Why airplanes fly

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:MkHqj.19887$yE1.4959@attbi_s21:

The quality of the discussions here has diminished by a factor of
ten. So have the quantity of people with real experiences to give
input to the discussions.

I agree 100% Jim. But I have a simple solution.

1. Use a newsreader like "Windows Mail" or "Outlook Express". As
much as I liked the search powers of Google Groups, their lack of any
sort of filtering reduced this newsgroup to chaos. I have therefore
abandoned GGs.

2. With three keystrokes, you can create a killfile that utterly
eliminates every post by anyone you so designate as persona non grata.

I was two steps out the door from this group before rediscovering
newsreaders. Now, I only see the "good stuff" again, and the trolls
can do their continual verbal circle-jerk in complete anonymity, for
all I care.

Of course, the sad part is that this has all become necessary.
Killfiles weren't necessary for the first 9 years I was on this group,
but when a small-but-determined group of trolls with (seemingly
endless) time on their hands takes a hankering to a group, it's
obvious that they can destroy it pretty easily.



Excelent suggestion d00d

Jaybo

On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 08:17:44 -0600, "Viperdoc"
wrote in
:

I think that ignoring him is only a partial answer, but the
main way to steer a group is to post even more relevant stuff on flying,


Yeah. It's easy to complain. It takes insight to realize that
contributing on-topic content increases the signal-to-noise ratio. One
is destructive, the other constructive.

So in keeping with that course of action, here's the answer to the
subject of this thread: http://aerodyn.org/contents.html

Dudley Henriques wrote in news:lJ-
:

WingFlaps wrote:
On Feb 8, 12:20 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Interesting story and I can well believe he could have broken the
barrier as described. I also heard that the X1 was in fact designed
by
the British and given to the Americans, along with data, due to the
expense of the British supersonic program and problems with repaying
war debt. Do you know anything about that -I once saw a old picture
of
an "X1" in the UK but can't find it now.

Cheers

To my knowledge, the X1 was a request research project from the old
NACA
(now NASA) to Bell aircraft for an aircraft capable of making the
attempt to break the speed of sound.
I've never heard any mention of a design from the Brits.


Yeah, it was a Miles aircraft. The M-52
They got as far as a mockup but dropped the project. It had a
stabiliator and the brits are fond of whining that it was that
development on the X! that enabled it to break the sound barrier.
However, this was not a Brit innovation. As usual, the germans had
realised that in the thirtie, years before Miles..




Actually, the
design concept was quite simple. They did the entire aircraft based on
ballistic tests with a 50 Cal. bullet even to taking the canopy out of
the equation and replacing it with molded in windows.
Based on the ballistic tests of the 1/2 inch bullet, Bell designers
expected the same transonic performance from the X1 provided they
could
get it up to speed.
The horizontal tail proved to be the only real issue and they changed
that to a slab tail to solve the shock issue.
The F86 prototype was having the same problems at the same time in
dives.
It's interesting that North American added a stabilator to the 86
later
on in it's production run but to my knowledge George Welsh who broke
the
barrier the week before Yeager had a regular tail on the prototype
which
was carried through to the first A Sabre.


Yeah. A stabilator or at least a rapidly trimmable stab is essential for
a transonic aircraft o avoid excessive buffeting on the stab due to
camber introduced through moving elevators up and down..

Bertie

"Morgans" wrote in
:


wrote

The truth is without M the whole thing wouldn't be as fun.

I don't agree, and in a BIG way.

I don't come here for conflict.

Actually, you should check out your posting history. It's very very
conflict oriented.

You'd be easily drawn to the dark side...


Meow.

On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:56:54 -0800 (PST), Tina
wrote in
:

Or for that matter, government expansion faster under the GOP (in
terms of expenses) than it did under Clinton!

Right. But they've got plans to recoup expenditures from the FAA:

HERE WE GO AGAIN - FAA BUDGET BACK IN PLAY
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#197081)
The federal Transportation Department this week released the
latest version of its budget request
(http://www.dot.gov/bib2009/htm/FAA.html), including
user-fee-based funding for the FAA, and reaction has been swift.
"What part of 'NO!' doesn't the White House understand?" asked
AOPA President Phil Boyer

(http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/article....svl=FlashHP1).
"Once again, the Bush administration wants huge new taxes and user
fees imposed on general aviation, and it wants to slash and burn
the Airport Improvement Program." Pete Bunce, president and CEO of
the General Aviation Manufacturers Association
(http://www.gama.aero/mediaCenter/pr.php?id=159), agreed. "Despite
Congress saying 'no' to the Administration's proposal to scrap the
current funding mechanism for a less efficient one that imposes
user fees, they have once again launched an effort to complete a
FAA reauthorization bill by proposing the exact same failed plan,"
he said. DOT Secretary Mary Peters insisted the system needs to
change. "Traditional approaches are not capable of producing the
results we need to keep America's economy growing," she said.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#197081

Somehow, this sort of smells like Bush's federal Prescription Drug
Program that forbids competitive bidding.

