Aviation Critic & Enthusiast

Still some gloomy weather...

2010-07-18T21:19:00.000-07:00

Not to bring a dark cloud to our generally cheerful and enlightened conversation, but I read some troubling news regarding potential developments at one of the largest General Aviation manufacturers this past week. The Machinist union leadership had discussions with HawkerBeech, and afterwards issued a rather alarming press release, to the effect that,
"Union officials said Wednesday that HawkerBeechcraft is considering moving work out of Wichita that could shrink its hourly work force 50 to 75 percent over the next two years.".

Ouch. One wonders how that would affect overall production from HawkerBeechcraft. And perhaps on a slightly less dark note, one might also wonder how much of that might be posturing as a prelude to contract negotiations. Donno.

Molly McMillin had an article covering that announcement in the July 15, 2010 Wichita Eagle; Union: Hawker may make massive cuts.

I suppose HawkerBeechcraft was in the awkward position of having to decide who to give the bad news to first, the media or the employees. They did the right thing by discussing it with the union- I suppose the union was obligated to inform the public after it told it's members, and the company issued a public statement following that.

"The company issued a statement in response to Rooney's letter to union members:

"Last September the company initiated a series of meetings to update the union leadership about serious challenges it faces during these unprecedented economic times," the statement said. "These conversations have included a spectrum of possibilities for the company's future footprint and the likely impact on its workforce in all its locations..

(Hmm, a too-common example, Salina, Ks).

"The company values this partnership and believes that there is a great opportunity available to us to work together to influence a positive outcome".

(Ugh- that last line is a press release* reminiscent of the original Eclipse P.R.'s with Vernian subterfuge and spectacular disconsonance).

Alas, sadly "us" will shortly be 130 smaller.

(*S-a-y, didn't Andrew Broom leave Eclipse to go to HawkerBeech? Yup, but he's since continued to move on- and nicely up; Andrew Broom, AOPA vice president of communications).

The rather discouraging news from HawkerBeechcraft was preceded by a couple of weeks by some odd news from Spirit AeroSystems. (Perhaps a new name for some- it's basically what was the commercial side of Boeing-Wichita, plus what was NorthAmerican/Rockwell/McDonnell/Douglas/Boeing-Tulsa. (Maybe somebody can clarify the Tulsa operation; the Wichita operation for Spirit is about 80% of what used to be Boeing Wichita- Boeing still has a couple thousand employees doing Military work in Wichita- including potentially significant KC-X tanker work).

At the end of June, the IAM voted to ratify**- sort of- a 10-year contract with Spirit Aerosystems- Jennifer Michels' June 28 story in Aviation Week:
Spirit AeroSystems Machinists Ratify Pact.

(**Actually, the majority- 57% -voted to reject the contract, but it seems it was set up as a strike vote rather than a ratification vote, and two-thirds majority were needed to authorize a strike. Seems weird that it wasn't set up that way- I can think of numerous instances in other industries where work continued with the expired contract terms in place during continuing negotiations).

Not to be outdone in the cheery press release competition, afterwards the IAM declared:
"On June 24, the IAM referred to the new contract, which covers about 6,000 workers, as a historic accord, providing “unprecedented levels of job security” as well as pay increases linked to company performance and pension improvements. The new contract “stems the tide of outsourcing and job offshoring,” according to the Local 839 Bargaining Committee".

(Buzz is there was a 150 share signing bonus, currently $20/share).

More details from Molly McMillin's June 24 piece in the Wichita Eagle
Spirit offers Machinists 10-year contract.

Spirit Aerosystems management is surely pleased with the stability and price=planning possible with the long-term labor contract, and so was Wall Street.

Interestingly, the Canadian firm Onex owns HawkerBeechcraft (in partnership with Goldman-Sachs), and owns58% of Spirit Aerosystems , and " through its portfolio of companies, is the second largest employer in Canada, after the Federal Government, with 238,000 employees".

I keep thinking things have bottomed out, but it seems every couple months have to lower the elevation on the valley floor. Perhaps there is a bit of encouraging news though, the 2010Q1 GAMA statistics show that although units delivered are down compared to 2009Q1 (390 vs 459), billings are up over 2010 by 7 percent. Hopefully that is translating into jobs somewhere.

Memorial Day Rememberance

2010-06-06T20:04:00.000-07:00

Memorial Day 2010...
Last weekend presented a unique opportunity to tour a World War Two vintage B-17 bomber, on static (and flying) display at one of the local airports.
Quite an astounding opportunity, considering over 10,000 were built (some 65-75 years ago)- I was told there are around 14 in flyable condition- but only a few are actually flown.

Driving home from work a late afternoon on the Thursday before Memorial Day weekend, I noticed a rather large, rather slow airplane, deviating from the typical flight path of the airline crowd. I pulled over on the shoulder and watched, and it lumbered almost directly overhead: "Look- Up in the Sky- It's a Bird...(no)- It's a plane (well, yes)- it's a B-17 !" Asking around, I found it was the Liberty Belle, on tour. (Nine-month tour, it turns out- becoming a yearly event, since it's $3M restoration).

This particular aircraft was built too-late to participate in hostilities, and was delivered straight to the surplus holding area. "Honest Sam's Used (and Un-Used) Airplanes". Many were purchased for the full tanks of fuel which came with the purchase, and then parted out. This particular one became a test bed for Pratt and Whitney- a turboprop was mounted in the nose, where the plexiglass bombardier's window is on the original. Served as a test bed for 20 years, bought by a museum, stored, hit by tornado, stored, sold- restored ($3M), and has been flying (1,300 hours) since 2004.

While a wonderful static display, opportunity knocked, and plastic credit card answered the door- and for about $12/minute I was touring the countryside, about 1000 AGL, at 140 knots or so. Which, I reckon, almost exactly covered the av-gas bill- my small (REALLY small, in the big scheme of things) and humble contribution and thank you to those who flew in these machines decades ago.

Watching the fine machine taxi in and taxi out, and lumber over, I must say, it seemed rather quiet- sort of like a "squardon" of Harley Davidsons- with mufflers. (The muffler part seems to be increasingly rare, at least at squadron-level strengths). Once inside the beast, the sensations were a bit less...restrained.

Engine start was quite uneventful (the left engines were left running, and the right engines shut down, so pax could use the (right) rear door. The right engines seemed to start quite easily, and the left inboard was a bit smokey. From the 50-year old A&P training material, I vaguely remembered reviewing some regulation about how much oil reserve (gallons, or barrels- I can't remember which- but do remember thinking- "wow, that's a lot of oil") was required for large piston aircraft- I now have a bit more appreciation for that...

Taxi down wind was quite well, stimulating to the olfactory senses- good thing the war is over, or I woulda thought the bad guys were using chemical warefare- the air was thick with fumes of burned, and seemingly unburned, av-gas, plus a good measure of oil smoke thrown in.

At the departure end, a runup was performed- and the noise was- about what I anticipated- deafening, and delightful. The airplane shook some, but did not shudder.

Brake release, and the scenery slides by the open waist gunner station ports (actually, more like 3x4 foot frames) in the aft fuselage, where most of the 10 passengers are sitting on plywood benches, with seat belts. (Two or three were forward at various crew stations- the standard crew was 10- or 11 on some versions I think- here's a nifty interactive crew station diagram for "the real thing", circa WW2. For our "3 hour tour" (well, 30 minutes or so), only the pilot, copilot, and flight engineer were staffed by the aircraft organization- the rest of us were tourists.

