One would have to be pretty jaded or cynical not to be impressed by
this. The Solar Impulse 2 made it from Japan to Hawaii:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/...acific-flight/

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
One would have to be pretty jaded or cynical not to be impressed by
this. The Solar Impulse 2 made it from Japan to Hawaii:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/...acific-flight/


Guess I'm both then. 240 hours or so to fly 1 person on a flight that
takes about 12 hours to fly 200+. And they had to wait for perfect
conditions to do it.



--
Steve W.

On Fri, 03 Jul 2015 13:48:41 -0400, "Steve W."
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
One would have to be pretty jaded or cynical not to be impressed by
this. The Solar Impulse 2 made it from Japan to Hawaii:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/...acific-flight/


Guess I'm both then. 240 hours or so to fly 1 person on a flight that
takes about 12 hours to fly 200+. And they had to wait for perfect
conditions to do it.

I guess you are. Doing it on sunlight alone is a remarkable technical
achievement.

--
Ed Huntress

On 03/07/15 18:23, Ed Huntress wrote:
One would have to be pretty jaded or cynical not to be impressed by
this. The Solar Impulse 2 made it from Japan to Hawaii:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/...acific-flight/

Good on him for making it OK, I had seen the news of the aborted attempt
but wasn't aware of the new try. Not sure I would agree with the longest
flight without refuelling record though as it refuels from the sun
during daylight, how far would it get on a charged set of batteries and
no solar cell input.

On 7/3/2015 12:48 PM, Steve W. wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
One would have to be pretty jaded or cynical not to be impressed by
this. The Solar Impulse 2 made it from Japan to Hawaii:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/...acific-flight/



Guess I'm both then. 240 hours or so to fly 1 person on a flight that
takes about 12 hours to fly 200+. And they had to wait for perfect
conditions to do it.

I agree, its as pointless as what the Wright brothers or Lindbergh did.
The Wright brothers' plane was only in the air for about a minute and
Lindbergh didn't carry paying passengers or cargo.

Why did they even bother? Fortunately, history has forgotten them.

David

"David R. Birch" wrote in message
...
On 7/3/2015 12:48 PM, Steve W. wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
One would have to be pretty jaded or cynical not to be impressed
by
this. The Solar Impulse 2 made it from Japan to Hawaii:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/...acific-flight/



Guess I'm both then. 240 hours or so to fly 1 person on a flight
that
takes about 12 hours to fly 200+. And they had to wait for perfect
conditions to do it.

I agree, its as pointless as what the Wright brothers or Lindbergh
did. The Wright brothers' plane was only in the air for about a
minute and Lindbergh didn't carry paying passengers or cargo.

Why did they even bother? Fortunately, history has forgotten them.

David


Lindbergh was between the 85th and 93rd (??) person to fly across the
Atlantic. His claim was a non-stop solo; a multi-crew seaplane flew it
in 1919.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_NC-4
"The accomplishment of the naval aviators of the NC-4 was somewhat
eclipsed in the minds of the public by the first nonstop transatlantic
flight, which took 15 hours, 57 minutes, and was made by the Royal Air
Force pilots John Alcock and Arthur Whitten Brown, two weeks later."

While the solar plane is an advance what we need is lower-cost solar
power, not lowest weight at high cost.

-jsw

On 7/3/2015 2:24 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"David R. Birch" wrote in message
...
On 7/3/2015 12:48 PM, Steve W. wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
One would have to be pretty jaded or cynical not to be impressed
by
this. The Solar Impulse 2 made it from Japan to Hawaii:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/...acific-flight/



Guess I'm both then. 240 hours or so to fly 1 person on a flight
that
takes about 12 hours to fly 200+. And they had to wait for perfect
conditions to do it.

I agree, its as pointless as what the Wright brothers or Lindbergh
did. The Wright brothers' plane was only in the air for about a
minute and Lindbergh didn't carry paying passengers or cargo.

Why did they even bother? Fortunately, history has forgotten them.

David


Lindbergh was between the 85th and 93rd (??) person to fly across the
Atlantic. His claim was a non-stop solo; a multi-crew seaplane flew it
in 1919.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_NC-4
"The accomplishment of the naval aviators of the NC-4 was somewhat
eclipsed in the minds of the public by the first nonstop transatlantic
flight, which took 15 hours, 57 minutes, and was made by the Royal Air
Force pilots John Alcock and Arthur Whitten Brown, two weeks later."

