Slashdot Mirror

And about the other story: WOW. I would love the chance to send up a four-inch cube into space. God alone knows what the hell I would do with it -- I'm no electronics guy -- but the possibilities are simply too cool to be believed. I'd be tempted to go back to university and get an engineering degree just to be able to be part of a project like that.

But hey, who says that's necessary? $40K for a launch, even U$, isn't that much if you get a bunch of people together. There's people that chip in to buy an airplane -- how long 'til we see people (besides the good folks running OSCAR, that is) getting together to build and launch their own cubesat? God knows I'd be there in a heartbeat...

Thank you for mentioning this. The press is just as clueless here in the States about anything Aeronautical. Most "Aviation Experts" on CNN, etc... are generally sensationalists, not professionals. Commercial aviation is boring because it's DESIGNED to be... system failures with multiple redundant systems and training on how to use all of them and understand the systems is... a non-event in almost all cases. (The computer industry could learn a lot from the Aviation industry, but the drama queen project managers and their staff who like drama would never stand for it.)

About the only good source of Aviation news (although highly biased toward supporting Aviation and not ashamed to admit their bias unlike the "Fair and Balanced" reporting of some...) in the U.S. is AvWeb.

The Aircraft Owners and Pilot's Association magazine and website aren't bad either, but they have to be careful not to step on toes... if they want to accomplish anything. Phil Boyer is an excellent statesman, but sometimes it takes an outside editorial from "the press" before he can really say anything bad about any particular sub-set of aviation.

Next (I think) came the medium altitude chase plane, which was this really cool and modern looking craft with propellers in the back and a little wing on the nose.

http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/238- full.html#187301

AVWeb ran an article about "heavy airtankers" - used ex-Airforce/Navy C-130 and P-3s pressed into service as tankers. From this, we get a weight of 9.3lb/gallon for retardant, for those interested. For our 747, this would be 223,200lb, or 111.6 tons. The most interesting part of this paper is where they talk about the fatigue resulting from the rapid unloading of the aircraft. Apparently, this is the main cause of catastrophic wing failure. When you suddenly change the aircraft load by 15-20%, you get a definite bending action in the wings. Just like bending a paperclip, eventually this leads to failure.

The paper also briefly mentions the super-tanker idea (747 or DC10 based).

The other big concern is that the economic payback for larger aircraft is longer than for smaller aircraft. They were talking about the proposition being questionable with an $8 million acquistion cost. I don't think you could get an operation 747 for anything close to that...

I've heard of proposals like this before. For a while there, the FUSSR was trying to get interest up in Western countries to buy/lease IL-76's for similar duty. FUSSR aircraft might make more sense, they are notoriously inexpensive.

So what is the big deal?

Oooh, Mozilla released another minor revision to Thuderbird. Big deal. No new features, just improovements on the same theme.

I'm sorry, but items like Vermont Yankee's missing fuel rodes or NASA using Hollywood stuntmen to catch falling space probes or even news about the world's earliest known BBQ seem a lot more like 'news for nerds' than a minor revision to an already well-known (in the OSS community) application.

So really, Damon shouldn't have been surprised when he came into the office one otherwise-normal Monday morning to find his reward for all the office pranks.

Didn't Scott Crossfield mention to the media something about his pants getting wet (from the firewater used to douse the flames) in the rescue due to the explosion of the X-15?

One of the next day's newspaper headlines was, "Experimental Plane Blows Up, Test Pilot Wets Pants".

But GM eventually revoked the leases, took back the cars and announced that electric vehicles were a dead technology. They were instead going to focus on the long term goal of building hydrogen cars. This coincided with George Bush and Dick Cheney announcing similar long term US government hydrogen power research goals. Look at the funny monkey. It's no secret that Bush & Cheney have strong ties to the oil industry. This is about maintaining the foreign-oil-consuming status quo, dressed up to look like hydrogen fuel progressive thinking.

