On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 21:13:13 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 07:42:19 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:50:24 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 20:43:46 +0700, John B.
wrote:

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
news:15ifpa9f3nn0gdc35at3t7an528d6sbe7i@4 ax.com...
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?

It flew 2/3 of the way across the Pacific, to Hawaii, in one hop and
flying at night -- on solar power.

But so what? Is it really important that something is powered with
electricity flew? Good Lord, electric powered model airplanes have
been flying for some time now. It is not new!

I think the best thing to say about it at this point is that you and
Jim are good examples of why I got out of engineering school after two
years. g I'll leave you to judge that, but the accurate thing is
that I didn't like the mechanistic perspective.

Did you do quick-draws with your log-log duplex decitrig slide rules
in the hallway? Seeing that was the thing that pushed me over the top.
d8-)

It's a different world view. And it is consuming. And it is
inherently, irredeemably reductive.

I'm thankful that I can get a thrill out of the whole idea.


Some time ago some blokes flew a human powered airplane across the
English Channel and everyone clapped their hands and shouted, but so
far I haven't seen that technology used commercially.

Commercialization of the technology had nothing whatsoever to do with
why people clapped.


Of course not and I thing I said that it was a feat. But a practical
one?


After all Solar power has been used by a great many people for a
considerable period and noticeably it is not really a reliable source
of power. When the sun runs away and hides your lights go out.

When the sun ran away from the airplane in question, the motors didn't
stop turning.

Hopefully not, but they had a very strict schedule of flying above any
cloud cover to charge in daylight hours and at a lower altitude at
night. Had they encountered high altitude cloud coverage they might
have has a different story to tell.


That's why it got headlines. That's what will stick in some people's
minds when solar power is discussed.

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.

Right. It got some headlines, too. But it wasn't solar powered. It
isn't going to create a new awareness for gasoline. d8-)

Yup. New awareness. Well, they have a solar powered land racing, I
believe in Australia is, something like 3,000 miles long. And it has
been going on since 1987. Has there been new awareness in the car
industry?

The car industry is full of engineers. d8-) Again, it was never the
point.



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

This isn't about aeronautics.


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

Do you know who Bob Hatchek is? Google his name. He and I were editors
together at _American Machinist_. I got a dose of model gliders every
day at lunch, for years. g

Yup, he designed the "Hatchek Hook" which I saw illustrated in one of
the model magazines although when I was flying tow line gliders we
used a different, home made, rubber band powered hook.

Bob made his hooks on one of the old Unimats, the one with the round
ways. He used music wire for cutting tools and built a home-made
quick-change turret for it. It still is the only commercial production
I've seen performed on a Unimat.
--
cheers,

John B.