How many did it solo before Lindbergh?


While the solar plane is an advance what we need is lower-cost solar
power, not lowest weight at high cost.

So the fact that it is being done means nothing and will not inspire
others to improve on the tech? Make it cheaper and cost effective?

Sure.

David

"David R. Birch" wrote in message
...
On 7/3/2015 2:24 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"David R. Birch" wrote in message
...
On 7/3/2015 12:48 PM, Steve W. wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
One would have to be pretty jaded or cynical not to be impressed
by
this. The Solar Impulse 2 made it from Japan to Hawaii:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/...acific-flight/



Guess I'm both then. 240 hours or so to fly 1 person on a flight
that
takes about 12 hours to fly 200+. And they had to wait for
perfect
conditions to do it.

I agree, its as pointless as what the Wright brothers or Lindbergh
did. The Wright brothers' plane was only in the air for about a
minute and Lindbergh didn't carry paying passengers or cargo.

Why did they even bother? Fortunately, history has forgotten them.

David


Lindbergh was between the 85th and 93rd (??) person to fly across
the
Atlantic. His claim was a non-stop solo; a multi-crew seaplane flew
it
in 1919.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_NC-4
"The accomplishment of the naval aviators of the NC-4 was somewhat
eclipsed in the minds of the public by the first nonstop
transatlantic
flight, which took 15 hours, 57 minutes, and was made by the Royal
Air
Force pilots John Alcock and Arthur Whitten Brown, two weeks
later."

How many did it solo before Lindbergh?

None, and few have since because it's unnecessarily dangerous and
proves nothing about the aircraft.

In 1967 the actress who played Vina in Star Trek's "Menagerie" became
the second woman to fly a single-engined aircraft solo from New York
to Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Oliver

I've used my flight sim to retrace Lindbergh's exploratory flights to
scout out transoceanic airline routes.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/100...lindbergh.html



While the solar plane is an advance what we need is lower-cost
solar
power, not lowest weight at high cost.

So the fact that it is being done means nothing and will not inspire
others to improve on the tech? Make it cheaper and cost effective?

Sure.

David

Research funding and a market will inspire improvements. I don't know
how practical the goal of 24/7 flying WiFi hotspots is. Thunderstorms
reach higher than airliners can climb and have brought down several,
like Air France AF447.

This is the competition to solar-electric aircraft:
http://archive.defensenews.com/artic...oll-Dirigibles

Both can stay on station a long time, neither is a practical people or
cargo transport.

Having worked in the R&D field I'm just wary of becoming enthusiastic
over publicity stunts. I want to see practical applications.

-jsw

On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 1:52:29 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

I guess you are. Doing it on sunlight alone is a remarkable technical
achievement.

--
Ed Huntress

So what are the technical advances? A new type of solar cell? A new type of battery? A new material used in the frame or covering of the aircraft?

The TV program I saw said it was a publicity stunt to promote solar cell useage. The big technical advance according to the TV was a seat with a built in toilet.

I thought we already had solar powered drones that could remain aloft for days.

Dan

On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 17:42:48 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 1:52:29 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

I guess you are. Doing it on sunlight alone is a remarkable technical
achievement.

--
Ed Huntress

So what are the technical advances? A new type of solar cell? A new type of battery? A new material used in the frame or covering of the aircraft?

The TV program I saw said it was a publicity stunt to promote solar cell useage. The big technical advance according to the TV was a seat with a built in toilet.

I thought we already had solar powered drones that could remain aloft for days.

Like that of the Wright brothers, the achievement of something that
hadn't been done before.

--
Ed Huntress

I thought that the Solar plane that Nasa flew went from Ca to Australia.
It wasn't going around the world it was doing long loops.

It was using the special solar cells that Cypress Semi developed and
spun off. Very efficient. This one might be using the same cells.

Martin

On 7/3/2015 12:23 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
One would have to be pretty jaded or cynical not to be impressed by
this. The Solar Impulse 2 made it from Japan to Hawaii:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/...acific-flight/

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 17:42:48 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 1:52:29 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

I guess you are. Doing it on sunlight alone is a remarkable
technical
achievement.

--
Ed Huntress

So what are the technical advances? A new type of solar cell? A
new type of battery? A new material used in the frame or covering
of the aircraft?

The TV program I saw said it was a publicity stunt to promote solar
cell useage. The big technical advance according to the TV was a
seat with a built in toilet.

