The fact that the wing is so strong suggests that it may be being over-designed.
It could also be due to the different stiffnesses of aluminum and carbon fiber structures. I wouldn't be surprised if a carbon wing that was designed to fail at 150% of design load turned out to be too flexible and prone to flutter (which is often catastrophic.)
I have a kevlar canoe that uses a honeycomb sandwhich construction along much of the bottom and in a couple of ribs to provide the required stiffness. The rest of it is so thin you can almost see through it, flexes when you push on it, but is still strong enough for the job. It's also 30 pounds lighter than shorter aluminum canoes.
It's actually really surprising how much airlines currently *don't* do to optimize fuel costs....
Actually, they go to great lengths to minimize fuel burn. The reason they're often not at optimum altitude or speed is due to ATC constraints. At most (not all) airports, you'll have a much earlier than optimum descent from cruise altitude, followed by being high on the downwind leg (leaving enough space for departing aircraft to get out under the arrivals), followed by a tight, slam dunk, high drag approach or a loooong downwind while you do a low level fuel annihilation run due to the amount of traffic arriving.
Oceanic routes have huge spacing requirements due to the lack of radar coverage. Because of that, it's often difficult to get a clearance to a new altititude while over the pond. It's not uncommon to cross the ocean at one altitude for the entire crossing, even though the optimum altitude will go up as the aircraft gets lighter.
So, airlines do the best they can with the constraints they face. Improving the ATC system will be a big help.
>I am not sure what you mean; an A320/319/321 has a higher service ceiling than all but the newest 737-700/800. And the difference between 39K and 41K isn't that big anyway.
I was just trolling for 320 pilots from a 757 point of view (i.e., looking down several thousand feet.)
Service cieling isn't necessarily a good measurement of in service performance - it just tells you how high you can get an empty airplane, not one that's making money. The A320's typically cruise several thousand feet lower than 757's.
Incidentally, the 757 is certificated to only 42K. It's capable of a lot higher, but limited due to the time it takes to descend to a lower altitude in the event of a depressurization.
Is flying through storms all that good of an idea? Really?
"Flying through storms" isn't an accurate description - it's what happens when the mainstream press reports on a technical issue.
Nobody flies through thunderstorms. At least knowingly and on purpose. You fly between them (or over them if you're not stuck in a A320.)
Delays happen in the summer because the traffic trying to pass an area or line of thunderstorms enroute has to squeeze into the areas between cells. Controllers have to maintain a specified spacing between aircraft, so when you have less space for traffic, you have to accept less traffic.
In the past, the FAA would hold aircraft on the ground to keep traffic at a rate the affected area could handle. As I read the summary, it looks like they're going to give airlines the option sitting it out on the ground (rate limiting) or of rerouting well outside of the affected area - effectively a choice between a departure delay or a longer route with ahe increased fuel burn.
"We live in a world where we honor, and support the honoring of, intellectual property," says Ballmer in an interview. FOSS patrons are going to have to "play by the same rules as the rest of the business," he insists. "What's fair is fair."
Ballmer talking about 'fair' is like Kobe Bryant talking about 'consensual.'
...The first time I went there, I was hesitant to put in my information. There's no way I would have believed that was a reputable domain if it weren't for the fact that I had written instructions to use it.
Whew. I was afraid you wouldn't be able to read my handwriting.
Why? They had their chance and fucked up big time. When someone has proven he is unfit to do a task, I certainly won't hand him the same one twice.
Who's giving it to the same person? The principal didn't get it right, the police didn't get it right, but the DA did. The kid's lawyer did, too, obviously.
It's not in the hands of the police or school district anymore. It's in the hands of the kid's lawyer and civil court now.
I don't feel that publishing her email address so that 50,000 angry geeks (who have only read the always 100% accurate news account) and aren't even in her school district can email an impulsive and probably insulting letter is the right way to deal with it. Anybody who felt strongly to write/call enough could look up info.
