.  (ARINC 629 is multi-drop, which is not the
best architecture for a fiber based standard.)

The official spec is:

ARINC Specification 629: Multi-Transmitter Data Bus.  Part I: Technical
Description, Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee (AEEC), March 7,
1990.   

There was also a series of articles on ARINC 629 in Avionics Magazine
March, April and August 1989.

-- 
---
Ken Hoyme                    Honeywell Systems and Research Center
(612)782-7354                3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418
Internet: hoyme@src.honeywell.com
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: chucks@uars2.uucp (Chuck Smythe)
Subject: Group for discussing lighter than air technology?
Organization: NCAR/Atmospheric Chemistry Division
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:43:06 GMT

A friend is interested in discussing small lighter-than-air craft.  Does this
newsgroup or any other that you know of consider such things?  

E-mail preferred.

			Thanks, 
			Chuck Smythe

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: barrk@tramp.Colorado.EDU (BARR KEITH STABLER)
Subject: Re: Aeronautical misconceptions
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 14:43:52 GMT

In article <1992Apr07.022635.275@eng.umd.edu> crouse@eng.umd.edu (Gil Crouse) writes:
>it is an observable fact, that the
>air on a lifting surface moves faster over the upper surface than the
>lower surface and thus there is a pressure difference between the
>upper and lower surface and thus lift is generated.
>
This is correct...the air over the top does move faster.

>This implies that the distance from the stagnation
>point at the leading edge (LE) around the top surface to the
>stagnation point at the trailing edge (TE) is LONGER than the distance
>from the stagnation point at the LE around the lower surface to the
>stagnation point at the TE.  Thus the air traveling over the upper
>surface does in fact travel further than the air over the lower
>surface, EVEN FOR A SYMMETRIC AIRFOIL!!!!!
>

What this myth ignores is the fact that the difference in length has
nothing to do with it.  Just because the top is longer what says that
if two particles hit the stagnation point at the front, and one goes
over the wing, while the other goes under the wing that the particles
have to meet up?

Wind tunnel test conclusively show that this is not the case.  If it
where the case, we would only get about 30% of the lift we now get.
The particle that goes over the top actually ends up much further down-
stream then the particle that goes under the wing due to circulation.  

In the wind tunnel we have sent vertical lines of smoke past an airfoil.
We have seen that the line segment that passes over the top actually
ends up downstream as drawn below.


             |          |              |                  
             |          |              |                  
             |          |              |                  
             |(__wing___________       |                  
             |        |         |                         
             |        |         |                         
             |        |         |                         
              <---smoke lines---------->                  
                                                          
Please forgive the crude drawing, but I think it shows what I am trying
to say.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Barr              | 99% of all aircraft    |   barrk@tramp.colorado.edu
COMM-AS&MEL/INST/IGI    | accidents occur due to | barr_k@silver.colorado.edu
University of Colorado  | improper airspeed or   |   barr@aaspen.mmm.ucar.edu  
Aerospace Engineering   | attitude at touchdown  |          barr@mmm.ucar.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Question about disposal of commercial aircraft
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:59:49 GMT
Followup-To: sci.aeronautics
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com



In <1992Apr10.142547@IASTATE.EDU> jeffdude@IASTATE.EDU 
(Jeffrey W Ouellette) writes:

>I am aware of the "graveyard" facility in the Mojave Desert, but I cannot find
>any information about it in our library.


There's also a large facility in Arizona called Marana Airpark; it's just
off Interstate 10, near Phoenix.  You can see the airplanes from the
highway.  They do both storage and salvage work there, as far as I know.



Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM  + + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: manuelp@bullet.ecf.toronto.edu (MANUELPILLAI Gerald N.)
Subject: Re: Northrop Flying-Wing
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:47:41 GMT

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)?
>
>It was a pusher prop wasn't it?
>
>It had four engines, yes?
>
Wasn't the prop version called the XB-35?  The turbine version was the
YB-49, and I think it had 8 engines.  Anyone out there know if it
was a direct turbine conversion of the XB-35?

Gerald M

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: stauffer@src.honeywell.com (Don Stauffer)
Subject: Re: fly-by-wire
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:30:13 GMT

In article <1992Apr15.234757.25031@athena.mit.edu> chuang@athena.mit.edu (Weihaw Chuang) writes:
>
>	What are the benefits of "fly-by-wire" controls beyond greater 
>manuverability?  More specifically why are the civillian jets starting using
>digital controls systems.

There are two main benefits of digital fly-by-wire on commercial aircraft.
First, the high performance autopilot included in a FBW system allows
flight of an aircraft with reduced stability margin.  This results in less
trim drag, which means increased efficiency.

