Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site masscomp.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!bonnie!masscomp!ahv From: ahv@masscomp.UUCP (Tony Verhulst) Newsgroups: net.aviation,net.politics Subject: Re: "A Design Proposal That Would Make Passenger Planes Safe" Message-ID: <865@masscomp.UUCP> Date: Mon, 13-Jan-86 14:02:38 EST Article-I.D.: masscomp.865 Posted: Mon Jan 13 14:02:38 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 14-Jan-86 00:43:44 EST References: <196@hropus.UUCP> <968@terak.UUCP> Reply-To: ahv@masscomp.UUCP (Tony Verhulst) Organization: Masscomp - Westford, MA Lines: 44 Xref: lsuc net.aviation:666 net.politics:2866 Summary: [article refering to "all-lifting-surface" aircraft.] > >Only one teeny little detail that wasn't mentioned. The resulting plane >would only be able to go 200-300 mph. Of course, in 1921 they weren't >worried about that as a limiting speed :-) > >With an increase in lift comes an inevitable increase in drag. It is >difficult to achieve high speeds with high lift, because drag increases >with the square of speed. The only practical way to achieve high speed >is to have low drag, and that means low lift. > >Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {hardy,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug Only one teeny little detail wrong here. Parasitic drag increases by the square of the velocity but induced drag DECREASES with an increase in velocity. We must assume that an airplane designed today will be reasonably clean (no struts, wires, wheels, etc hanging in the air flow) so parasitic drag would be kept to a minimum. We all know that circa 1921 airplanes has everything hanging out and it is this factor that limited airspeed. To the best of my knowledge (I'm not an aerodynamicist) there is no direct relationship between high lifting airfoils and induced drag per se. I don't believe that airspeed would be limited just because an aircraft was designed on "all-lifting-surface" principles. > . > . > . > . > . >As for fuselage strength, I don't believe that they're too flimsy. >They hold up pretty well in a crash. Well, except for that DC-10 that >overran the end of the runway at Boston Logan and the front fell off >into the water, killing the cockpit crew. > The cockpit crew was not killed in this crash. The fuselage seperated behind the cockpit and two front row passengers were, presumably, thrown from the aircraft and drowned in Boston harbor. The bodies were never recovered. Don't mind my ramblings. I'm just some guy thats been flying hang gliders for 11 years and just got his single engine ticket ( should have the sail plane rating by the spring soaring season). Tony Verhulst.