Hydrogen power sounds nice, but there are some huge fundamental problems. We have better solutions that work now, and the government is opposing them instead of advocating them, because oil is king. If logic ruled, we'd redirect a good chunk of the money we're spending to fight terrorism and wage war in the Middle East and spend it on alternative energy research and development instead. The US should be a clean energy exporter. As long as we're addicted to Middle East oil, we will continue to have problems with balance of trade, terrorism, and a growing imperialism that fosters resentment in the rest of the world.

Meanwhile, the far thinking Japanese car companies are making a good profit selling efficient and ecologically sound hybrid cars in the US. The free market system works, even when it's the victim of government intervention. Much as I dislike partial solutions, I've got to admit that hybrid cars make sense now, and are a good stepping stone to more efficient fuel cell cars in the near future. My next car may be a Toyota Prius. And given the US market pressures, there is a lot of work going into making large hybrid SUVs.

I'm much less excited about the Dessault aircraft plant building electric cars than I am about Toyota automobile manufacturing building a four place aircraft. And Honda is building a good aircraft engine, instead of the 1940's era tractor engines still used on light planes. In one stroke, Cessna, Piper and Beech will be completely irrelevant in that relatively small market. After that, maybe the persistent dream of the flying car will finally become a reality.

But GM eventually revoked the leases, took back the cars and announced that electric vehicles were a dead technology. They were instead going to focus on the long term goal of building hydrogen cars. This coincided with George Bush and Dick Cheney announcing similar long term US government hydrogen power research goals. Look at the funny monkey. It's no secret that Bush & Cheney have strong ties to the oil industry. This is about maintaining the foreign-oil-consuming status quo, dressed up to look like hydrogen fuel progressive thinking.

Hydrogen power sounds nice, but there are some huge fundamental problems. We have better solutions that work now, and the government is opposing them instead of advocating them, because oil is king. If logic ruled, we'd redirect a good chunk of the money we're spending to fight terrorism and wage war in the Middle East and spend it on alternative energy research and development instead. The US should be a clean energy exporter. As long as we're addicted to Middle East oil, we will continue to have problems with balance of trade, terrorism, and a growing imperialism that fosters resentment in the rest of the world.

Meanwhile, the far thinking Japanese car companies are making a good profit selling efficient and ecologically sound hybrid cars in the US. The free market system works, even when it's the victim of government intervention. Much as I dislike partial solutions, I've got to admit that hybrid cars make sense now, and are a good stepping stone to more efficient fuel cell cars in the near future. My next car may be a Toyota Prius. And given the US market pressures, there is a lot of work going into making large hybrid SUVs.

I'm much less excited about the Dessault aircraft plant building electric cars than I am about Toyota automobile manufacturing building a four place aircraft. And Honda is building a good aircraft engine, instead of the 1940's era tractor engines still used on light planes. In one stroke, Cessna, Piper and Beech will be completely irrelevant in that relatively small market. After that, maybe the persistent dream of the flying car will finally become a reality.

Really? $150 million in new funding was announced in October, and they had been planning a flight for mid-December which didn't eventuate, but I can't find anything about it being cancelled. It's probably just been postponed. Again.

You want experienced pilots that can get the job done, and right the first time. You screw up landing at PDX on an icy day and you're the last flight in before they close the airport because of the weather, you're going into the river, no second chance. Or you end up circling Portland and sacrificing your life to save your passengers.

Actually, the pulse-jet people are not Xcor. The pulse jet people are a couple guys messing around in their garage. Did you hit the link in the parent? Try Junkyard Wars Yield New Engine Technology. The unfortunately low-quality pic is here.

Actually, the pulse-jet people are not Xcor. The pulse jet people are a couple guys messing around in their garage. Did you hit the link in the parent? Try Junkyard Wars Yield New Engine Technology. The unfortunately low-quality pic is here.

