On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 07:58:12 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:56:38 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 10:47:30 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 07:07:47 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 11:01:04 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
om...
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?

Not since the dementia hit him several years ago, no.

So what was the significance, Larry? Another American commercial
airliner, the Lockheed Electra, set an around-the-world speed record,
and numerous other records, and was a contemporary of the Douglas
planes. Why are they not more significant?

Oh, you don't know? Neither does anyone else. All of this
"significance" crap is a question of what you think is most important.

You're just blowing smoke again.

Actually the DC-2 won the race (on handicap :-) but was about 20 hours
slower than the outright winner, the Dehaviland DH-88 for the entire
trip which would seem to prove that the DC-2 was the more reliable
plane as the DH had a cruising speed of 220 MPH while the DC-2 was
probably about 160 MPH.

The DC-2 was an understressed, reliable step in the development of
commercial airliners. There's a great story I enjoyed reading about
one some years ago, which flew through an icestorm in the Midwest,
contnued flying and landed safely with heavily iced wings. The pilot
said a DC-3 never would have stayed aloft under those conditions.

When I was going to school in Miami there was a D-2 in one of the
hangers. There were people working on it and eventually it left.
Someone said that it had been taken to S. America to fly there.

In Vietnam I worked on DC-3's that were as old as I was :-)

There were many pivotal developments in aircraft, about any one of
which we could debate their "significance." Amidst the engineering, I
think we lose sight, however, of accomplishments that reflect a new
awareness on the part of the general public. A race winner may catch
attention for a moment. But an accomplishment like
continent-to-continent nonstop transatlantic flight (as opposed to,
say, island-to-island g) provoked a new awareness. Breaking the
sound "barrier" provoked a new awareness. Flying a manned aircraft on
solar power, across much of the Pacific in one hop, provokes a new
awareness.

But... at least from all I can find, the Solar Impulse is very much a
powered glider. Powered with an electric motor(s) true but as an
airplane not a really new thing. It is made of new materials and self
charges but what else? The Rutan Voyager flew around the world in 1986
without stopping or refueling and was airborne for 216+ hours and flew
26,366 statue miles.

While it certainly is a feat it isn't anything really new or
innovative in aeronautics.

By the way, the record for a model airplane - with no power - seems to
be 36h 3mn 19s :-)
--
cheers,

John B.