Why airplanes fly

wrote in news:9c5876f7-3777-42ec-bb4e-882bc2bc0968
@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com:

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.


I don't think the used it on anything, in fact. I'll have a look in my
books, though. Lippisch was horsing around with a big bag of tricks before
and during the war, but It was deltas he was mostly playing with in
regards to the sound barrier.
They pretty much had the principles of the whold speed of sound thing
figured out by the late thirites, but getting it all into one machine was
something else again. They understood sweep well and applied it extremely
well on the 262, for instance. They would almost have certainly broken it
in something by the end of 45 if the war had continued. Kelly johnson had
what would probably have been a successful supersonic aircraft on paper
fairly early in the war, but it was abandoned for some reason.

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.

Yeah, it was an exciting period in aviation, no doubt about it. It's even
wilder to consider that guys like Lippisch were thinking of airplanes that
didn't appear until the sixties..


Bertie

In rec.aviation.student Jay Honeck wrote:
You really still have nice things to say about him, even as the smell
lingers?

I prefer to look at MX differently.

Almost every Movie Night, we have a mildly retarded young man and his
"keeper" show up. (For those who don't know, we show an aviation movie
every Tuesday night, at our aviation themed hotel.) The event is open to
the public, and free -- and the kid loves airplanes, so he comes.

All of the real pilots have made him feel welcome, even though he
occasionally blurts out something stupid or inappropriate. They recognize
that he's harmless, happens to love aviation, and -- although he's mildly
annoying -- we all slap him on the back when he arrives.

That's MX.

The three key attributes you see in your movie night fellow are that he
loves aviation, he has a low IQ, and all of the real pilots make him feel
welcome. All three are the exact opposite of MX, so your statement that
this is MX is really odd.

The guy is obviously very smart in many ways. He's missing wisdom, in the
sense that he vastly underestimates the value of experience and the
knowledge of other, but for straight logical IQ-style intelligence he's
obviously pretty far up there.

Despite his constant simming and posting about aviation, he does not love
aviation. You might disagree with me, but just try offering him a flight.
I submit that if you offer a free flight to someone and he turns it down
for reasons other than medical or time, he does not love aviation. Maybe
he loves to look at it, or talk about it, but not the thing itself.

And, of course, his attitude has resulted in scorn from most of the real
pilots here.

Take your movie night fellow, replace him with a smart guy who thinks he's
better than everyone else in the room but is afraid to actually get in any
of their airplanes, who casually insults the people there, who talks about
his MSFS flying as if it were real, and who never, ever backs down from an
argument even when he's obviously out of his depth, and see how things
work out for him then.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Michael Ash wrote in
:

In rec.aviation.student Jay Honeck wrote:
You really still have nice things to say about him, even as the
smell lingers?

I prefer to look at MX differently.

Almost every Movie Night, we have a mildly retarded young man and his
"keeper" show up. (For those who don't know, we show an aviation
movie every Tuesday night, at our aviation themed hotel.) The event
is open to the public, and free -- and the kid loves airplanes, so he
comes.

All of the real pilots have made him feel welcome, even though he
occasionally blurts out something stupid or inappropriate. They
recognize that he's harmless, happens to love aviation, and --
although he's mildly annoying -- we all slap him on the back when he
arrives.

That's MX.

The three key attributes you see in your movie night fellow are that
he loves aviation, he has a low IQ, and all of the real pilots make
him feel welcome. All three are the exact opposite of MX, so your
statement that this is MX is really odd.

The guy is obviously very smart in many ways. He's missing wisdom, in
the sense that he vastly underestimates the value of experience and
the knowledge of other, but for straight logical IQ-style intelligence
he's obviously pretty far up there.

Despite his constant simming and posting about aviation, he does not
love aviation. You might disagree with me, but just try offering him a
flight. I submit that if you offer a free flight to someone and he
turns it down for reasons other than medical or time, he does not love
aviation. Maybe he loves to look at it, or talk about it, but not the
thing itself.

And, of course, his attitude has resulted in scorn from most of the
real pilots here.

Take your movie night fellow, replace him with a smart guy who thinks
he's better than everyone else in the room but is afraid to actually
get in any of their airplanes, who casually insults the people there,
who talks about his MSFS flying as if it were real, and who never,
ever backs down from an argument even when he's obviously out of his
depth, and see how things work out for him then.

Jay's just looking for friends..



Bertie

In rec.aviation.student Jay Honeck wrote:
To take one personal example, he called me a bad pilot because I make poor
landings in a simulator.

Tell me that's not an insult. Tell me that's being a gentleman.

No, that's not having experience in both worlds, and being stupid.

It's not stupidity. The guy is obviously pretty smart. He belittles the
experience of others not because he's a moron, but because he thinks that
his large brain makes up for not having any himself. Put simply, he thinks
he's better than the rest of us. The attitude which comes from that is
insulting, and ungentlemanly.

Many real pilots struggle to land our sim, at first. (See it he
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm ) Our 104" screen makes
it much more realistic (and, thus, easier for a real pilot) -- but it's
still not the same. (No peripheral vision in the flare is the primary
problem for most.)

This is my point exactly. Real pilots *do* have trouble with sims, even
good pilots. But this ****** has decided I'm a bad pilot, and called me
such to my face (at least, the Usenet equivalent of it), despite this
fact. That is an insult, plain and simple, even when put in nice words.

Bottom line: If MX drives you that nuts, create a simple kill file that
eliminates his posts from your newsreader. It literally takes three key
strokes.

