Devices for avoiding VNE?

BllFs6 wrote:
Or is it just that most people could never overcome the fact that the
europeans beat everyone else into the SST commercial world, and 40 years
later nobody could repeat that ?



It more like nobody is stupid enough to do it...

They predicted they would sell several hundred of em....they built about 12 and
sold none....

Yep, anothe Euro victory......

With victories like that who needs failures?

The Soviets?

Boeing's design was a moveable wing, akin to the F-111 and F-14. This would
have reduced the need to move fuel, at least as much, as it would shift
along with the wing. One thing about the old Boeing, they never bid or
offered an airframe that they didn't have the technology to build in hand.

Frank Whiteley

"Arnie" wrote in message
. com...
Denis, I hope you're just trying to make fun of the limited views some
people express here.

If you refer to the need to transfer fuel to stay in balance, the Concorde
was neither the first, nor the last airplane with that need. Fuel
management
is an issue with most large airplanes, weather of not they are Delta wings
or even Supersonic.

Boing was working on a similar design (although a few years behind) at the
time the Concorde was launched, and it too would have the exact same
challenge to stay in balance, as a large delta-wing supersonic aircraft.

Or is it just that most people could never overcome the fact that the
europeans beat everyone else into the SST commercial world, and 40 years
later nobody could repeat that ?




Denis" wrote in message
...
Paul Repacholi wrote:

Concorde, when it was acelaring through transonic speeds had to do a
large fuel xfer to the aft tanks to conpensate for the strong nose
down trim shift.

It was rumoured to be certified

Surprisingly... but I'm confident that, had the soaring price of oil in
the 70's not succeeded in killing commercially this beautiful bird, the
FAA would not have been so kind to let it fly over the USA with such a
dangerous feature ;-)

--
Denis

R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!!
Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ?

Moveable wings ?
No it wasn't. Not the model shown on the old magazines I have.

It was a nice, beautiful sexy delta not unlike it's competitors.

Actually, look at what I just found on the web:
http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/sst.html



"F.L. Whiteley" wrote in message
...
Boeing's design was a moveable wing, akin to the F-111 and F-14. This
would
have reduced the need to move fuel, at least as much, as it would shift
along with the wing. One thing about the old Boeing, they never bid or
offered an airframe that they didn't have the technology to build in hand.

Frank Whiteley

"Arnie" wrote in message
. com...
Denis, I hope you're just trying to make fun of the limited views some
people express here.

If you refer to the need to transfer fuel to stay in balance, the
Concorde
was neither the first, nor the last airplane with that need. Fuel
management
is an issue with most large airplanes, weather of not they are Delta
wings
or even Supersonic.

Boing was working on a similar design (although a few years behind) at
the
time the Concorde was launched, and it too would have the exact same
challenge to stay in balance, as a large delta-wing supersonic aircraft.

Or is it just that most people could never overcome the fact that the
europeans beat everyone else into the SST commercial world, and 40 years
later nobody could repeat that ?




Denis" wrote in message
...
Paul Repacholi wrote:

Concorde, when it was acelaring through transonic speeds had to do a
large fuel xfer to the aft tanks to conpensate for the strong nose
down trim shift.

It was rumoured to be certified

Surprisingly... but I'm confident that, had the soaring price of oil
in
the 70's not succeeded in killing commercially this beautiful bird,
the
FAA would not have been so kind to let it fly over the USA with such a
dangerous feature ;-)

--
Denis

R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!!
Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ?

The Soviets?


Thats more funny than you think...

Because if I recall correctly....they outright stole design info on the
Concorde....and the French/Brits let them do it and put a few "flaws" in there
to boot...

After a few test flights, the Russian "me too SST" broke up in flight...

Thats IIRC and am not confusing this with something else...

Not to say the Russians cant be damn good engineers.....its just that this was
not one of their finer moments....