Second, with the availability of digital navigation instruments, such as
INS and, in the future, digital output GPS, it is very easy to directly
hook the navigation to the control, with the result being a "flight
management system".  This allows the pilot (should we now rename him
"sysop") to tell the FMS that he wants to fly to a certain point or 
destination, and the system, instead of telling the pilot which way
to fly to get there, actually flies the plane there.
--Don--
From: train@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Tom Rainwater)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: PROP THRUST CALCULATION
Keywords: PROPELLER, THRUST
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:13:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: qualcom.train.702764018
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA


  I have been looking for a formula which would yield propeller thrust in
  either pounds or ounces as a function of pitch, diameter, RPM, and terminal
  velocity.  I'm quite certain it isn't quite as simple as this.  There are
  probably some efficiency factors and some other booga which I have not thought  of. Fairly large assumptions are ok as I don't need the result extremely
  accurate.  I have heard that this may be a diffequ, if so its ok it has been
  a day or two but I think I still remember that stuff.

  THANX IN ADVANCE

  Tom Rainwater
  Engineer
  QUALCOMM INC.
  San Diego, CA
  (619) 597-5365
  TRAIN@QUALCOMM.COM

-- 
===================================================
Tom Rainwater
Engineer
Qualcomm Inc.
San Diego, CA
(619) 597-5365
TRAIN@QUALCOMM.COM
===================================================
From: minnich@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Randolph J. Minnich)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: AIRCRAFT DESIGN
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:29:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: gn.1992Apr16.212920.5084
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Apr15.195440.6800@hubcap.clemson.edu> conradv@gauss.eng.clemson.edu (Conrad Vincent) writes:
>
>
>
>	Could someone recommend to me books on aircraft design.
>Thanks in advance. 
>ps : i would be obliged if you could e-mail me directly
>

A good basic design book is "Fundamentals of Flight" by Richard Shevell.  It
scratches the surface of every major design factor and how they relate.  As
for a complete design book, You'll need a series or a degreee.
-- 
      _/_/_/_/_/   _/_/   _/       _/ _/_/_/_/   _/         _/
     _/      _/ _/    _/ _/       _/ _/      _/    
    _/      _/ _/    _/ _/ _/    _/ _/      _/    _/    _/
   _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/       _/ _/      _/  
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: jongsma@esseye.si.com (Ken Jongsma)
Subject: Re: Question about disposal of commercial aircraft
Reply-To: jongsma@benzie.si.com
Organization: Smiths Industries
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:37:39 GMT

In <1992Apr10.142547@IASTATE.EDU> jeffdude@IASTATE.EDU (Jeffrey W Ouellette) writes:

>I am aware of the "graveyard" facility in the Mojave Desert, but I cannot find
>any information about it in our library.

Our local paper had a wireservice (AP) story about the Mojave storage facility
in it this past Sunday (4/12). Your local library should be able to recover
it or you could do a Compuserve search.

-- 
Ken Jongsma                                          ken@wybbs.mi.org
Smiths Industries                               jongsma@benzie.si.com
Grand Rapids, Michigan                      73115.1041@compuserve.com
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: bharat@ccvax.ucd.ie
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: need a help
Date: 11 Apr 92 15:14:41 GMT
Organization: University College Dublin

Hi friends,
    
I am interested in astronomy and related things. I am an amature. Could any one
enlighten me on following things. I know that the questions i am asking might be
very vague, so take my apologies in advance.

(1) A satellite was launched nearly 7-8 years ago. It is on a specific mission
to explore the farthest end of our solar system. It has already passed uranus
and is on the way to pluto.Scientists, who launched the satellite, have put
 some information and things about human life (like a cassette with human voice
recorded in it). Is it "Voyager"?
(2) If it is not "Voyager", then What was "Voyager"  meant for?

Please send all information on e-mail, if possible.
I welcome all pertinent informations.

-Bharat
bharat@ccvax.ucd.ie
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Magsail article in May 1992 ANALOG magazine
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:22:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.rq1c4INN2r2
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: lightning.berkeley.edu

In article <34909@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> klaes@verga.enet.dec.com (Larry Klaes) writes:
>        The May 1992 issue of ANALOG SCIENCE FICTION & FACT magazine
>    has a somewhat technical article by Robert M. Zubrin on magnetic 
>    sail spacecraft.  The article discusses the concept of vehicles 
>    which use celestial magnetic fields and plasma to move in space.

Just as a side note, Zubrin's Magsail has one (major) catch: It requires a
superconducting current loop, which is passively cooled. This should be
possible, but only when (and if) all the problems with the nitrogen temperature
supreconductors are solved.