The takeoff was so smooth (or the engines vibrations and smells were so strong:) that I literally could not tell when we had lifted off. The big fat tires, which I supposed were capable of rough field landings, no doubt helped.

Once at "cruising" altitude (the actual service ceiling was an an astounding 35K feet, thankfully, we putted around at less than 1/10 th of that), we were free to "move about the cabin"...and anywhere else we wanted to, except the ball turret on the belly. Which, I would have to say, is probably the last place I would ever want to be. The tail gunner's location was second least desirable, from the reactions of my fellow "tourists".

(The waist gunner's stations. Fairly roomy, at least when not wearing artic gear and oxygen apparatus. A family of five was commemorating their father/grandfather's service on a B-17 during the war, mom and dad dug it- the kids seemed a little nonplused- but were good sports about the ride).

It was interesting to see the flight deck- not nearly the mass of instruments and controls I expected.

(Not sure who our crew was- but a real B-24 navigator was invited to the flight deck for the duration of the earlier flight).

I belatedly realized most of the engine instruments would have been at the flight engineer's station...which for some reason didn't catch my attention. What DID catch my attention was the stack of radios- and I DO mean STACK- seemingly 3-4 feet high, a couple banks of them. Wow. I'm sure they must have been non-functional, but realistic of the equipment that would have been carried at the time.

The nose was equiped with a plexiglas bubble for the bombadier to use,
and what seemd to be a real Norden bombsight. I must confess, I was rather taken aback by it's inclusion- I had somehow thought it was still rather "secret"-ish. Guess not, in this world of GPS.

(Some of the reason I thought the Norden device might stil be classified: "Using the Norden, bombardiers could, in theory, drop their bombs within a 100-foot (30 m) circle from an altitude of well over 20,000 feet...".

Part of the reason why it's NOT still classified: "Bombing was computed by assessing the proportion of hits falling within 1,000 ft and 2,000 ft circles about an MPI (mean point of impact). To achieve a perfect strike, a bomber group would have to unload all its bombs within the 1,000 ft circle...Under perfect conditions only 50 percent of American bombs fell within a quarter of a mile of the target, and American flyers estimated that as many as 90 percent of bombs could miss their targets". Hmmm- that's sure to stir up some angst among "many veteran B-17 and B-24 bombardiers swore by the Norden".)

After everyone had clambered around- it really was neat to be able to check out the various crew stations while in-flight; I was a bit surprised just how much room there was- (particularly in the bombardier station- guess in an "operational scenerio" there were several guys down there- the waist gunner stations also seemed roomy, as if a dozen people could have ridden there), it was time to head home.

Landing was almost as smooth as takeoff- gentle sqeak of the mains, and a faint whiff of tire smoke. With the headwind, the engine smells didn't seem to intrude as much- given the thrill of the experience, not a big distraction anyway.

Thanks to everyone who flew and maintains this historical item. And especially to those who flew and maintained the originals , and the generations since with newer equipment.

First Term of A&P is over

2010-05-03T18:56:00.000-07:00

Yes, I think we've all heard the Wedge is still involved in aviation- with a flying canoe or somesuch.

Fitting, but not quite the inspiration for The Scream. Four paintings and prints in a series by Norwegian artist Edvard Munch ("I was walking along a path with two friends — the sun was setting — suddenly the sky turned blood red — I paused, feeling exhausted, and leaned on the fence — there was blood and tongues of fire above the blue-black fjord and the city — my friends walked on, and I stood there trembling with anxiety — and I sensed an infinite scream passing through nature").

(Four eh? I always wondered why it seemed renditions varied. Guess Hollywood wasn't the first to invent sequels...).

"One theory advanced to account for the reddish sky in the background is that Munch had observed an effect of the powerful volcanic eruption of Krakatoa in 1883: the ash that was ejected from the volcano left the sky tinted red in much of eastern United States and most of Europe and Asia from the end of November 1883 to mid February 1884...Alternatively, it has been suggested that the proximity to the site of the painting of both a slaughterhouse and a madhouse may have offered inspiration.

"The scene was identified as being the view from a road overlooking Oslo, the Oslofjord and Hovedøya, from the hill of Ekeberg. At the time of painting the work, Munch's manic depressive sister Laura Catherine was interned in the mental hospital at the foot of Ekeberg.

"In 1978, the Munch scholar Robert Rosenblum suggested that the strange, sexless creature in the foreground of the painting was probably inspired by a Peruvian mummy, which Munch could have seen at the 1889 Exposition Universelle in Paris."

Hmmm. I would suggest an alternate explanation- the anguished figure just completed an Airframe and Powerplant General class.

For those curious- as I was for years- a couple decades, actually- I will briefly elaborate upon my experience. (Although, the adage "a picture says a thousand words", turns out to be mostly true, in my experience).

First- before anyone misinterprets that I consider an A&P license (certificates) an unworthy objective, I assure them, and more importantly- other potential A&P students, that I indeed DO consider it a worthy objective to pursue.

As I mentioned, my first curiosity about getting an A&P license happened when I visited a local airport to pick up some instruments being repaired, and drove by a hangar with a community college sign. I stopped in, and chatted. Sounded like an interesting program, but the time demands wouldn't work for me (two years, 25 hours per week). I don't believe the time requirements (set by the FAA) have changed any over these past 20 years- 1900 hours of "contact time"; essentially instructor-led activity- either classroom or shop time. Back then, I was working a lot of overtime, and had a 45 minute drive each way to work. Nah, wasn't going to work.

Fast (??) forward 20 some years, and just about the same thing happened a few months ago, except now I only have a 20 minute drive, and am only working 45-50 hour weeks. So, hey, what the heck- time to "just do it"!!

The local school doesn't use semesters, but rather trimesters, so instead of two years, it's 20 months, and 30 hours per week rather than 25. And to enforce uniformity, the school has a time clock. Odd, but I suppose "rules are rules".

The class was so-so; if you've never seen an airplane, it was okay. For most readers of the blog, I would suggest it was more like= think of the worst, most boring laboratory class you ever suffered though elsewhere, and imagine it being six hours long, every night, for 15 weeks. And there are absolutely no "skips" allowed. Car break down? Sick kid? Gotta work late? Guess what- you're going to be making up the time. When? The instructors were quite accommodating, but there is no weekend "make up" time available. So- either stay an extra hour every night, or take time off work. Either way resulted in a disappointing compromise with work obligations- arrive at work tired the next day, or take time off during the work day- which if you are busy, is exactly what you CAN'T do. Sprinkle in a dozen tests throughout the term, which one's "hours" must be currently 100%, and it was just a recipe for an exercise in unsatisfactory compromise. miserable frustration and exhaustion.

I guess one thing I couldn't really reconcile, was as a professional, having to make time for a vocational program. And I noted the other working students likewise had schedule pressure with work. To enjoy the program, one must either have a completely predicatable job, and preferably one with no week-day overtime requirements, and be willing to forego virtually ALL evening personal activities for some 75-80 weeks.

Maybe when I was younger, it wouldn't have been a more-fun / less-unsatisfactory experience. Which is my recommendation for anyone considering an A&P; don't put it off. Otherwise, put it off until retirement.