The AirForce research guys demoed a pulsejet made out of automotive parts at Oshkosh this year. There's a link and a picture at Avweb

"...letting out information that could jeopardize security... (T)hat would cause problems, even if it could be implemented"

News Flash: the information is already out there and available to the public.

A product called Flight Explorer allows you to "... retrieve aircraft information from our data center and to provide you with a real-time picture of all IFR aircraft over the US (including Alaska and Hawaii), Canada, the Caribbean and parts of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans."

A nice review (with lots of screenshots) is available at AvWeb and also has a short discussion on how/why the data became available to the public.

Let's hope these things never deploy accidently

Apparently they are pretty tough to deploy even when you want them to. As this guy in Kentucky found out in May. Otherwise he would have been the first to deploy the chute on the SR20.

I seem to remember a report of the first successful real-world use of a emergency parachute for light aircraft. A cessna-like plane had its engines cut own and the pilot was able to parachute his entire plane to safety.

Here's an article that discusses these issues from the controller's perspective.

everything I have heard from the pilot's side (particularly GA pilots) is that the FAA is, well, not doing too well these days. And that the front-line controllers are probably more right on these issues than their bosses.

The AvWeb article cited above (which is written by Don Brown, Facility Safety Representative at ZTL) also talks about FAA wanting to do away with primary radar altogether. Fucking morons. There are still plenty of airplanes flying around with no electrical systems, which means no transponders.

Basically says the union hates it and the FAA and Raytheon say it's OK. It lists a few problems, but doesn't say if it could be the result of user error.

I am aware of the high-tech world's hated for anything that smacks of unionization. However, everything I have heard from the pilot's side (particularly GA pilots) is that the FAA is, well, not doing too well these days. And that the front-line controllers are probably more right on these issues than their bosses.

sPh

Avweb has also had some interesting articles about England's experiement with new ATC systems.

sPh

The plane you refer to is called the Vomit Comet a modified KC-135A modified for microgravity experiments. There's an article about it here.

... wouldn't it be a damn sight cheeper just to put a plane into a dive and float arround for a bit ...

Hmm, yeah, maybe except using that method, you only get 10 seconds at a time of weightlessness ...

The plane they use in astronaut training (the "vomit comet") give you more than ten seconds of weightlessness. Here is another first person account, this time from a guy who rode one intended for the public.

It is my understanding that the passengers experience "weightlessness" on the up portion of their trip, as well as the down portion. I believe the pilots train in how to gun the engines, point the nose up, then cut them, and fly the plane on a parabola that keeps the occupants weightless for the longest period of time consistent with not crashing at the end.

Even though there is no more "Enhanced Class B" airpace in the U.S., Santa DID get permission to fly from the U.S. government.

The Experimental Aircraft Association filed a flight waiver request for Santa which was granted by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Earlier he got permission directly from U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta.

In spite of this, Santa flies VFR (Visual Flight Rules) and it it is up to him to "see and avoid" other traffic in the air.

Among other things, the Eurcoupe design prevents forward slips. Forward slips can be useful for dumping altitude quickly, especially in emergency descent situations or landing over an obstacle. It was also very difficult to take off in a crosswind, althought landing in a crosswind sounds easier.

Check out this nicely detailed account of a trip on the Vomit Comet, a modified KC-135A.

Man that looks cool, as long as you don't succumb to the Technicolor yawn along the way. :)

PART I. EXCEPT FOR THE OPERATIONS LISTED BELOW, PART 91 VFR OPERATION ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL AIRSPACE OF THE U.S.,
FOR U.S. REGISTERED AIRCRAFT PROVIDED THAT THOSE OPERATIONS ARE CONDUCTED OUTSIDE "ENHANCED CLASS B AIRSPACE."

A. THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF OPERATIONS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED:

1. CIVIL AIRCRAFT VFR FLIGHT TRAINING OPERATIONS

2. BANNER TOWING OPERATIONS

3. SIGHT SEEING FLIGHT OPERATIONS CONDUCTED FOR COMPENSATION OR HIRE (UNDER PART 91, PURSUANT TO THE EXCEPTION IN 119.1(e)(2))

4. TRAFFIC WATCH FLIGHT OPERATIONS

5. AIRSHIP/BLIMP OPERATIONS

6. NEWS REPORTING OPERATIONS

B. EXAMPLES OF AUTHORIZED OPERATIONS, OUTSIDE "ENHANCED CLASS B AIRSPACE" INCLUDE:

1. AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE REPOSITIONING.

2. BALLOONS.

3. CIVIL AIR PATROL.

4. GLIDERS.

5. MANUFACTURER PRODUCTION FLIGHT TESTS.

6. MAPPING/PHOTOGRAPHY MISSIONS.

7. PIPELINE/POWERLINE INSPECTIONS.

8. SEAPLANES.

9. SKYDIVING.

10. ULTRALIGHTS.

11. WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS.

PART I. EXCEPT FOR THE OPERATIONS LISTED BELOW, PART 91 VFR OPERATION ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL AIRSPACE OF THE U.S.,
FOR U.S. REGISTERED AIRCRAFT PROVIDED THAT THOSE OPERATIONS ARE CONDUCTED OUTSIDE "ENHANCED CLASS B AIRSPACE."

A. THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF OPERATIONS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED:

1. CIVIL AIRCRAFT VFR FLIGHT TRAINING OPERATIONS

2. BANNER TOWING OPERATIONS

3. SIGHT SEEING FLIGHT OPERATIONS CONDUCTED FOR COMPENSATION OR HIRE (UNDER PART 91, PURSUANT TO THE EXCEPTION IN 119.1(e)(2))

4. TRAFFIC WATCH FLIGHT OPERATIONS

5. AIRSHIP/BLIMP OPERATIONS

6. NEWS REPORTING OPERATIONS

B. EXAMPLES OF AUTHORIZED OPERATIONS, OUTSIDE "ENHANCED CLASS B AIRSPACE" INCLUDE:

1. AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE REPOSITIONING.

2. BALLOONS.

3. CIVIL AIR PATROL.

4. GLIDERS.

5. MANUFACTURER PRODUCTION FLIGHT TESTS.

6. MAPPING/PHOTOGRAPHY MISSIONS.

7. PIPELINE/POWERLINE INSPECTIONS.

8. SEAPLANES.

9. SKYDIVING.

10. ULTRALIGHTS.

11. WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS.

Personally I'd rather believe an aeronautical/aerospace engineer than a physicist (but then im biased ;) ), no offence to physicists but i hardly think that many would have expertise in that area unless it was their special area of research. Similarly i wouldnt think a doctor would have much of a clue about what happens to an aircraft structurally in a depressurisation situation. A doctor would however if they specialised in the area be able to tell you what effects the depressurisation would have on the human body.
For some accident reports on explosive decompressions and their effects on the aircraft you should take a look at some of the following sites or browse around the NTSB (US), AAIB(UK) and BASI (Australia) sites. Some links of direct interest as they cover explosive decompressions include:

Air accident investigation board (UK)

NTSB - Inspired improvements in transportation safety - PDF file(do a search for decompression to find relevant bits)

As for the medical side there is an excellent article on avweb on the effects of hypoxia. As you can see from this article consciousness can be lost in anywhere from minutes to seconds depending on altitude and how quickly the decompression occurs.

If you're heavily into aviation, then AVWeb (http://www.avweb.com) is a good site to visit. All sorts of good stuff there.

--

KEWL!!!

Does this mean the Cylons will be running the trains in Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport again? The poor robot doodz have been retired since the 1996 Olympics, when the were replaced by "clearer, friendlier and effective voice[s]"

Long live the Imperious Leader!

-rpl

and yes, i know it was just a joke, son.