According to the article, they (the school and the police) screwed up big time. If that's the full story, they'll have to answer to their school district's voters and the kids lawyers.
I may be wrong, but I saw the original post as invitation to email bomb the woman in question. What if the story is incorrect or incomplete? What if the words attributed to her aren't accurate?
And yes, there's no comparison between being wrongly jailed and being email bombed - except that neither one is right.
Let the courts and the voters sort out the facts. Their will be plenty of pain to go around.
Yeah, that the same. Sending someone (who may or may not have said the above statement) a whole pile of abusive emails, and sending someone to juvenile hall for 12 days.
I didn't mean to imply that the the two are same in scale, though I can see how you read it that way. I have two kids and can't imagine what it would be like to have one locked up for 12 days. I'd be a wreck. I can't imagine how a child would handle it.
My point is that posting the principle's email address is just a form of mob justice. No due process, no effort to ascertain that the info you have is true and correct - not much different than what happened to the kid - except, of course, in scale.
Leave it to the lawyers. If the facts in the story are straight, there will be plenty of pain to share.
Since you're a mac user, have you tried using mactheripper?
I actually tried that first, but kept getting an I/O error warning. Then I thought, 'Why bother?' I've got plenty of HD space, so I went for a straight disk image.
The disc played fine under Apple's DVD player, but I did wonder at the time if it would be broken on a lot of hardware.
For me, it's just an inconvenience - I'd rather leave the discs at home when I travel. It does say a lot about how they feel about their customers.
I suspected something like that was going on. I just tried to make a disk image of Casino Royale on my Powerbook so that I could watch it on the road without bringing the disc along. I kept getting error messages, so I gave up and brought the disc with me.
Many high-wing R/C planes use the rudder for roll. They're inherently stable, and rudder turns tend to bank because the weight is under the wing.
Having weight under the wings makes roll stability easier, but it's the wings dihedral (upward vee bend) that produces the roll effect with yaw.
A Hawker Harrier (the British 'jump jet') is a high wing with an anhedral - the wings bend down. If you yaw left, it will roll right. In fact, with enough sideslip during a hover, they roll over. They're known to be easy to fly... and easy to crash.
According to WIKI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_controls the rudder controls yaw, not pitch or roll. So I am not sure how the rudder keeps the plane flying level. Can anyone help?
You should be modded up for asking an intelligent question.
Aircraft that use rudder for roll control do it by having a fair amount of dihedral (upward vee bend) in the wing. When the rudder yaws the aircraft, the outside wing effectively gets a higher angle of attack (bite of the air) and generates more lift, rolling the aircraft. To help you picture it, imagine an extreme example - an airplane pointing north but going east, and you can see why the wing on the right is going to lift.
Model gliders often have polyhedral (more than one upward bend) to enhance the effect.
The upside is simplicity. The downside (if aesthetics matter to you) is that it produces a really ugly turn.
When they pull a plane to the gate, they hook it up to a power system to keep the AC, lights, etc, running, without wasting fuel. How much could be saved both fuel and electricity at the airports?
Why don't you just put solar panels on the terminal roof then? Cheaper, no weight added to aircraft, easier to engineer, and useful when the plane's not there.
Solar power for airplanes is a niche market - high, slow, endurance, light weight. You won't be seeing it on airliners anytime soon.
Again, why can't you run your engines off jet fuel, and everything else (lights, radio, etc) from solar cells? Save some fuel in the process.
Same reason you don't have solar cells on your gasoline powered car powering your electrical system - because its waaayyyy cheaper to just let the engine turn a generator. Airliners also fly during the evening, at night, and at high latitudes where the sun's angle incidence is too low for the solar panel to produce meaningful power.
This doesn't have to replace traditional fuels, it can supplement them.
While technically not impossible, it would be completely impractical.