The Day the Music Died...

2010-04-12T18:27:00.000-07:00

"There's nothing certain but death and taxes".

Say, where'd THAT come from? Well, that's about the way the weekend went...(isn't the internet handy for things just such as this question:

"Several famous authors have uttered lines to this effect. The first was Daniel Defoe, in The Political History of the Devil, 1726: 'Things as certain as death and taxes, can be more firmly believed.'

"Benjamin Franklin (1706-90) used the form we are currently more familiar with, in a letter to Jean-Baptiste Leroy, 1789, which was re-printed in The Works of Benjamin Franklin, 1817: 'In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.' "

Hmmm- just what I thought. No doubt the tea-party enthusiasts enjoyed extolling the former interpretation this past (Tax Day in the USA was April 15).

Anyway, unfortunate, but peculiarly fitting, I was working on taxes last weekend, and The Buddy Holly Story was playing on television. (A 1978 movie, staring Gary Busey. A bit of -ironically fitting- Busey trivia: "In 1975, as the character 'Harvey Daley,' he was the last person killed on the series Gunsmoke (in the third to the last episode, No. 633 - 'The Los Carnales'". (Okay, okay- I had to look it up too: "The Brotherhood"). An interesting- and shocking for anyone who has seen Gary Busey in, ah, anything lately: he was nominated for an Oscar for his portrayal of Buddy Holly (the movie won an Oscar for, logically, Best Music).

Anyway, enough of Gary Busey- how about the REAL Buddy Holly. (Well, the real Charles Holley, a.k.a. Buddy Holly.

It's an unfortunate tale of Buddy Holly (age 22) and two other performers of musical persuasion (as opposed to performers of the tea-party persuasion), "The Big Bopper" (Jiles Perry "JP" Richardson, Jr.) age 28, and "Ritchie Valens" (Richard Steven Valenzuela) age 17, who were killed along with the pilot Roger Peterson age 21, back in the early morning hours of February 3, 1959.

The story I was -vaguely- familiar with was something along the lines of the Wikipedia synopsis:

"Holly was offered the Winter Dance Party by the GAC agency, a three-week tour across the Midwest opening on January 23, 1959, with other notable performers such as Dion and the Belmonts, Ritchie Valens, and J. P. "The Big Bopper" Richardson. He assembled a backing band consisting of Tommy Allsup (guitar), Waylon Jennings (bass) and Carl Bunch (drums) and billed as The Crickets.

"The tour turned out to be a miserable ordeal for the performers, who were subjected to long overnight travel in a bus plagued with a faulty heating system in −25 °F (−31.7 °C) temperatures. The bus also broke down several times between stops. Following a performance at the Surf Ballroom in Clear Lake, Iowa on February 2, 1959, Holly chartered a small airplane to take him to the next stop on the tour. He, Valens, Richardson, and the pilot were killed en route to Moorhead, Minnesota, when their plane crashed soon after taking off from nearby Mason City in the early morning hours of February 3. Don McLean referred to it as "The Day the Music Died" in his song "American Pie"."

I had generally attributed the accident to weather- probably icing, turbulence, or systems failure in blind conditions.

But...

As Paul Harvey used to say (before he rendezvoused with Buddy, the Big Bopper, and Richie - just over a year ago, as a matter of fact: September 4, 1918 – February 28, 2009, R.I.P.), it's time for THE REST OF THE STORY...

Here's the Civil Aeronautics Board report. (I found it a bit dismissive) -
"This accident, like so many before it, was caused by the pilot's decision to undertake a flight in which the likelihood of encountering instrument conditions existed, in the mistaken belief that he could cope with en route instrument weather conditions, without having the necessary familiarization with the instruments in the aircraft and without being properly certificated to fly solely by instruments".

The flight conditions, while bad, was not as brutal as the -25 degrees earlier encountered in the tour. A tour bus was used to transport the bands- but there was some severe weather, and the bus had numerous mechanical problems- including the heater- the Big Bopper and Richie Valens both had colds from conditions in, and out, of the bus. Buddy had rented the airplane for only his own band, but they gave up their seats for the ailing Big Bopper and Valens; Waylon Jennings "Jennings admitted that, in the years afterward, he felt severe guilt and responsibility for the crash. After Jennings gave up his seat, Holly had jokingly told Jennings, 'I hope your ol' bus freezes up!' Jennings shot back facetiously, 'Well, I hope your ol' plane crashes!'"; Tommy Allsup "a coin flip Allsup had with Ritchie Valens on February 2, 1959 that saved Allsup's life"; the other member, Carl Bunch was previously incapacitated: "The tour bus heater failed, and Bunch suffered from frostbite and was hospitalized".

Not quite as glamorous as today's rockstar acoomodations.

The C.A.B. report comments on the pilot,
"Roger Arthur Peters, 21 years old, was regularly employed by Dwyer Flying Service as a commercial pilot and flight instructor, and had been with them bout one year. He had been flying since October of 1954, and had accumulated 711 flying hours, of which 128 were in Bonanza aircraft. Almost all of the Bonanza time was acquired during charter flights. He had approximately 52 hours of dual instrument training and had passed his instrument written examination. He fail an instrument flight check on March 21, 1958", but this was some nine months prior to the accident.

The pilot does seem to have been conscientous, and alert to the potential of weather complications-
"At approximately 1730, Pilot Peterson went to the Air Traffic Communications Station (ATCS), which was located in a tower on top of the Administration Building, to obtain the necessary weather information pertinent to the flight...At 2200 and again at 2330 Pilot Peterson called ATCS concerning the weather...At 2355, Peterson, accompanied by Hubert Dwyer, a certificated commercial pilot, the local fixed-base operator at the Mason City Airport, and owner of Bonanza N3794N (the aircraft used on the flight), again went to ATCS for the latest weather information...While the aircraft was being taxied to the end of runway 17, Peterson called ATCS and asked for the latest local and en route weather."

The ceilings had decreased from 5000 ft in the early evening, to 3000 ft at the time of takeoff. The C.A.B. report continues-

"A normal takeoff was made at 055 and the aircraft was observed to make a left 180-degree turn and climb to approximately 800 feet and then, after passing the airport to the east, to head in a northwesterly direction. Through most of the flight the tail light of the aircraft was plainly visible to Mr. Dwyer, who was watching from a platform outside the tower. When about five miles from the airport, Dwyer saw the tail light of the aircraft gradually descend until out of sight. When Peterson did not report his flight plan by radio soon after takeoff, the communicator, at Mr. Dwyer's request, repeatedly tried to reach him but was unable to do so. The time was approximately 0100."

Although light snow was reported at the time (and when the wreckage was found 8.5 hours later, there was 4 inches of snow on it), it would seem the snow wasn't extremely severe, if the 12 volt tail navigation light could be seen from the ground at 5 miles out.

But the weather was changing fairly rapidly-
(At 2330)"The Mason City weather was reported to the pilot as: ceiling measured 6,000 overcast; visibility 15 miles plus; temperature 15 degrees; dew point 8 degrees; wind south 25 to 32 knots; altimeter setting 29.96 inches.