take care

Blll

Okay, that's the official history and finally contracted design, but the
much favored design was based on swing wing technology developed during the
TFX (F-111) competition. They went for fixed wing because they felt the
swing wing was so conceptually different that they wouldn't win the
contract, politicians being what they are (Jackson and Magnuson, despite
Senate status, had few electoral votes backing them up), and Boeing had a
long dry spell of winning government airplane contracts. It was a purely
pragmatic design. If you look at Boeing history, the company did not win a
federal airplane contract from the KC-135 (and it's variants, EC-135,
RC-135, E-6, C-135) until the E-4 (and that was an anomaly as there was no
real alternative plus only four were built for AF1 and NEACP). Although you
will find no attribution, this resulted from Boeing putting the government
(USAF) over a barrel in the production of the KC-135 after winning the
tanker contract, requiring that 10 707's be rolled off the line for every 15
KC-135's. That's NOT what Lemay and the USAF wanted, but Boeing won the bid
based on parallel production of the military and commercial airframes and
would go broke otherwise. The government unhappily capitulated on this, but
it stuck for a long time and Boeing started a string of bid losses. After
the C5, the company essentially focused on commercial airframe development
and gave up on chasing most government bids for a long time (note this is
the aircraft wing, not missiles). Boeing only really got back into military
aircraft by buying or partnering with established military production lines.
I can't attribute this either, but have heard it said that as much as 85% of
the B-2 was built under Boeing sub-contracts. True? I don't know, but it
might make an interesting 'follow the money' research project for some
graduate student.

The congressional hearings on McNamera's baby make interesting reading
despite all of the blacked out classified areas. It's was a four-volume set
IIRC. However, the Boeing TFX design was much superior in
design/performance to the General Dynamics implementation (not to say that
the GD result wasn't a neat airframe) and likely would have resulted in the
Navy staying in the contract. Remember Mac? He's the guy that's just
apologized for Vietnam. Anyway, after those Congressional hearings, the
feds go back and give Lockheed the nod for the C5, which, in the opinion of
many, they couldn't build at the time and the cost overruns that resulted
from developing the technology cost taxpayers several boatloads of money.

I grew up going to school with classmates with last names like Wilson,
Boullion, Stamper, and one of my best friend's father was a lead Boeing wing
engineer (from 50's until 80's). (I leave his name out as it is very unique
and googling only finds my friend, his wife, and children. His father's
work was pre-Internet, but he was published in AWST and elsewhere from time
to time). We had long, engaging discussions about this very topic and also
the C5 and the eventual cracking wing roots of the C5A (another lost Boeing
contract). He was very candide about politicians and aircraft and cost
overruns and why they happened (C5 especially, as it was timely).
Personally, he was fiscally conservative. OBTW, he had some soaring
experience in California in the early 1950's, just to keep this on track.
He was a fighter pilot instructor during WWII.

There's the 'official' Boeing history, but there are many things that
happened between Boeing and the federal government (and politicians) that
you won't find attributed to anyone. In addition to anecdotal stories, I
was part of a 100 student senior level course at the University of
Washington that studied the Boeing company in detail in 1970.

But that was the old Boeing. I hardly recognize the current corporation.

Frank Whiteley

PS: Never worked there. My mother did for six months and didn't like it
much. However, after WWII when the other aviation manufacturers were laying
off, Boeing was hiring the best engineers it could find. These were men
with talent and vision of how aviation would change the world. Most are now
gone, but what an era.

"Arnie" wrote in message
. com...
Moveable wings ?
No it wasn't. Not the model shown on the old magazines I have.

It was a nice, beautiful sexy delta not unlike it's competitors.

Actually, look at what I just found on the web:
http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/sst.html



"F.L. Whiteley" wrote in message
...
Boeing's design was a moveable wing, akin to the F-111 and F-14. This
would
have reduced the need to move fuel, at least as much, as it would shift
along with the wing. One thing about the old Boeing, they never bid or
offered an airframe that they didn't have the technology to build in
hand.

Frank Whiteley

"Arnie" wrote in message
. com...
Denis, I hope you're just trying to make fun of the limited views some
people express here.

If you refer to the need to transfer fuel to stay in balance, the
Concorde
was neither the first, nor the last airplane with that need. Fuel
management
is an issue with most large airplanes, weather of not they are Delta
wings
or even Supersonic.

Boing was working on a similar design (although a few years behind) at
the
time the Concorde was launched, and it too would have the exact same
challenge to stay in balance, as a large delta-wing supersonic
aircraft.

Or is it just that most people could never overcome the fact that the
europeans beat everyone else into the SST commercial world, and 40
years
later nobody could repeat that ?




Denis" wrote in message
...
Paul Repacholi wrote:

Concorde, when it was acelaring through transonic speeds had to do
a
large fuel xfer to the aft tanks to conpensate for the strong nose
down trim shift.