I know how to create a kill file, although it takes a few more than three
keystrokes in my newsreader. Rest assured that I will killfile him if he
does start driving me nuts. As it is he's more amusing than annoying. He's
so crazy that it's hard to take it seriously, which is as it should be.

Don't take what I've said above and think that I'm actually *offended* or
anything. It takes a lot more than some ass-clown calling me a bad pilot
to do that. But I object to anyone claiming that he doesn't insult people
and conducts himself as a gentleman just because he uses polite wording.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Michael Ash wrote:

This is my point exactly. Real pilots *do* have trouble with sims, even
good pilots. But this ****** has decided I'm a bad pilot, and called me
such to my face (at least, the Usenet equivalent of it), despite this
fact. That is an insult, plain and simple, even when put in nice words.

I would respectfully offer an opposing opinion to this.

I've worked with Microsoft closely on their simulator program and have
not experienced any "difficulty" reported from real world pilots when
using the simulator. In fact, many pilots use it for practice instrument
and procedures work.
The idea that a real world pilot should be expected to experience
difficulty in the sim because of conflict between actual flying and sim
programming is in my opinion a false premise.
This should not be misconstrued into a context that postulates actual
similarities between using the simulator and flying an actual airplane,
as there are clearly defined differences primarily concerned with
control pressures.
It's interesting to note that the control pressure differences should
offer no problems for the pilot going from the actual airplane into the
sim, but could easily cause problems going the other way.

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
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


The way I heard the story from a few guys who were at Edwards during the
period was that there was information passed back and forth between the
Brits and bell about the Miles project but it was the US that stopped
trading out data due to the Brit program getting bogged down.
I know a lot of what the Brits had in research being done early on at
Boscombe Down came out of the German research, and you are right about
Lippisch. He was a genius. His work on tailless stuff is still
considered important.
As for the slab tail. I hate to admit it, but Bell I think might very
well have lifted this idea from the Miles project and incorporated it
into the X1. The shock issue at the hinge on the horizontal stabilizer
was common knowledge and a solution was really needed for the X1.
That whole period was involved a ton of stolen ideas back and forth, and
some of it really started back in the German research. Those guys were a
fair bunch of aerodynamic brains :-))


--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
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


The way I heard the story from a few guys who were at Edwards during
the period was that there was information passed back and forth
between the Brits and bell about the Miles project but it was the US
that stopped trading out data due to the Brit program getting bogged
down.

Just as well considering their complete inability to keep thier
intelligence services under control.


I know a lot of what the Brits had in research being done early
on at Boscombe Down came out of the German research, and you are right
about Lippisch. He was a genius. His work on tailless stuff is still
considered important.
As for the slab tail. I hate to admit it, but Bell I think might very
well have lifted this idea from the Miles project and incorporated it
into the X1. The shock issue at the hinge on the horizontal stabilizer
was common knowledge and a solution was really needed for the X1.
That whole period was involved a ton of stolen ideas back and forth,
and some of it really started back in the German research. Those guys
were a fair bunch of aerodynamic brains :-))


Well, nothing was created in a vacuum! Everything was ripped off and
built upon ultimately.

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
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

The way I heard the story from a few guys who were at Edwards during
the period was that there was information passed back and forth
between the Brits and bell about the Miles project but it was the US
that stopped trading out data due to the Brit program getting bogged
down.

Just as well considering their complete inability to keep thier
intelligence services under control.


I know a lot of what the Brits had in research being done early
on at Boscombe Down came out of the German research, and you are right
about Lippisch. He was a genius. His work on tailless stuff is still
considered important.
As for the slab tail. I hate to admit it, but Bell I think might very
well have lifted this idea from the Miles project and incorporated it
into the X1. The shock issue at the hinge on the horizontal stabilizer
was common knowledge and a solution was really needed for the X1.
That whole period was involved a ton of stolen ideas back and forth,
and some of it really started back in the German research. Those guys
were a fair bunch of aerodynamic brains :-))


Well, nothing was created in a vacuum! Everything was ripped off and
built upon ultimately.


Lots of cloak and dagger stuff going on back then....probably would make
a great movie plot :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
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

The way I heard the story from a few guys who were at Edwards during
the period was that there was information passed back and forth
between the Brits and bell about the Miles project but it was the US
that stopped trading out data due to the Brit program getting bogged
down.

Just as well considering their complete inability to keep thier
intelligence services under control.


I know a lot of what the Brits had in research being done early
on at Boscombe Down came out of the German research, and you are
right
about Lippisch. He was a genius. His work on tailless stuff is still
considered important.
As for the slab tail. I hate to admit it, but Bell I think might
very
well have lifted this idea from the Miles project and incorporated
it
into the X1. The shock issue at the hinge on the horizontal
stabilizer
was common knowledge and a solution was really needed for the X1.
That whole period was involved a ton of stolen ideas back and forth,
and some of it really started back in the German research. Those
guys
were a fair bunch of aerodynamic brains :-))


Well, nothing was created in a vacuum! Everything was ripped off and
built upon ultimately.


Lots of cloak and dagger stuff going on back then....probably would
make
a great movie plot :-)


Heh! It mostly came down to who's germans were better!


Bertie

On Feb 10, 7:59*am, Michael Ash wrote:


To take one personal example, he called me a bad pilot because I make poor
landings in a simulator.


What's so bad abouit not being able to play a flying game well? I'd
just laugh!

Cheers