"At 2355, Peterson, accompanied by Hubert Dwyer, a certificated commercial pilot, the local fixed-base operator at the Mason City Airport, and owner of Bonanza N3794N (the aircraft used on the flight), again went to ATCS for the latest weather information. The local weather had changed somewhat in that the ceiling had lowered to 5,000 feet, light snow was falling, and the altimeter setting was now 29.90 inches.

"The passengers arrived at the airport about 0040 and after their baggage had been properly stowed on board, the pilot and passengers boarded the aircraft. Pilot Peterson told Mr. Dwyer that he would file his flight plan by radio when airborne. While the aircraft was being taxied to the end of runway 17, Peterson called ATCS and asked for the latest local and en route weather. This was given him as not having changed materially en route; however, the local weather was now reported as: Precipitation ceiling 3,000 feet, sky obscured; visibility 6 miles; light snow; wind south 20 knots, gusts to 30 knots; altimeter setting 29.85 inches."

The C.A.B. report continues-
"The accident occurred in a sparsely inhabited area and there were not witnesses. Examination of the wreckage indicated that the first impact with the ground was made by the right wing tip when the aircraft was in a steep right bank and in a nose-low attitude. It was further determined that the aircraft was traveling at high speed on a heading of 315 degrees. Parts were scattered over a distance of 540 feet, at the end of which the main wreckage was found lying against a barbed wire fence. The three passengers were thrown clear of the wreckage, the pilot was found in the cockpit...

"Although the aircraft was badly damaged, certain important facts were determined. There was no fire. All components were accounted fro at the wreckage site. There was no evidence of inflight structural failure or failure of the controls. The landing gear was retracted at the time of impact. The damaged engine was dismantled and examined; there was no evidence of engine malfunctioning or failure in flight. Both blades of the propeller were broken at the hub, giving evidence that the engine was producing power when ground impact occurred. The hub pitch-change mechanisms indicated that the blade pitch was in the cruise range."

Given the ground observations, I'm not sure how pertinent to the accident the "Flash Adviosry" on weather was (although it could well have become a significant factor if the flight had continued much further)-

"Another advisory issued by the U. S. Weather Bureau at Kansas City, Missouri at 0015 on February 3 was: 'Flash Advisory No. 1. Over eastern half of Kansas ceilings are locally below one thousand feet, visibilities locally 2 miles or less in freezing drizzle, light snow and fog. Moderate to locally heavy icing areas of freezing drizzle and locally moderate icing in clouds below 10,000 feet over eastern portion Nebraska, Kansas, northwest Missouri and most of Iowa. Valid until 0515.' Neither communicator could recall having drawn these flash advisories to the attention of Pilot Peterson. Mr. Dwyer said that when he accompanied pilot Peterson to ATCS, no information was given them indicating instrument flying weather would be encountered along the route."

Probably at least an equal factor to the pilot's lack of instrument rating, was the instruments he had available:

"When his instrument training was taken, several aircraft were used and these were all equipped with the conventional type artificial horizon and none with the Sperry Attitude Gyro such as was installed in Bonanza N 3794N. These two instruments differ greatly in their pictorial display...The conventional artificial horizon provides a direct reading indication of the bank and pitch attitude of the aircraft which is accurately indicated by a miniature aircraft pictorially displayed against a horizon bar and as if observed from the rear.. The Sperry F3 gyro also provides a direct reading indication of the bank and pitch attitude of the aircraft, but its pictorial presentation is achieved by using a stabilized sphere whose free-floating movements behind a miniature aircraft presents pitch information with a sensing exactly opposite from that depicted by the conventional artificial horizon.

"Service experience with the use of the attitude gyro has clearly indicated confusion among pilots during the transition period or when alternating between conventional and attitude gyros. Since Peterson had received his instrument training in aircraft equipped with the conventional type artificial horizon, and since this instrument and the attitude gyro are opposite in their pictorial display of the pitch attitude, it is probably that the reverse sensing would at times produce reverse control action. This is especially true of instrument flight conditions requiring a high degree of concentration or requiring multiple function, as would be the case when flying instrument conditions in turbulence without a copilot. The directional gyro was found caged and it is possible that it was never used during the short flight. However, this evidence is not conclusive. If the directional gyro were caged throughout the flight this could only have added to the pilot's confusion.

"It is believe that shortly after takeoff pilot Peterson entered an area of complete darkness and one in which there was no definite horizon; that the snow conditions and the lack of horizon required him to rely solely on flight instruments for aircraft attitude and orientation.

"The high gusty winds and the attendant turbulence which existed this night would have caused the rate of climb indicator and the turn and bank indicator to fluctuate to such an extent that an interpretation of these instruments so far as attitude control is concerned would have been difficult to a pilot as inexperienced as Peterson. The airspeed and altimeter alone would not have provided him with sufficient reference to maintain control of the pitch attitude. With his limited experience the pilot would tend to rely on the attitude gyro which is relatively stable under these conditions."

The accicident airplane involved, was a Beech Bonanza , indeed, the first year of production-

"The aircraft, a Beech Bonanza, model 35, S/N-1019, identification N 3794N, was manufactured October 17, 1947. It was powered by a Continental model E185-8 engine which had a total of 40 hours since major overhaul. The aircraft was purchased by the Dwyer Flying Service, July 1, 1958, and, according to records and the testimony of the licensed mechanic employed by Dwyer, had been properly maintained since its acquisition. N 3794N was equipped with high and low frequency radio transmitters and receivers, a Narca omnigator, Lear autopilot (only recently installed and not operable), all the necessary engine and navigational instruments, and a full panel of instruments used for instrument flying, including a Sperry F3 attitude Gyro."

Now, I don't want to stir up a beehive of frenzied Bonanza enthusiasts, but I'll quote from an article I found, on a 1965 S35 Bonanza- which is a six-seat model, 18 years newer than the original involved in the Buddy Holly accident-

"Recent photos of N1965Z were taken (May 2007) showing important structural safety modifications to the tail area. The vee-tail Bonanzas, particularly the early 35 models, have 24 times more incidence of in-flight airframe failures and breakups than the straight tail Bonanzas, which have an excellent safety record. The early vee-tail Bonanzas had thin-skinned wings without a shear web in the wing leading edge. The ruddervator tailplanes starting with the C35 model had increased area forward of the spar (leading edge 16 inches forward of spar) and showed a pattern of tail failures where the tailplane skin fails and folds over the spar, leading to loss of control. Actual separations of the control surfaces from the vee-tail have occured. The vee-tailed models have very light ailerons and low lateral stability, causing 'spiral divergence'. If a wing drops a little, it tends to keep dropping with low rolling stability, unless caught by the pilot and corrected. In IFR conditions or storm turbulence the stable flight situation can quickly get out of hand, leading to a 'graveyard spiral'.

"Intrinsic low longitudinal stability or rearward c.g. limit exceedances of the Bonanza's already narrow c.g. envelope can quickly lead to airspeed and altitude excursions. The c.g. moves aft as fuel is burned due to the wing leading edge fuel tank locations. Remember to observe that the maneuvering speed is less than the cruising speed. A moderate or abrupt control wheel pullup under such cruise speed conditions can easily exceed g limits with high destructive airframe forces. The Bonanza does have a sharp stall characteristic with little aerodynamic buffeting. With any back seat passengers, the aft c.g. limit may be easily exceeded, exacerbating the stability problem with an illegal flight condition.

