On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 12:17:22 PM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 11:01:04 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 07:28:17 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:
...
This is the sort of accomplishment that has real significance:
http://airminded.org/2009/10/23/the-great-air-race/

In what sense?

"Could any more striking contrast be imagined than the weariness
and
exhaustion of Scott and Black and the pleasant excitement of
Parmentier's passengers, who flew in the world's most notable race
as
tourists?"

First place went to a custom British racer, second to a standard
US
airliner which stopped for passengers. The DC-2 was an early
version
of the classic DC-3, the 247D its similar Boeing competitor. The
British winner was made of wood.


--
Ed Huntress

Are you really unable to see the significance of an American
commercial airliner nearly beating a purpose-built British racing
plane?

-jsw

So what was the "significance"? That a commercially oriented
airplane
could fly that route?

The "significance" in the case you're talking about isn't a matter
of
ground-breaking achievement. It's a matter of the state of
commercial
aircraft at that time. From a business perspective, I'm sure it was
significant. From the perspective of human achievement, not much.

I know the DC-2 and I've flown several times in DC-3s, including a
wild ride in the Canadian subarctic. They were advanced aircraft for
their time. Very nice.

--
Ed Huntress

Solar aircraft show that we can build an airframe too light and
fragile to carry more than its own propulsion. But we've known how
since the human powered aircraft flew.

Even then, that's with putt-putt bull****. Can an exclusively solar powered plane's engine produce serious 4,637 shp or 3,458 kilowattage?