Solar's strength is high and slow. High, because you're actually going to get more sunlight (power) as you climb, whereas combustion engines lose power as you climb due to thinning air. (One reason why Helios was pushing 100,000 feet.) Slow, because you're using an electric motor to turn a big, slow revving prop. (Props can't get anywhere close to mach without tremendous loss of efficiency.)
While in theory you could use the electic power to turn a ducted fan, it would never produce enough thrust to make up for it's drag and weight at airliner speeds.
Solar's niche is high altitude, slow speed and long endurance. It will have some neat uses, but there's not enough oomph for high speed or high payload applications like jetting to Vegas for the weekend.
There's a far simpler (and less risky) solution - two doors between the flight deck and the main cabin, so that the flight crew can always have a closed door between them and the cabin when they have to leave the cockpit. El Al's been doing this for years, and IIRC, United is on track to do so. If the cockpit can't be stormed, the airliner can't be used as a weapon.
Autopilots malfunction. That's why there's a big red button on every yoke or sidestick (not just on the flight guidance panel) - an autopilot disconnect switch. The thought of having an autopilot that you can't disconnect on every flight of every airliner is just plain scary, probability-wise.
Here's a more likely use for it: The FAA wants to raise the pilot retirement age to 65. You'll need it to land the airplane after the old geezer pilots fall asleep.
Slashdot Mirror
It could also be due to the different stiffnesses of aluminum and carbon fiber structures. I wouldn't be surprised if a carbon wing that was designed to fail at 150% of design load turned out to be too flexible and prone to flutter (which is often catastrophic.)
I have a kevlar canoe that uses a honeycomb sandwhich construction along much of the bottom and in a couple of ribs to provide the required stiffness. The rest of it is so thin you can almost see through it, flexes when you push on it, but is still strong enough for the job. It's also 30 pounds lighter than shorter aluminum canoes.
Different materials, different limiting cases.
It's actually really surprising how much airlines currently *don't* do to optimize fuel costs....
Actually, they go to great lengths to minimize fuel burn. The reason they're often not at optimum altitude or speed is due to ATC constraints. At most (not all) airports, you'll have a much earlier than optimum descent from cruise altitude, followed by being high on the downwind leg (leaving enough space for departing aircraft to get out under the arrivals), followed by a tight, slam dunk, high drag approach or a loooong downwind while you do a low level fuel annihilation run due to the amount of traffic arriving.
Oceanic routes have huge spacing requirements due to the lack of radar coverage. Because of that, it's often difficult to get a clearance to a new altititude while over the pond. It's not uncommon to cross the ocean at one altitude for the entire crossing, even though the optimum altitude will go up as the aircraft gets lighter.
So, airlines do the best they can with the constraints they face. Improving the ATC system will be a big help.
Also, don't just string cable, string CONDUIT so you can upgrade the networking should you ever need to.
I did our house with flexible blue conduit (smurf tube) to everywhere I thought I might want someting in the future.
To run cable, I vacuum a wad of kleenex tied to a string through a run, then use the string to pull the cable/cat5/whatever.
Not too expensive if you do it yourself. Running the tube goes a lot faster with two people.
You can have my nmap when you pry my cold, dead hands from the keyboard.
There goes the price of potato chips.
/.'er going to eat?
First corn syrup, now this. How's a
FWIW, I do stress analysis on the wings of the A380...
To within 3.33%, I assume.
8-)
>>or over them if you're not stuck in a A320
>I am not sure what you mean; an A320/319/321 has a higher service ceiling than all but the newest 737-700/800. And the difference between 39K and 41K isn't that big anyway.
I was just trolling for 320 pilots from a 757 point of view (i.e., looking down several thousand feet.)
Service cieling isn't necessarily a good measurement of in service performance - it just tells you how high you can get an empty airplane, not one that's making money. The A320's typically cruise several thousand feet lower than 757's.
Incidentally, the 757 is certificated to only 42K. It's capable of a lot higher, but limited due to the time it takes to descend to a lower altitude in the event of a depressurization.