"Also, the ruddervators are sensitive to flutter from any imbalances. Repainting the aircraft requires careful measurement and rebalancing the tail, by removing and weighing all components. As little as two ounces of imbalance can be dangerous, causing flutter under some flight conditions. The ruddervator must be within specified weight and balance conditions. N1965Z has several mods to strengthen the leading edge of the ruddervator's tailplanes. Several A.D.s (airworthiness directives) have been issued by the FAA pertaining to conditions that could lead to flutter and its destructive effects in vee-tail Bonanzas."

Okay- before I get a load of bombs dropped on my head, I'll point out the accident airplane was NOT a C-model or newer, with the propensity for structural failure due to the (ill-supported) extension of the stabilator leading edge. BUT- I would question why a 9-inch extension of the stabilator leading edge was needed- perhaps to improve the "spiral divergence"?

(And the 1947 model did NOT have the extra row of seats in back. I suspect the rather skinny Buddy Holly and Richie Valens (age 22 and 17 respectively) being young and a product of the less "portly" 1950's, did not present any c.g. challenges, despite the somewhat more "substantial" Big Bopper being onboard.

But the Buddy Holly plane did not have the extra 18 inch fuselage length, nor larger tailplanes, so I would expect it to be a bit more fidgety in turbulence. (How's THAT for being diplomatic! :)

Another factor is pilot fatigue- even though the flight was just minutes old, I wonder how well rested the pilot was-

"On the evening of February 2, 1959, the manager of the Surf Ballroom in Clear Lake contacted Peterson to arrange a charter flight from Mason City to Fargo, North Dakota. The Ballroom was hosting the Winter Dance Party that evening and one of the tour's performers, Buddy Holly, wanted to fly ahead of the rest of the tour members, who were traveling by bus. Peterson agreed to take the flight, and when the performers arrived at the airport, he learned that in addition to Holly, his other two passengers would be Ritchie Valens and J.P. 'The Big Bopper' Richardson."

It sounds like a spur of the moment arrangement, the pilot had probably been up since 6 or 7 AM, going on 18 or 19 hours at the time of the accidemt.

The proverbial accident chain, is more like a wobbly stool at this point:
1) Relatively low time pilot
2) Probably ill-rested pilot
3) Aircraft with demanding flying characteristics
4) Non-standard instrumentation (for the era)
5) Weather conditions which exacerbated all of the above

A most tragic confluence of circumstances...

Here's a picture of the Sperry F3 Attitude Gyro

And a discussion of attitude presentation conventions.

The theory/speculaton of Bonanza flight characteristics arose from some conflicting information:

The C.A.B. reported-
"Examination of the wreckage indicated that the first impact with the ground was made by the right wing tip when the aircraft was in a steep right bank and in a nose-low attitude. It was further determined that the aircraft was traveling at high speed on a heading of 315 degrees. Parts were scattered over a distance of 540 feet...All components were accounted fro at the wreckage site. There was no evidence of inflight structural failure or failure of the controls."

But this narrative notes (with a lot of other interesting non-crash related items)-
"Part of the tail was found 1/4 mile away and a wing was found 1/2 mile away."
Which if true, seems to support the spiral divergence/structural breakup scenerio...

Also, the coroner's report notes-

"The main part of the plane lay against the barbed wire fence at the north end of the stubble field in which it came to earth. It had skidded and/or rolled approximately 570 feet from point of impact directed northwesterly. The shape of the mass of wreckage approximated a ball with one wing sticking up diagonally from one side." Here's a picture of the airframe. (It looks like the left wing is the one still "attached"- from the pitot probe and airleron orientation? A right side impact would have probably sheared off the right wing...but a separated right wing would be consistent with the impact orientation- I'll trust the C.A.B. report...mostly- it would sure be interesting to read local paper accounts).

Here's a couple of accounts of the tour "the boys" were on:
Winter Dance Party Map
Winter Dance Party Itinerary
That was a rigorous tour!

Interesting to note the Surf Ballroom in Clear Lake, Iowa is still open. (Last year was the 50th Anniversary Commemoration of the last performance). Going to see a show there? Considering the circumstances, I don't know as I'd recommend flying in. But I don't think I'd take a bus either!

A New Appreciation for Aspect Ratio

2010-03-29T01:57:00.000-07:00

Say, something looks a little funny here...
(And it's NOT me !! :)

While shuffling around the flight line one day, I took a break from looking at my shoes and belly button, and happened to look up. Not quite at the stars, as it was daytime. There is a subtle danger with when and where one looks- I had a friend who would fall asleep in a car with his eyes open. Fortunately, this was only when he was riding, rather than driving. I've heard it said that such things are a symptom of insanity. (Which might explain his choice of friends... or render a verdict on my conversational skills).

Surfing the web a bit, it would appear that- no, it is not a sign of insanity, but a neurological abnormality. Reckon some misconception like that is how the Salem witch trials started. (It was kinda spooky though). Fortunately, driving into something wasn't a danger for my friend- but staring into the sun was. Anyway- I was more-or-less awake (I doubt if my boss would appreciate a helpful website I found while researching my friend's problem: "How to Rest With Your Eye's Open"), and not staring into the sun, but nonetheless, what I saw rather started me into a heightened sense of awareness; I happened to look up at the wing of a Dash-8.

And, by golly, it was a rather odd sight. Such a long airplane, and a reasonably long wingspan- but a markedly short-cord wing.

I had flown on a Dash-8 over the holidays, and was modestly impressed. Or if you prefer, modestly impressed it wasn't as bad as I expected: equivalent to a typical RJ in passenger "comfort", but at least it had a certain quaintness about it. It was fairly fast (perhaps a 25% longer trip time on the 400 nm one-way journey), and yes, noisier- even though it was the "Q" model with active noise cancellation.

I'm no aerodynamicist, but for years (like, decades), I've heard "how much more efficient a turboprop is" than a jet. I don't know why that is supposed to be true- but after contemplating the seemingly high aspect ratio of the Dash-8 wing, I wondered if that was a key element.

Aspect Ratio is defined as the wingspan-squared divided by wing area. This gets a little tricky when one considers what is "wing area"- the parts that jut out from the fuselage, or should the fuselage area that "connects the wings" be included in area. I believe this is called "gross area" (as opposed to net area excluding the fuselage area between the wings), and it is what I tried to use for all the comparisons. (Some of the data was vague, but I did my best to maintain consistency- please point out any corrections to individual aircraft if you see them).

In general, a wide wingspan, and small area (short cord) yield a high aspect ratio, and higher efficiency, with less induced drag. There are some complications though(fuel area, wing bending loads, flight control packaging).

I had been thinking of a typical jet as having an aspect ration of around 8; which turns out to be not such a bad estimation. I was considerably surprised in checking a multitude of aspect ratios, with the high placement of turboprops. I did a relatively thorough comparison of a wide variety, and 250 aircraft (see list at the end), and I was reasonably astonished at the Aspect Ratio placement of regional airliner turboprops: below are the two dozen highest aspect ratio airplanes. The turboprop commuter aircraft fell neatly between a reasonably capable older sailplane (Schweizer 1-26), and the Lockheed U2: quite surprising, to me anyway.

As VLJ fans (of sorts), I thought it interesting to note the Eclipse 500 aspect ratio is approx. 9.69, and the Cessna Mustang a 8.89.

