🚀 go-pugleaf

    - hi; in dipspc article, <1184868946snz@nospam.demon.co.uk>,
                pete@nospam.demon.co.uk elaborated:
>        v$af$ppint@i-m-t.demon.co.uk "ppint. at IMT" writes:
>>                pete@nospam.demon.co.uk wrote:
>>>      v$af$ppint@i-m-t.demon.co.uk "ppint. at IMT" writes:
>>>>            sum1@flashy.nut "Ian" volunteered:
>>>>>           pete@nospam.demon.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>>                 [i, too, contributed:]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>	- an interesting principle, the - or at least an - exact
>>>>>>>	inverse of the principle used to make first evaluations
>>>>>>>	of the designs of such aeroplanes, as the vickers-super-
>>>>>>>	marine spitfire and the de haviland mosquito: that their
>>>>>>>	lines were so beautiful, they *had* to be right...
>>>>>And the late lamented Concorde, don't you think?
>>>>	- indeed; there seemed to this ppint. to be quite a bit
>>>>	of the form of barnes wallis' proposed supersonic air-
>>>>	liner for (iirc) vickers in the lines of the concord[e].
[snip]
>
>All I could find on a [albeit brief] web search was reference to 
>the Swift: a swing-wing design that looked more like something 
>out of Star Wars than Planet Earth, mid-1900s.  But interesting 
>nonetheless and very futuristic at a time when supersonic flow 
>was far less understood than it is today.

	- i'd managed to - subconsciously - wipe all connections
	to any surviving memories of that from my mind - or elce,
	vegetablisation did so for me. not that swing-wing design
	is necessarily a bad thing, in a military machine...

	- but the idea of carrying a mechanism that complex into
	a crucial part of a commercial airliner!
>
>>>>>>Indeed so and I'm sure few would disagree.  I would even include
>>>>>>the DH Comet (the air racer, not the airliner) in that list.
>>>>	- the pointy-nosed D.H.88 had, aside of the engine nacelles
>>>>	and undercarriage (when down), lines that flowed beautifully
>>>>	smoothly - but i don't actually remember now reading what
>>>>	she was like to fly. is there any account of her handling
>>>>	in a uk-published book, that you could recommend?
>>>Im sure there must be; best bet to try would probably be the 
>>>Shuttleworth Collection bookshop.  However I did find this 
>>>(apparently US) page on the www:

	- haven't yet tried checking this up on-line; but:
>>>
>>><http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/feature/comet/comet.htm>
>>>[hope I type that properly].
>
>Or "typed", even.  I blame the grape juice ;-)

	- *g*  you  may rest assured; it worked, and was indeed of
	interest - as were some of the other articles on "classic"
	aircraft, to be found on that site. thanks for the pointer.
	(and yes, it's merkin - phraseology, spelling and, above
	all, the overwhelming choice of aeroplanes covered... but,
	as i said, there's stuff there of interest, nevertheless.)
>
>>>ISTR from the distant past that the DH88 was a handful at low speed,
>>>prone to tip stalling and generally very unforgiving.  But hey, it
>>>was designed to win races -- and not have its beautiful aerodynamics
>>>spoilt by "safety features" like washout or being stable ;-)
>>	- hmm? it was designed specifically for that one, very
>>	long-distance race, was it not?  so, whilst i fully take
>>	your point with regard to the dispensability of safety
>>	features having a significant extra drag (or weight) cost,
>>	i'd've thought stability in flight would be regarded as an
>>	asset much greater than high manoeverability: it's not as
>
><Anorak Mode>
>Stability comes at a price: drag -- both from profile drag of the 
>tail surfaces [keep them as small as possible!] and induced [trim] 
>drag when they actually produce aerodynamic lift/down/side force. 
>And because they are by design (and for good reason) low aspect 
>ratio aerofoils, the less "work" they do the better.  The ideal 
>arrangement to achieve this is with the longitudinal centre of 
>gravity at the "aft limit" or neutral point -- the point at which 
>there is no longitudinal stability.  Practicality usually means 
>that fuel tank(s) are not located here, so without a sophisticated 
>fuel management (= extra weight) stability will vary as fuel is 
>burnt.  I guess pilots of the day had to be of the "like it or 
>lump it" calibre.  Probably "lump it" ;-)  Anyway, this is dis.pc 
>and not the right place really to discuss tail volume ratios...
></Anorak Mode>