But, yes, 'stuck in a A320' was bait...
Is flying through storms all that good of an idea? Really?
"Flying through storms" isn't an accurate description - it's what happens when the mainstream press reports on a technical issue.
Nobody flies through thunderstorms. At least knowingly and on purpose. You fly between them (or over them if you're not stuck in a A320.)
Delays happen in the summer because the traffic trying to pass an area or line of thunderstorms enroute has to squeeze into the areas between cells. Controllers have to maintain a specified spacing between aircraft, so when you have less space for traffic, you have to accept less traffic.
In the past, the FAA would hold aircraft on the ground to keep traffic at a rate the affected area could handle. As I read the summary, it looks like they're going to give airlines the option sitting it out on the ground (rate limiting) or of rerouting well outside of the affected area - effectively a choice between a departure delay or a longer route with ahe increased fuel burn.
Choice is good.
"We live in a world where we honor, and support the honoring of, intellectual property," says Ballmer in an interview. FOSS patrons are going to have to "play by the same rules as the rest of the business," he insists. "What's fair is fair."
Ballmer talking about 'fair' is like Kobe Bryant talking about 'consensual.'
Whew. I was afraid you wouldn't be able to read my handwriting.
Here's where they're at... they know exactly how close they are to success. They just don't know how fast they're getting there.
Nice... Because sending lots of e-mail is real punishment. And to think, we've been wasting all this money on JAILS for all these years.
You're right, it's not punishment... it's just a form mob revenge.
The courts, lawyers and voters will deliver the real punishment after everyone has had their fair day in court.
I think sending numerous e-mails is right about on-par with "waving her hands in the air and saying 'we got him, we got him.'"
Which was exactly my point.
Why? They had their chance and fucked up big time. When someone has proven he is unfit to do a task, I certainly won't hand him the same one twice.
Who's giving it to the same person? The principal didn't get it right, the police didn't get it right, but the DA did. The kid's lawyer did, too, obviously.
It's not in the hands of the police or school district anymore. It's in the hands of the kid's lawyer and civil court now.
I don't feel that publishing her email address so that 50,000 angry geeks (who have only read the always 100% accurate news account) and aren't even in her school district can email an impulsive and probably insulting letter is the right way to deal with it. Anybody who felt strongly to write/call enough could look up info.
According to the article, they (the school and the police) screwed up big time. If that's the full story, they'll have to answer to their school district's voters and the kids lawyers.
I may be wrong, but I saw the original post as invitation to email bomb the woman in question. What if the story is incorrect or incomplete? What if the words attributed to her aren't accurate?
And yes, there's no comparison between being wrongly jailed and being email bombed - except that neither one is right.
Let the courts and the voters sort out the facts. Their will be plenty of pain to go around.
Yeah, that the same. Sending someone (who may or may not have said the above statement) a whole pile of abusive emails, and sending someone to juvenile hall for 12 days.
I didn't mean to imply that the the two are same in scale, though I can see how you read it that way. I have two kids and can't imagine what it would be like to have one locked up for 12 days. I'd be a wreck. I can't imagine how a child would handle it.
My point is that posting the principle's email address is just a form of mob justice. No due process, no effort to ascertain that the info you have is true and correct - not much different than what happened to the kid - except, of course, in scale.
Leave it to the lawyers. If the facts in the story are straight, there will be plenty of pain to share.
Feel free to tell his principal how you feel about the whole guilty until proven innocent thing she has going on.
Email address removed
...so that you, too, can try, convict and punish on less than complete evidence.
Sheesh. Leave it to the lawyers and courts, please.
Since you're a mac user, have you tried using mactheripper?
I actually tried that first, but kept getting an I/O error warning. Then I thought, 'Why bother?' I've got plenty of HD space, so I went for a straight disk image.
The disc played fine under Apple's DVD player, but I did wonder at the time if it would be broken on a lot of hardware.