Interestingly, the Boeing 787-8 has an aspect ratio of approx 11.12, versus 8-to-9 for other Boeing contemporary models. Airbus models were generally 9-to-10 (except for the A380, 7.52; perhaps structural constraints- especially wing bending loads for such a heavy airplane, kept the wingspan shorter.

Manufacturer	Model	Name/Comments	A.R.(gross)
Rutan	Model 76	Voyager (non-stop prop)	33.85
Scaled Composites	Model 311	Global Flyer (non-stop SEJ)	32.49
Northrop	RQ-4A	Global Hawk	25.01
Schleicher	ASW28	Sail Plane	21.42
General Atomics	MQ-1	Predator	19.23
Grob	G-102	Astir (sailplane)	18.27
Schweizer	S1-26	Sailplane	15.17
Lockheed	RQ-3	Dark Star	14.83
DeHaviland	DHC-8-300	Twin Turboprop	13.39
Sonex	Xenos	homebuilt sailplane	13.22
DeHaviland	DHC-8-400	Twin Turboprop	12.79
Hawker Siddeley	Hawker Siddeley HS 748	Turboprop	12.67
Shorts	C-23A	Sherpa	12.32
Piaggio	PA-180	Avanti (main wing)	12.29
ATR	ATR-72	Twin Turboprop	12.01
Schweizer	S2-33	Sailplane	11.85
Boeing	B-29	Superfortress	11.51
Boeing	B787-8	Airliner	11.12
ATR	ATR-42	Twin Turboprop	11.09
Boeing	B-36	Peacemaker	11.09
Diamond	DA42T	Twin Engine	11.06
Saab	2000	Twin Turboprop	11.02
Dornier	328	Twin Turboprop	11.01
Beech	1900D	Puddle Hopper	10.85
Lockheed	U-2S	Spy Plane	10.61

Here's the Great-Grand Daddy of all Aspect Ratios lists.

(There were some notable difficulties- swing wing geometries didn't list different wing areas for swept versus non-swept, although some reading suggests it's about a 10 percent reduction). Also, canard configurations are a bit more difficult to compare (should the canard be included in wing area? I did not). Also bi-planes (Wright Flyer) counted both wing areas, although I've read somewhere that a rule of thumb is only a 10% gain in effective wing area for a biplane.

It's kind of fun to look at the data sorted in other ways too (might have to download them and then open them- quirky Google docs issues- even quirkier operator...me!):

By Manufacturer/Model

By Wing Span

By Wing Area

By MTOW

By Wing Loading (at MTOW)

Oh, what the heck- Here's the whole list! (Just in case there are difficulties opening the Google doc files. Plus, I was curious to see how big of a spreadsheet I could upload. "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should ..." :)