I thought we already had solar powered drones that could remain
aloft for days.

Like that of the Wright brothers, the achievement of something that
hadn't been done before.

--
Ed Huntress

Do you remember the first non-stop, non-refueled flight around the
world? It wasn't that long ago.

The longest refueled flight stayed in the air for two MONTHS.
http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=16948

Hardly anyone noticed the first commercial aircraft flight around the
world:
http://blog.nasm.si.edu/aviation/dec...ercial-flight/

This is the sort of accomplishment that has real significance:
http://airminded.org/2009/10/23/the-great-air-race/
"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.

One of the DNF competitors was the second person to solo the Atlantic,
after Lindbergh. Do you know who?

I ask to demonstrate how little it meant.

-jsw

On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 07:28:17 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 17:42:48 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 1:52:29 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

I guess you are. Doing it on sunlight alone is a remarkable
technical
achievement.

--
Ed Huntress

So what are the technical advances? A new type of solar cell? A
new type of battery? A new material used in the frame or covering
of the aircraft?

The TV program I saw said it was a publicity stunt to promote solar
cell useage. The big technical advance according to the TV was a
seat with a built in toilet.

I thought we already had solar powered drones that could remain
aloft for days.

Like that of the Wright brothers, the achievement of something that
hadn't been done before.

--
Ed Huntress

Do you remember the first non-stop, non-refueled flight around the
world? It wasn't that long ago.

Yes.


The longest refueled flight stayed in the air for two MONTHS.
http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=16948

Whoopie!


Hardly anyone noticed the first commercial aircraft flight around the
world:
http://blog.nasm.si.edu/aviation/dec...ercial-flight/

shrug


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.

One of the DNF competitors was the second person to solo the Atlantic,
after Lindbergh. Do you know who?

Nope.


I ask to demonstrate how little it meant.

-jsw

This is a pretty good example of how I prefaced this thread. The
accomplishment is substantial -- flying that distance over water in a
manned, heavier-than-air aircraft, powered by the sun alone, with
batteries that sustained flight throughout the night. That hasn't been
done before, and it gives some perspective to the state of the art in
solar power. That's more capability than most people would guess.

Now, if you want to do an engineering analysis of it, or to rate it in
terms of what it portends for the futu The first is like analyzing
an early helicopter flight. Of course it can be done. But it wasn't
until it was done. And the doing is the achievement. The engineering
is a sterile exercise until it's accomplished.

In terms of what it portends, remember that the first airplanes were
dismissed as impractical toys. We don't *know* what these things
portend. In this case, the influence will be a heightened sense of
what solar power can do -- which, of course, was the point of the
exercise.

But it's the doing that was the accomplishment.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 07:28:17 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 17:42:48 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 1:52:29 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

I guess you are. Doing it on sunlight alone is a remarkable
technical
achievement.

--
Ed Huntress

So what are the technical advances? A new type of solar cell? A
new type of battery? A new material used in the frame or covering
of the aircraft?

The TV program I saw said it was a publicity stunt to promote
solar
cell useage. The big technical advance according to the TV was a
seat with a built in toilet.

I thought we already had solar powered drones that could remain
aloft for days.

Like that of the Wright brothers, the achievement of something
that
hadn't been done before.

--
Ed Huntress

Do you remember the first non-stop, non-refueled flight around the
world? It wasn't that long ago.

Yes.


The longest refueled flight stayed in the air for two MONTHS.
http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=16948

Whoopie!


Hardly anyone noticed the first commercial aircraft flight around
the
world:
http://blog.nasm.si.edu/aviation/dec...ercial-flight/

shrug


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.

One of the DNF competitors was the second person to solo the
Atlantic,
after Lindbergh. Do you know who?

Nope.


I ask to demonstrate how little it meant.

-jsw

This is a pretty good example of how I prefaced this thread. The
accomplishment is substantial -- flying that distance over water in
a
manned, heavier-than-air aircraft, powered by the sun alone, with
batteries that sustained flight throughout the night. That hasn't
been
done before, and it gives some perspective to the state of the art
in
solar power. That's more capability than most people would guess.

Now, if you want to do an engineering analysis of it, or to rate it
in
terms of what it portends for the futu The first is like
analyzing
an early helicopter flight. Of course it can be done. But it wasn't
until it was done. And the doing is the achievement. The engineering
is a sterile exercise until it's accomplished.