	- ta; i think i mostly had in mind was the lateral stability
	conferred by positive dihedral, which both the dh.88 and for
	that matter, the vickers-supermarine spitfire both adopted;
	and as neither was noted for sloth...
	  yes, the longitudinal stability considerations of placing
	the c. of g. provided one very good argument for choosing
	tha ogival wing-plan for supersonic flight; it also enabled
	elimination of tail horizontal surfaces.

	- i'd've hoped that de haviland's'd've provided full manual
	choice of which fuel tanks to run on, in which order; this
	would've helped the crew keep the dh.88 in trim: but i'd no
	idea what a rush job designing and building it was - which
	the article you pointed out quite eloquently established.
>
>>	though the ability to make the sharpest turns around some
>>	pylon in a field every six hundred yards would be highly
>>	prized in a race of some sixty thousand miles, is it? [a]
>
>Sixty??  I thought it was Capetown and back [BICBW].

	- 11,000 miles, in fact (i thought it was from london to
	australia); but i wanted the euphony of contrasting "six"
	with "sixty", and didn't think accuracy so important, in
	the context. ("mea culpa!")
>
>>>Actually I believe that a helicopter will "glide" under pure 
>>>autorotation if power is lost.  The only drawback is that one 
>>>needs lots of height and or speed to enter this state.
>>	- i understood (perhaps incorrectly) that this requires
>>	a modification at the rotor root away from that of the
>>	pure helicoptor, as the pure helicopter's rotors (unlike
>>	those of the autogyro) do not generate lift when wind-
>>	milling freely.
>>	  which is not to say that such safety modifications are
>>	not now commonly made, of course.
>
>No experience here, though I'd assume that the range of the 
>collective pitch would allow a sufficient "negative" position to 
>allow autorotation.  Any loon^H^H^H^Hhelicopter pilots here to 
>confirm or deny this?
>
[..]
>>>I have to confess that I've been messing around in demon.test
>>>and can now proudly confirm that the new code works as expected.
>>>Sadly however, in the course of this testing I found an unrelated
>>>"feature" with long message-IDs and variously sized fixed-length
>>>buffers :-( so spent a lot of yesterday removing all those and
>>>replacing them with dynamically allocated ones.
[..]
>I really should switch to the JLW version (and after this recent 
>fiasco probably will!); the main reason I've stuck with this GeK 
>version is that I've tweaked it over the years to do a few things 
>that are not in the JLW version.
>
	- i'm dreading, but really need to switch to broadband,
	now bt've unilaterally and with no good excuse ceased
	the surftime discount schemes; i wish there were some
	simple way written out for a non-expert to follow, as
	would permit the continued use of the dis-ka9q-pcoak-
	snews.jlw package...  - even if it involved using some-
	thing as horrible as windows 2000 & the dos-box that's
	available for that, between the dos package and the bt
	phone-box on the wall (? with router, modem, whatever),
	if absolutely necessary/advisable for security.

	- but i'll put it off as long as i can/until my phone
	bill makes it clear how little i can afford to continue
	with dial-up.

	- love, ppint.
	  [the address from which this was posted bounces e-mail;
	   please change the "f" to a "g" and drop the "v" if you
                      wish to cc. or e-mail me.]
-- 
      "only two groups of people in society actually behave
       in a completely logical, self-interested way: one of
     these is economists themselves; the other is psychopaths."
    - "the trap" - bbc2 18/3/07 [3/18/07 for merkins] 21:55 GMT