Manufacturer	Model	Name/Comments	Wingspan (ft)	Wing Area (sq.ft)	MTOW (lbs)	A.R.(gross)	Wing.Load
Wainfain	FMX-4	Facetmobile (Homebuilt)	15	214	740	1.05	3.46
Birdman, Inc	Wing.suit	Darwin Special	5	16	180	1.56	11.25
Lockheed	SR-71	Spy Plane	55.6	1800	172000	1.72	95.56
General Dynamics	F-16XL	(Cranked Arrow Wing)	34.25	646	48000	1.82	74.31
Aerospatiale/BAC	Concorde	SST	84	3856	412000	1.83	106.85
Tupolev	Tu-144	SST	94.5	4715	397000	1.89	84.19
Dassault	2000	Mirage	29	441.3	37500	1.91	84.98
General Dynamics	F-111.swept	Aardvark	32	525	100000	1.95	190.47
Fairey	Delta 2	Supersonic Research	26.8	360	13884	1.99	38.56
Convair	B-58	Hustler	56.8	1542	176890	2.09	114.71
Northrop	YF-23	Black Widow II	43.6	900	62000	2.11	68.89
Rockwell	Space.Shuttle	Space Brick	78.06	2840	230000	2.15	80.98
Boeing	X-32	Ugliest Airplane Award	36	590	38000	2.19	64.41
Convair	F-102A	Delta Dagger	38.1	661.5	31500	2.21	47.61
Convair	F-106	Delta Dart	38.25	661.5	41830	2.21	63.23
Vought	XF5U	Flying Pancake	32.5	475	18772	2.22	39.52
Lockheed	F-22	Raptor	44.5	840	83500	2.36	99.04
Lockheed	F-104G	Starfighter	21.75	196.1	29027	2.41	148.02
Lockheed	F-117	Nighthawk	43.3	780	52500	2.41	67.31
North American	X-15	Rocket plane	22.3	200	34000	2.49	170.01
Grumman	F-14D.swept	Tomcat	38	565	74350	2.56	131.59
Lockheed	F-35A (USAF)	Lightning II	35	460	70000	2.66	152.17
Douglas	A-4	Skyhawk	26.5	259	24500	2.71	94.59
Avro	Vulcan	British Flying Wing	99.4	3554	170000	2.78	47.83
McDonnell	F-4E	Phantom II	38.4	530	61795	2.78	116.59
McDonnell	F-15E	Strike Eagle	42.8	608	81000	3.01	133.22
Douglas	X-3	Stiletto	22.7	166.5	23840	3.09	143.18
Republic	F-105	Thunderchief	34.9	385	52546	3.16	136.48
Wright Bros	Flyer	(Bi-plane, calc. w/o canard)	40.3	510	745	3.18	1.46
Rockwell	B-1B	Lancer (wings swept)	79	1950	477000	3.21	244.61
Vought	F-8E	Crusader	35.7	375	34000	3.39	90.67
Mitsubishi	F-2	(F-16 Agile Falcon)	36.5	375	33000	3.55	88
General Dynamics	F-16C	Falcon	32.7	300	42300	3.56	141.01
McDonnell	AV-8B	Harrier II	30.25	243.4	31000	3.76	127.36
North American	F-100D	Super Saber	38.8	400	34832	3.76	87.08
McDonnell/Gen Dyn	A-12	Avenger II	70.3	1308	80000	3.78	61.16
Northrop	F-5E	Tiger II	26.7	186	24664	3.83	132.61
Grumman	X-29	Forward Swept Wing	27.2	188.8	17800	3.92	94.27
McDonnell	F-18E	Super Hornet	44.7	500	66000	3.99	132.01
McDonnell	F-18C	Hornet	40	400	51550	4.01	128.87
North American	A-5	Vigilante	53	700	62953	4.01	89.93
Vought	A-7E	Corsair II	38.8	375	42000	4.01	112.01
Northrop	T-38	Talon	26.25	170	12500	4.05	73.53
McDonnell	F-101B	Voodoo	39.7	368	52400	4.28	142.39
North American	F-86F	Saber	37	313.4	18152	4.37	57.92
Sonex	Sonex	hombuilt	22	98	1100	4.94	11.22
Handley Page	B.1	Victor	110	2406	185000	5.03	76.89
Grumman	A-6	Intruder	53	529	60626	5.31	114.61
Grumman	EA-6B	Prowler	53	529	61500	5.31	116.26
Lockheed	JetStar II	Biz Jet	54.9	542	44500	5.56	82.11
Piper	PA-28-140	Cherokee-fill in the blank	30	160	2150	5.62	13.44
Northrop	B-2	Spirit	172	5140	336500	5.76	65.47
North American	T-39D	Saberliner	44.5	342.1	17760	5.79	51.91
Piper	PA-22	Tri-Pacer	29.3	147.5	2000	5.82	13.56
Bell	X-1	Rocket plane	28	130	12250	6.03	94.23
Beech	D35	Bonanza	32.8	178	2725	6.04	15.31
General Dynamics	F-111.landing	Aardvark	63	657.4	100000	6.04	152.11
Grumman	AA-1	Yankee	24.5	98	1500	6.12	15.31
Beech	G-36	Bonanza	33.5	181	3650	6.21	20.16
Cessna	T-37	Tweet	33.8	183.9	6569	6.22	35.72
Hawker Siddeley	HS 125-700	Biz Jet	47	353	25500	6.26	72.24
ERCO	Ercoupe	Whatz-Zat	30	142.6	1400	6.31	9.82
BAE Systems	MRA4	(Evolved DeHaviland Comet)	127	2538	232315	6.36	91.53
Gulfstream	G.450	Biz Jet	77.8	950	73900	6.37	77.79
Wittman	W10	Tailwind (Homebuilt)	24	90	1425	6.4	15.83
Convair	990	Coronado	120	2250	253000	6.41	112.44
Bede	BD-5A	Microjet	14	30.5	700	6.43	22.95
Fairchild-Republic	A-10	Thunderbolt II (Warthog)	57.5	506	50000	6.53	98.81
Rockwell	100	Darter	35	181	2250	6.77	12.43
Cessna	I	Citation-fill in the blank	43.5	278.5	11850	6.79	42.55
Douglas	DC-10-15	Airliner	155.3	3550	455000	6.79	128.17
Cessna	310	Twin prop	35	179	4600	6.84	25.69
Douglas	DC-10-40	Airliner	165.3	3958	555000	6.91	140.22
Beech	B77	Skipper	30	129.8	1675	6.93	12.9
Cessna	150	Commuter	33.3	160	1600	6.93	10.01
Cessna	Bravo	Citation-fill in the blank	47.3	322.9	14800	6.93	45.83
Bell	V-22	Tilt Rotor, fixed-wing only	45.8	301.4	60500	6.96	200.73
Boeing	B747-300	Airliner	195.7	5500	833000	6.96	151.45
Lockheed	L-1011-200	TriStar	155.3	3456	466000	6.98	134.84
Piper	J-3	Cub	35.3	178.5	1220	6.98	6.83
Boeing	KC-135R	Airliner	130.9	2433	322500	7.04	132.55
Boeing	B707-320B	Airliner	145.75	3010	336000	7.06	111.63
Hawker	800	Hawker 800	51.4	373.9	28000	7.07	74.89
Boeing	B727-200	Airliner	108	1647	209500	7.08	127.21
Beech	B55	Baron	37.8	199.2	5100	7.17	25.61
Cessna	337D	Skymaster	38	201	4400	7.18	21.89
Hawker	4000	Hawker 4000	61.8	530.8	39500	7.19	74.42
Lear	31	Learjet	43.67	264.8	15500	7.21	58.53
Piper	PA-31-310	Navajo	40.7	229	6500	7.23	28.38
Lear	Model 60	Lear 60	43.8	264.8	23500	7.24	88.75
Beech	B60	Duke	39.3	212.9	6775	7.25	31.82
Ford	5-AT	Trimotor ("Tin Goose")	77.8	835	13500	7.25	16.17
Grumman	F-14D.landing	Tomcat	64	565	74350	7.25	131.59
Piper	PA-24-260	Commanche	36	178	3200	7.28	17.98
Douglas	DC-8-32	Airliner	142.4	2771	310000	7.32	111.87
Terrafugia	Terrafugia	Flying Car	27.5	103.1	1474	7.33	14.29
Lear	Model 45	Lear 45	47.8	311	21500	7.35	69.13
Beech	B23	Musketeer	32.8	146	2400	7.37	16.44
Northrop	YB-35	Flying Wing (props)	172	4000	209000	7.39	52.25
Northrop	YB-49	Flying Wing (jet)	172	4000	193938	7.39	48.48
Cessna	182	Skylane	36	174	3100	7.45	17.82
Cessna	172	Skyhawk	36.1	174	2450	7.49	14.08
Vickers	VC-10	Airliner	146.2	2851	334878	7.49	117.46
Cessna	162	Skycatcher	30	120	1320	7.51	11.01
Airbus	A380	Airliner	261.6	9100	1300000	7.52	142.86
Douglas	DC-8-63CF	Airliner	148.4	2927	355000	7.52	121.28
Mooney	M20TN	Acclaim	36.4	175.7	3374	7.54	19.21
McDonnell-Douglas	C-17	Globemaster III	169.8	3800	585000	7.59	153.95
Piper	PA-39	Twin Commanche	36.8	178	3725	7.61	20.93
Lockheed	L-1011-500	TriStar	164.3	3541	510000	7.62	144.03
Lockheed	P-3	Navy Patrol	99.7	1300	142000	7.65	109.23