In terms of what it portends, remember that the first airplanes were
dismissed as impractical toys. We don't *know* what these things
portend. In this case, the influence will be a heightened sense of
what solar power can do -- which, of course, was the point of the
exercise.

But it's the doing that was the accomplishment.

--
Ed Huntress

Naturally a magazine writer needs to sell the sizzle rather than the
steak.

"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

On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 10:44:55 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 07:28:17 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 17:42:48 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 1:52:29 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

I guess you are. Doing it on sunlight alone is a remarkable
technical
achievement.

--
Ed Huntress

So what are the technical advances? A new type of solar cell? A
new type of battery? A new material used in the frame or covering
of the aircraft?

The TV program I saw said it was a publicity stunt to promote
solar
cell useage. The big technical advance according to the TV was a
seat with a built in toilet.

I thought we already had solar powered drones that could remain
aloft for days.

Like that of the Wright brothers, the achievement of something
that
hadn't been done before.

--
Ed Huntress

Do you remember the first non-stop, non-refueled flight around the
world? It wasn't that long ago.

Yes.


The longest refueled flight stayed in the air for two MONTHS.
http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=16948

Whoopie!


Hardly anyone noticed the first commercial aircraft flight around
the
world:
http://blog.nasm.si.edu/aviation/dec...ercial-flight/

shrug


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.

One of the DNF competitors was the second person to solo the
Atlantic,
after Lindbergh. Do you know who?

Nope.


I ask to demonstrate how little it meant.

-jsw

This is a pretty good example of how I prefaced this thread. The
accomplishment is substantial -- flying that distance over water in
a
manned, heavier-than-air aircraft, powered by the sun alone, with
batteries that sustained flight throughout the night. That hasn't
been
done before, and it gives some perspective to the state of the art
in
solar power. That's more capability than most people would guess.

Now, if you want to do an engineering analysis of it, or to rate it
in
terms of what it portends for the futu The first is like
analyzing
an early helicopter flight. Of course it can be done. But it wasn't
until it was done. And the doing is the achievement. The engineering
is a sterile exercise until it's accomplished.

In terms of what it portends, remember that the first airplanes were
dismissed as impractical toys. We don't *know* what these things
portend. In this case, the influence will be a heightened sense of
what solar power can do -- which, of course, was the point of the
exercise.

But it's the doing that was the accomplishment.

--
Ed Huntress

Naturally a magazine writer needs to sell the sizzle rather than the
steak.

That's an ad copywriter. A good magazine writer gets the facts
straight and puts them in perspective.

And the perspective, in this case, is less a matter of engineering
than a matter of human accomplishment -- which is notable in this
case, and to most people, pretty damned impressive.

--
Ed Huntress

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

"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.

http://www.howitworksdaily.com/how-d...se-plane-work/
"Amazingly, the 8hp produced by the Solar Impulse's engines is the
same amount of power the Wright brothers had available to them in
their historic 1903 flight."

On Fri, 3 Jul 2015 18:45:15 -0400
"Jim Wilkins" wrote:

snip
Having worked in the R&D field I'm just wary of becoming enthusiastic
over publicity stunts. I want to see practical applications.

Not solar powered but battery powered and maybe commercially available
in 2017:

http://www.cnet.com/news/airbus-show...e-due-in-2017/

I tend to agree with your comments and solar power though


--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email

On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 12:17:56 -0400, "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.

http://www.howitworksdaily.com/how-d...se-plane-work/
"Amazingly, the 8hp produced by the Solar Impulse's engines is the
same amount of power the Wright brothers had available to them in
their historic 1903 flight."

I really doubt if anyone cares, Jim. It isn't about the airframe or
the horsepower. It's about doing it on solar energy.

Except for the most phlegmatic of engineers g, it caught the
attention of a lot of people -- in a positive way.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 12:17:56 -0400, "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
m...
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.

http://www.howitworksdaily.com/how-d...se-plane-work/
"Amazingly, the 8hp produced by the Solar Impulse's engines is the
same amount of power the Wright brothers had available to them in
their historic 1903 flight."

I really doubt if anyone cares, Jim. It isn't about the airframe or
the horsepower. It's about doing it on solar energy.

Except for the most phlegmatic of engineers g, it caught the
attention of a lot of people -- in a positive way.

--
Ed Huntress

The only people who might care about the energy parameters are the
very few who can contribute to this technology.