It was rumoured to be certified

Surprisingly... but I'm confident that, had the soaring price of oil
in
the 70's not succeeded in killing commercially this beautiful bird,
the
FAA would not have been so kind to let it fly over the USA with such
a
dangerous feature ;-)

--
Denis

R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!!
Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ?

BllFs6 wrote:

The Soviets?



Thats more funny than you think...

....not than me...

Because if I recall correctly....they outright stole design info on the
Concorde....and the French/Brits let them do it and put a few "flaws" in there
to boot...

I knew that :-)

After a few test flights, the Russian "me too SST" broke up in flight...

Apparently several Tu-144s crashed. Of course the most spectacular was
at the Paris Air show some time in the early 70s IIRC. The story is
that the French were flying a Mirage up in the clouds to get info on the
Tu-144 during a demonstration flight. The airliner pilot didn't know
about it, spotted him, and in the maneuvering to avoid stalled his
engines. In the ensuing dive to restart he was running out of altitude,
pulled up, and ripped the wings off. NOVA did a show on it a few years ago.

Shawn

Afaik, this is the pretty wide-spread misconcept about the development of
TU-144 / Concorde. The fact that the end-result was very similar and many
concepts were the same doesn't nesessarily mean that one was copy of
another. The ways both design teams traveled (making concept-proving
aircrafts based on fighters for example) were very similar and their design
choices were so limited that it would be wonder if the aircrafts would have
been more different than they really were. One has to remember also that at
this time russians were on very top of the supersonic aircraft engineering.
Good example of that was Mig-21. They also knew the theory of tailless
aircrafts and had some experience with them. Putting those things together
results pretty much in the same concept that they eventually flew.


Regards,
Kaido



"BllFs6" wrote in message
...
The Soviets?


Thats more funny than you think...

Because if I recall correctly....they outright stole design info on the
Concorde....and the French/Brits let them do it and put a few "flaws" in
there
to boot...

After a few test flights, the Russian "me too SST" broke up in flight...

Thats IIRC and am not confusing this with something else...

Not to say the Russians cant be damn good engineers.....its just that this
was
not one of their finer moments....

take care

Blll

iPilot wrote:

Afaik, this is the pretty wide-spread misconcept about the development of
TU-144 / Concorde. The fact that the end-result was very similar and many
concepts were the same doesn't nesessarily mean that one was copy of
another. The ways both design teams traveled (making concept-proving
aircrafts based on fighters for example) were very similar and their design
choices were so limited that it would be wonder if the aircrafts would have
been more different than they really were. One has to remember also that at
this time russians were on very top of the supersonic aircraft engineering.
Good example of that was Mig-21. They also knew the theory of tailless
aircrafts and had some experience with them. Putting those things together
results pretty much in the same concept that they eventually flew.

Yes, but there is this:
http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tec...aft/Tu-144.asp
and this
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcr...upersonic.html
As for Soviet engineering, the Su 27 and Mig 29 are pretty cool.

Shawn.

the only inflight breakups in such a situation
I ever heard of were the ASW-22 prototype (1981), the eta and the US
Nimbus, the first two being test flights of prototypes.

How about the DG-600 prototype?

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 00:46:39 GMT, Shawn Curry
wrote:


Yes, but there is this:
http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tec...aft/Tu-144.asp
and this
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcr...upersonic.html
As for Soviet engineering, the Su 27 and Mig 29 are pretty cool.

Well... the aerodynamics of a delta wing are not that difficult... and
the Tupolev design team was not made of rookies, quite the contrary -
Tupolev had one of the best design bureaus of its time worldwide.
Maybe they got some inspiration of the Concorde (first drafts that
were very similar to the final concorde design, showing a slightly
smaller aircraft, were already published in 1959), but Concorde and
Tu-144 do not share many similarities. Wing design as well as engine
placement (especially on the first prototype) are not even similar -
the 144 is definitely an independent design.

And the famous Mirage story... well... LOL.

At an airshow you have 100.000 spectators, and dozens of hightech
cameras pointing at an aircraft that is trying to perform as close to
the ground (and the spectators and cameras) as possible.

If I want to see some details, I'd use a camera or take a closer look
at the aircraft in question while it's being parked at the static
display... but I'm not going to do a close formation flight in order
to take some aerial photographs (and hope that none of the 100.000
spectators, half of them equipped with high-focal length cameras, is
going to notice the 60 ft long and really loud Mirage that is
shadowing the airliner).

Maybe there was some near-miss... but I strongly doubt that it was
intentional by the Mirage pilot.




Bye
Andreas