						     Frank Crary
						     UC Berkeley
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Subject: Re: Hubble Guide Star Catalog on CDROM
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:54:44 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.212212.15001@spatial.com> jms@spatial.com (Jim Sharpe) writes:
>
>I was just looking through a catalog from the Astronomical Society of the 
>Pacific and noticed a two volume cdrom set containing the Hubble space 
>telescope guide star catalog.  The copy says nifty things like "18,819,291 
>celestial objects" ... "15 million stars and 3 million nonstellar objects."
>
>It also says that "separate software programs are included that allow you to 
>read and display graphic information on your Macintosh, or read and display 
>text only on your IBM and compatibles."
>
>They're asking $54.95 which seems quite reasonable, but I do have a couple
>
A related question:

Who holds the copyright on the HST GST?  I would guess AURA.  But I don't
know.  I presume the ASP holds the copyright onthe software they wrote to
acess it.  
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: pgolden@nhgs.vak12ed.edu (Patrick S Golden)
Subject: Re: LANDSAT Images
Organization: Virginia's Public Education Network
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 15:47:33 GMT

I, too, agree with the writers who suggest that we pay twice
for LANDSAT.  I am especially concerned that these images could
be used to great effect in schools as a way to entice students
to study science.

But on to my immediate point...for those just wanting "a pretty
picture" they can be obtained relatively inexpensively from the
U.S. Geological Survey.  You may not find exactly what you
want, but they do have archives of the more frequently
requested photos by the general public.  At least they did
provide that service a few years ago.  Call their headquarters
in Reston, VA for futher details.
-- 
|-------------------------------|
|Patrick Golden                 | 
|Virginia Space Grant Consortium| 
|Hampton, VA  (804-865-0726)    |
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: SHOULD WE FURTHER EXPLORE MARS ???
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 10:12:22 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.220329.18439@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> curtis@space.ualberta.ca (Curtis Krawchuk) writes:

>I think an important point is being missed here.  Before anything is sent to  
>Mars, we need to raise that $50 - $500 billion. 

Mars Observer is scheduled to take detailed photographs of the entire surface 
Mars -- something no astronaut can do -- for more like $500 _million_.

>from the public taxpayers who don't really like sending their hard earned  
>dollars to the government just to make some guy in a white lab coat happy!

Polls indicate the majority of the public support R&D in general.
The % supporting astronaut projects and automated exploration 
are equal within margin of error.

>A lot of time and money was spent in the 50's and 60's (?) towards 
>advertising the adventure and romance of man exploring the solar system.  
>This (and other things) eventually lead to the manned missions to the moon. 

You are mixing up cause and effect.  Space budgets were radically raised
in response to an _automated_ spacecraft, Sputnik.  There is little 
evidence that the public supported projects like Mercury more than projects
like Mariner.  Publicity != support.  In fact, the NASA budget was
in steep _decline_ throughout the Apollo project, in no small part because 
the public percieved $tens billions spent for moon rocks was a waste of 
money.

>It is that human  
>element that needs to be stressed to the public.

That was NASA's strategy during the Apollo missions, and it backfired.
This misconception has dominated the NASA leadership, causing them
to waste $10's of billions on astronaut projects since, while letting
planetary exploration fall by the wayside (only 3% of NASA budget for
FY93).

>I don't think that we will get the needed funding if all we wanted to do 
>is send those space probes there.

We already have funding for MO.  If we don't get funding for further
probes, it may be in no small part due to false arguments like the ones
you have given.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: benoit@netcom.com (BENOIT SCHILLINGS)
Subject: CCD camera
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 22:00:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

I'm thinking of buying a ccd camera for my ultima 8 and have few questions
related to those receptors.

Comparing the lynx and the ST-4, the big difference is that the
first is outputing some 12 bits data, the st-4 only some 8 bits data.

Does it really worth the difference.
Also the lynx has a 1/100 sec shutter, the st-4 ??? i don't know.

It seems that the st-4 is the only ccd which doesn't need a PC slot.
Are there any other manuf. using the parallel or serial port ?
The reason is that i need to use this ccd on a Macintosh and on a PC (portable).

Is there any other ccd i should look at ?

My main usage would be some planetary imaging.


Thanks,		Benoit


Xref: sparky sci.astro:5074 sci.space:7599
From: klaes@verga.enet.dec.com (Larry Klaes)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space
Subject: Total solar eclipse article in May 1992 NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:26:12 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


        The May 1992 issue of NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC magazine has an
    article on the total solar eclipse of July 11, 1991.  The
    photographs alone are stunning.

        Larry Klaes  klaes@verga.enet.dec.com
		     or - ...!decwrl!verga.enet.dec.com!klaes
    		     or - klaes%verga.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com
                     or - klaes%verga.enet.dec.com@uunet.uu.net

             "All the Universe, or nothing!" - H. G. Wells

        EJASA Editor, Astronomical Society of the Atlantic
Newsgroups: sci.astro