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?

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


I'd love to watch some of today's commercial passengers _attempt_ to
walk up and down the aisle to their seats in a grounded Gooney Bird.
And I'd love to fly as a crewman in a Spooky version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAFVuG2KQqk Arr, arr, arr!

Dad flew Gooney Birds (somewhere) and C-123s (over Nam) in the 60s,
just before retiring.

--
Another belief of mine: that everyone else my age is an adult,
whereas I am merely in disguise.
-- Margaret Atwood

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
. ..
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.

--
Ed untress

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?

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
...
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.
--
cheers,

John B.

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
. ..
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.


I'd love to watch some of today's commercial passengers _attempt_ to
walk up and down the aisle to their seats in a grounded Gooney Bird.
And I'd love to fly as a crewman in a Spooky version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAFVuG2KQqk Arr, arr, arr!

Dad flew Gooney Birds (somewhere) and C-123s (over Nam) in the 60s,
just before retiring.

I was assigned to Nha Tang AFB in the Air Commando Wing that owned and
operated the Puff airplanes. If I remember correctly we lost one
airplane during the 14 months I was there. It crashed on climb out
taking off from Cam Ranh and was damaged so badly that it was never
determined whether it was caused by enemy fire or not. But they did
find the torque tube connecting the elevators broken and we did a
"before it flies again" inspection of every airplane - none damaged.

We did a big mod on the mini gun mounts and I went along on the first
one modified. We carried several 55 gallon drums and pushed one out
the door into the bay. Made a firing pass - one gun, big fountain of
water and the drum disappears. It was quite impressive. Push the rest
out the door. Make a firing pass with all three guns... BIG fountain
of water and all the drums disappear. Even more impressive.

Our brag was, at that time, was that we never lost a fort, if we
reached the fort before the V.C. had gotten through the perimeter.

If you went in a bar with any of the Special Forces troops there and
bellied up to the bar the usual opening remark is "what outfit you
in". If you said, "air commando wing... puff the magic dragon" you got
free beer :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 10:16:20 +0700, John B.
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
...
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.


I'd love to watch some of today's commercial passengers _attempt_ to
walk up and down the aisle to their seats in a grounded Gooney Bird.
And I'd love to fly as a crewman in a Spooky version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAFVuG2KQqk Arr, arr, arr!

Dad flew Gooney Birds (somewhere) and C-123s (over Nam) in the 60s,
just before retiring.

I was assigned to Nha Tang AFB in the Air Commando Wing that owned and
operated the Puff airplanes. If I remember correctly we lost one
airplane during the 14 months I was there. It crashed on climb out
taking off from Cam Ranh and was damaged so badly that it was never
determined whether it was caused by enemy fire or not. But they did
find the torque tube connecting the elevators broken and we did a
"before it flies again" inspection of every airplane - none damaged.

We did a big mod on the mini gun mounts and I went along on the first
one modified. We carried several 55 gallon drums and pushed one out
the door into the bay. Made a firing pass - one gun, big fountain of
water and the drum disappears. It was quite impressive. Push the rest
out the door. Make a firing pass with all three guns... BIG fountain
of water and all the drums disappear. Even more impressive.

Our brag was, at that time, was that we never lost a fort, if we
reached the fort before the V.C. had gotten through the perimeter.

If you went in a bar with any of the Special Forces troops there and
bellied up to the bar the usual opening remark is "what outfit you
in". If you said, "air commando wing... puff the magic dragon" you got
free beer :-)

Your boys saved my young ass more than once.

Thanks!!!

Gunner

"John B." wrote in message
...
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
m...
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.
--
cheers,

John B.

The DC-2 flat-out beat the other two DeHavilland custom racers, though
to be fair Mollison's failed due to lower octane fuel he was forced to
use after getting lost. Britain's aircraft industry had been
distracted by the sizzle of speed while Americans concentrated on the
steak of range and reliability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schneider_Trophy
"It was intended to encourage technical advances in civil aviation but
became a contest for pure speed..."

During the war no other nation could approach our ability to support
world-wide military operations by air, despite Goering's air-filled
promises. In New Guinea DC-3s enabled leapfrog infantry raids deep
behind Japanese lines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kaiapit
Notice the air-delivered Jeep's dust cloud. We could also fly in
artillery, and small bulldozers to bootstrap the grass strip into a
base for fighters and bombers.