I've never heard any mention of a design from the Brits. Actually, the
design concept was quite simple. They did the entire aircraft based on
ballistic tests with a 50 Cal. bullet even to taking the canopy out of
the equation and replacing it with molded in windows.
...
The horizontal tail proved to be the only real issue and they changed
that to a slab tail to solve the shock issue.

--
Dudley Henriques

I watched one of the Nova series episodes about 3 weeks ago about
breaking the sound barrier (I rented it on DVD). They covered the
British and American attempts to break the barrier in fair detail, and
had extensive interviews with one of the engineers from Miles
Aircraft, the British firm that was asked by the RAF to develop a
supersonic aircraft. IIRC, the Miles' engineer said that they
concluded that the best fuselage design would be one modeled after a
bullet. He also said they figured a hydraulic actuated movable tail
would do the trick to stop the shock-wave induced control freeze up
that was killing so many pilots during the time.

It was said that an American team did go to England during the last
part of the war and met with the Miles' engineering group, and that
the Miles' group was going to go to the US afterward to see what the
American's had learned, but the Pentagon nixed their trip. The Brits
didn't like that one.

Anyway I can't remember the timelines here ... a few weeks before
Miles' was to begin actual prototype testing of their ship (which
looked very much like the X1, but with a different nose) their program
was cancelled. This was sometime shortly after VE day. It was
cancelled by a bureaucrat who had visited some of the secret German
aircraft development centers the Allieds had discovered (some buried
underground). There he had seen swept wing designs and somehow
concluded that sweptwing was the only way to go supersonic. He
cancelled the supersonic program because the Miles' design was a
straight wing.

After the X1 succeeded, the British went back a few years later and
developed a radio controlled 2/3 scale rocket plane of the Miles
aircraft. It broke the sound barrier too.

Great show, I'm probably not remembering it all correctly. I think it
might be titled "Faster than Sound".

Yeah, it was a Miles aircraft. The M-52
They got as far as a mockup but dropped the project. It had a
stabiliator and the brits are fond of whining that it was that
development on the X! that enabled it to break the sound barrier.
However, this was not a Brit innovation. As usual, the germans had
realised that in the thirtie, years before Miles..

Intersting -- do you know what aircraft the Germans used that on? If
you have a book reference (or web) on that I'd like to read about it.

Sometimes it blows my mind how many advances were made in the
thirties. The ME 109, Spitfire, and P-38 all come out of that time.
Plus a host of others I probably know nothing about.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:8Bjqj.18310$yE1.5354@attbi_s21:

I commend you for continuing to post in these newsgroups in spite of
the harassment you have been subject to.

Once you buy a clue, you will only be a dumb ass.
Until then, why don't you try sticking your head up your ass, and
shutting the hell up.

Holy crap, Jim -- what the hell was THAT about?

You know this "Art" guy from somewhere, or what?

Persoanl attack noted.


Burtie

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:MkHqj.19887$yE1.4959@attbi_s21:

The quality of the discussions here has diminished by a factor of
ten. So have the quantity of people with real experiences to give
input to the discussions.

I agree 100% Jim. But I have a simple solution.

1. Use a newsreader like "Windows Mail" or "Outlook Express". As
much as I liked the search powers of Google Groups, their lack of any
sort of filtering reduced this newsgroup to chaos. I have therefore
abandoned GGs.



Yeh, big step up there fjukkwit.



Betrei.

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 08:17:44 -0600, "Viperdoc"
wrote in
:

I think that ignoring him is only a partial answer, but the
main way to steer a group is to post even more relevant stuff on flying,


Yeah. It's easy to complain. It takes insight to realize that
contributing on-topic content increases the signal-to-noise ratio. One
is destructive, the other constructive.

Yeh, like whining about regs re spacecraft.


Bertie