For me, it's just an inconvenience - I'd rather leave the discs at home when I travel. It does say a lot about how they feel about their customers.
I suspected something like that was going on. I just tried to make a disk image of Casino Royale on my Powerbook so that I could watch it on the road without bringing the disc along. I kept getting error messages, so I gave up and brought the disc with me.
One more reason I won't buy Sony hardware.
Many high-wing R/C planes use the rudder for roll. They're inherently stable, and rudder turns tend to bank because the weight is under the wing.
Having weight under the wings makes roll stability easier, but it's the wings dihedral (upward vee bend) that produces the roll effect with yaw.
A Hawker Harrier (the British 'jump jet') is a high wing with an anhedral - the wings bend down. If you yaw left, it will roll right. In fact, with enough sideslip during a hover, they roll over. They're known to be easy to fly... and easy to crash.
According to WIKI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_controls the rudder controls yaw, not pitch or roll. So I am not sure how the rudder keeps the plane flying level. Can anyone help?
You should be modded up for asking an intelligent question.
Aircraft that use rudder for roll control do it by having a fair amount of dihedral (upward vee bend) in the wing. When the rudder yaws the aircraft, the outside wing effectively gets a higher angle of attack (bite of the air) and generates more lift, rolling the aircraft. To help you picture it, imagine an extreme example - an airplane pointing north but going east, and you can see why the wing on the right is going to lift.
Model gliders often have polyhedral (more than one upward bend) to enhance the effect.
The upside is simplicity. The downside (if aesthetics matter to you) is that it produces a really ugly turn.
When they pull a plane to the gate, they hook it up to a power system to keep the AC, lights, etc, running, without wasting fuel. How much could be saved both fuel and electricity at the airports?
Why don't you just put solar panels on the terminal roof then? Cheaper, no weight added to aircraft, easier to engineer, and useful when the plane's not there.
Solar power for airplanes is a niche market - high, slow, endurance, light weight. You won't be seeing it on airliners anytime soon.
Again, why can't you run your engines off jet fuel, and everything else (lights, radio, etc) from solar cells? Save some fuel in the process.
Same reason you don't have solar cells on your gasoline powered car powering your electrical system - because its waaayyyy cheaper to just let the engine turn a generator. Airliners also fly during the evening, at night, and at high latitudes where the sun's angle incidence is too low for the solar panel to produce meaningful power.
This doesn't have to replace traditional fuels, it can supplement them.
While technically not impossible, it would be completely impractical.
Solar's strength is high and slow. High, because you're actually going to get more sunlight (power) as you climb, whereas combustion engines lose power as you climb due to thinning air. (One reason why Helios was pushing 100,000 feet.) Slow, because you're using an electric motor to turn a big, slow revving prop. (Props can't get anywhere close to mach without tremendous loss of efficiency.)
While in theory you could use the electic power to turn a ducted fan, it would never produce enough thrust to make up for it's drag and weight at airliner speeds.
Solar's niche is high altitude, slow speed and long endurance. It will have some neat uses, but there's not enough oomph for high speed or high payload applications like jetting to Vegas for the weekend.
There's a far simpler (and less risky) solution - two doors between the flight deck and the main cabin, so that the flight crew can always have a closed door between them and the cabin when they have to leave the cockpit. El Al's been doing this for years, and IIRC, United is on track to do so. If the cockpit can't be stormed, the airliner can't be used as a weapon.
Autopilots malfunction. That's why there's a big red button on every yoke or sidestick (not just on the flight guidance panel) - an autopilot disconnect switch. The thought of having an autopilot that you can't disconnect on every flight of every airliner is just plain scary, probability-wise.
Here's a more likely use for it: The FAA wants to raise the pilot retirement age to 65. You'll need it to land the airplane after the old geezer pilots fall asleep.
Fortunately, Jet-A is much cheaper than Avgas.