AFAICT the Solar Impulse 2's only advance is a small tweak to the
battery electrolyte that requires impractically precise temperature
control. Bertrand Piccard is the rich adventurer who previously flew
non-stop around the world in a balloon, for whatever that is worth.

Setting records keeps getting harder. The skipper of an ocean racer
needed rear view mirrors in case he was being overtaken by a faster US
nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.
-jsw

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
m...
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.

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.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

--
Ed Huntress

We are flooded with "awareness" by an advertising industry whose main
priority is selling its own relevance.

-jsw

On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 08:51:37 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
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@4ax. 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.

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.

--
Ed Huntress

We are flooded with "awareness" by an advertising industry whose main
priority is selling its own relevance.

Whether you're "aware" is up to you. As for the advertising industry,
its main priority is selling its clients' products. If you don't
recognize that, you're not aware in any broad sense.

--
Ed Huntress

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.

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@4ax. 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.

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-)


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

--
Ed Huntress

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



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

Damn, I mispelled his name again. I thought I was cured of that years
ago.

Anyway, it's Bob Hatschek. Look him up.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress fired this volley in
:

I got a dose of model gliders every
day at lunch, for years. g


Ed, just to be clear, just because you were 'exposed' to model sailplanes
every lunch break doesn't actually mean you were familiar with the
longest flight time of one!

I look on all this solar flying stuff differently than the rest of you, I
guess.

I don't really care if it revolutionizes anything, or changes anyones'
minds, or starts (or doesn't) renewed interest in Solar Anything.

In my mind, the reason they did it is -- nobody ever did it before. It's
a new 'milemarker' in what we _can_ do. It doesn't have to be important
NOW.

Future technology might be affected just because some young engineer or
physicist KNEW that the solar flight had happened. "Connections", as it
were.

LLoyd

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:03:47 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Ed Huntress fired this volley in
:

I got a dose of model gliders every
day at lunch, for years. g


Ed, just to be clear, just because you were 'exposed' to model sailplanes
every lunch break doesn't actually mean you were familiar with the
longest flight time of one!

Lloyd, just to be clear, I was. Hatschek held several international
records himself, and I would get a call or an email whenever a record
was broken or something else noteable happened in the world of model
gliders.

Bob owned my old 6" lathe and we were friends for years. He also was a
friend of Paul MacCready (Gossamer Albatross, etc.) and was deeply
involved in human- and solar-powered flight. He knew I flew full-size
gliders (K-6, K-13, 2-22, 2-33, and 1-26) and we kept up conversations
for hours on end.

When that 36-hour record was set, in the early '60s, I heard about it
within a week.


I look on all this solar flying stuff differently than the rest of you, I
guess.

I don't really care if it revolutionizes anything, or changes anyones'
minds, or starts (or doesn't) renewed interest in Solar Anything.

You have the soul of an engineer, Lloyd. d8-)


In my mind, the reason they did it is -- nobody ever did it before. It's
a new 'milemarker' in what we _can_ do. It doesn't have to be important
NOW.

Future technology might be affected just because some young engineer or
physicist KNEW that the solar flight had happened. "Connections", as it
were.

LLoyd

Ya' never know.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:03:47 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Ed Huntress fired this volley in
:

I got a dose of model gliders every
day at lunch, for years. g


Ed, just to be clear, just because you were 'exposed' to model sailplanes
every lunch break doesn't actually mean you were familiar with the
longest flight time of one!

This is the guy I'm talking about. He died a few years ago:

https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/...RobertLBob.pdf

--
Ed Huntress

BTW, there is company here in Wisconsin rebuilding and upgrading DC-3s

http://www.baslerturbo.com/

David

On 7/6/2015 7:43 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
... The skipper of an ocean racer
needed rear view mirrors in case he was being overtaken by a faster US
nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.

That would be a great video: a long helicopter shot of this sleek racer
slicing through the water; zoom in on the racer to see its on-the-edge
trim, its heel, and the spray coming over as it sizzles along; the
essence of speed. From on-board the racer pan over to the discernible
shape of an approaching aircraft carrier. Stay on the carrier as it
nears the racer, growing larger and larger until it fills the frame,
dwarfing the racer as it passes. Then back to the chopper for the
opening view, but with the carrier pulling away and the racer looking
puny. I love it.

Bob

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

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

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

I kept Chinese takeout cold in my refrigerator overnight with solar
power.

Where are all the reporters?

-jsw