Bombardier	CRJ-700	Airliner	76.3	760	75000	7.66	98.68
Boeing	B747-400	Airliner	211.4	5825	910000	7.67	156.22
Cessna	X	Biz Jet	63.6	527	36400	7.67	69.07
Gulfstream	G.550	Biz Jet	93.6	1137	91000	7.71	80.04
Gulfstream	G.650	Biz Jet	99.6	1283	99600	7.73	77.73
Boeing	B777-200ER	Airliner	188.8	4605	470000	7.74	102.06
Cessna	210	Centurion	36.8	175	4000	7.74	22.86
Piper	PA-42-720	Cheyenne IIIA	47.7	293	11200	7.76	38.22
Bombardier	CL-300	Challenger	63.8	522	38850	7.79	74.42
Cessna	Sovereign	Citation-fill in the blank	63.1	510	30300	7.81	59.41
Beech	400A	Beechjet	43.5	241.4	16100	7.84	66.69
Hawker	400	(Beechjet/Diamondjet)	43.5	241.4	16100	7.84	66.69
Cessna	CJ-4	Citation	50.9	329.9	16950	7.85	51.38
Cessna	421C	Golden Eagle	41.1	215	7450	7.86	34.65
Embraer	ERJ-140LR	Regional Airliner	65.8	550.9	46517	7.86	84.44
Boeing	B737-200	Airliner	93	1097.5	115500	7.88	105.24
McDonnell-Douglas	MD-11ER	Airliner	169.5	3648	630500	7.88	172.83
Cessna	340A	Twin prop	38.1	184	5990	7.89	32.55
Boeing	B737-400	Airliner	94.7	1135	150000	7.91	132.16
Cessna	SII	Citation	52.2	342.5	15100	7.96	44.09
Beech	B-76	Dutchess	38	181	3900	7.98	21.55
Boeing	B757	Airliner	124.8	1951	272500	7.98	139.67
Boeing	B767-300	Airliner	156.1	3050	315000	7.98	103.28
Boeing	B767-300ER	Airliner	156.1	3050	412000	7.98	135.08
Cessna	V & Ultra	Citation-fill in the blank	52.3	342.6	16300	7.98	47.58
Lockeed	C-5B	Galaxy	222.7	6200	840000	7.99	135.48
Beech	Premier 1A	Biz Jet	44.5	247	12500	8.02	50.61
Cessna	303	Clipper/Crusader	39	189.2	5150	8.04	27.22
Airbus	A400M	Cargo	139.1	2384	310852	8.12	130.39
Lear	23	Learjet	43.3	231	12500	8.12	54.11
Bombardier	CRJ-1000	Airliner	85.9	883	91800	8.35	103.96
Tupolev	Tu-95	Bear	167.7	3330	414500	8.45	124.47
Boeing	B747-8i	Airliner	224.6	5963	975000	8.46	163.51
Cessna	XLS+	Citation-fill in the blank	56.3	371	20200	8.54	54.45
Antonov	An-124	Condor	240.4	6760	893000	8.55	132.11
Boeing	B-52	Stratofortress	185	4000	488000	8.56	122.01
Douglas	DC-9-10	Airliner	89.4	934	90700	8.56	97.11
Beech	C90GT	KingAir	50.3	294	10100	8.61	34.35
Mitsubishi	MU-2	Twin Turboprop	39.2	178	11575	8.63	65.03
Antonov	An-225	Mriya	290.2	9744	1323000	8.64	135.78
Bombardier	Global.ExpressXRS	Biz Jet	94	1022	99500	8.65	97.36
Cessna	402C	Businessliner	44.2	225.8	6850	8.65	30.34
Boeing	B777-300	Airliner	199.9	4605	545000	8.68	118.35
Cessna	425	Corsair/Conquest I	44.2	225	8200	8.68	36.44
Douglas	DC-9-50	Airliner	93.4	1001	121000	8.71	120.88
McDonnell-Douglas	MD-95	(also Boeing 717)	93.4	1001	121000	8.71	120.88
Bombardier	CRJ-900	Airliner	81.5	760	84500	8.74	111.18
Lockheed	C-141B	Starlifter	168.3	3228	342100	8.78	105.98
Cessna	404	Titan	46.3	242	8400	8.86	34.71
Cessna	Mustang	Citation	43.2	210	8645	8.89	41.17
Slingsby	T-3A	Firefly	34.8	136	2550	8.91	18.75
Embraer	ERJ-195	Regional Airliner	94.3	996	115280	8.93	115.74
Socata	850	Single Engine Turboprop	41.6	193.7	7394	8.93	38.17
Hughes	H-4	Spruce.Goose	320	11430	400000	8.96	34.99
Cessna	Encore	Citation-fill in the blank	54.1	322	16630	9.09	51.65
Boeing	B767-400ER	Airliner	170.3	3180	450000	9.12	141.51
Douglas	DC-3	DeeCee-Three	95	987	18300	9.14	18.54
Gulfstream	G-200	(Galaxy)	58.1	369	35450	9.15	96.07
Airbus	A340-500	Airliner	208.2	4730	840000	9.16	177.59
Cessna	CJ1+	Citation-fill in the blank	46.9	240	10700	9.16	44.58
Cessna	III	Citation-fill in the blank	53.5	312	22000	9.17	70.51
Extra	EA-400	Composite, piston	37.7	153.6	4409	9.25	28.71
Piper	PA-38-112	Tomahawk	34	124.7	1670	9.27	13.39
Embraer	ERJ-175	Regional Airliner	85.3	783	85516	9.29	109.22
Bombardier	CRJ-200	Regional Airliner	69.6	520.4	53000	9.31	101.85
Cessna	CJ2	Citation-fill in the blank	49.8	263.6	12300	9.41	46.66
Boeing	B-47	Stratojet	116	1428	230000	9.42	161.06
Lear	Model 85	Lear 85	61.5	401	33500	9.43	83.54
Douglas	DC-6	DeeCee-Six	117.5	1463	107000	9.44	73.14
Rockwell	Commander-500	Piston Twin	49.1	255	6750	9.45	26.47
Boeing	B737-800	Airliner	112.6	1340	174200	9.46	130.01
Douglas	DC-4	DeeCee-Four	117.5	1460	73000	9.46	50.01
General Atomics	MQ-9	Reaper	66	460	10500	9.47	22.83
Airbus	A320	Airliner	111.9	1320	94000	9.49	71.21
Airbus	A350	Airliner	213	4770	591000	9.51	123.89
Cessna	441	Conquest II	49.3	253	10165	9.61	40.18
McDonnell-Douglas	MD-83	Airliner	107.8	1209	160000	9.61	132.34
Rockwell	B-1B	Lancer (landing config)	137	1950	477000	9.62	244.61
Lockheed	L-1049G	Super Constellation	126.2	1654	137500	9.63	83.13
McDonnell-Douglas	MD-90-30ER	Airliner	107.9	1209	168000	9.63	138.96
Cessna	CJ3	Citation-fill in the blank	53.3	294	13870	9.66	47.18
Eclipse	EA500	Oh Be Nice	37.4	144.4	5950	9.69	41.21
Cessna	206B	Caravan	52.1	279.4	8750	9.71	31.31
Dassault	7X	Falcon (three engine)	86	761	70000	9.72	91.98
Douglas	DC-7	DeeCee-Seven	127.5	1637	143000	9.93	87.35
Bristol	Type 167	Brabazon (post WW2, 8xradial)	230	5317	290000	9.95	54.54
Airbus	A330	Airliner	197.9	3892	510000	10.06	131.04
Lockheed	C-130H	Cargo	132.6	1745	155000	10.08	88.82
Piper	PA-46-500TP	Meridian	43	183	5092	10.11	27.83
Cirrus	SR-22	who needs a name	38.3	144.9	3400	10.12	23.46
Diamond	DA-20	Katana	35.7	125	1764	10.19	14.11
Pilatus	PC-12	Single Engine Turboprop	53.3	277.8	10450	10.23	37.62
Boeing	B737-800	(with winglets)	117.4	1344	174200	10.26	129.61
Shorts	360	Twin Turboprop	74.8	544	26000	10.28	47.79
Swearingen	Metroliner-23	Twin Turboprop	57	310	16000	10.48	51.61
Beech	B350	Kingair350	57.11	310	15000	10.52	48.39
Beech	2000A	Starship (main wing)	54.5	281	14900	10.57	53.02
Diamond	DZ40XL	Single Engine	39.2	145.3	2645	10.58	18.2
Lockheed	U-2S	Spy Plane	103	1000	40000	10.61	40.01
Beech	1900D	Puddle Hopper	58	310	17120	10.85	55.23
Dornier	328	Twin Turboprop	68.9	431	30840	11.01	71.55
Saab	2000	Twin Turboprop	81.3	600	50265	11.02	83.78
Diamond	DA42T	Twin Engine	44	175	3748	11.06	21.42
ATR	ATR-42	Twin Turboprop	80.6	586	41000	11.09	69.97
Boeing	B-36	Peacemaker	230	4772	410000	11.09	85.92
Boeing	B787-8	Airliner	197.3	3501	502500	11.12	143.53
Boeing	B-29	Superfortress	141.3	1736	133500	11.51	76.91
Schweizer	S2-33	Sailplane	51	219.5	1040	11.85	4.74
ATR	ATR-72	Twin Turboprop	88.8	656.6	50265	12.01	76.55
Piaggio	PA-180	Avanti (main wing)	46	172.2	11550	12.29	67.07
Shorts	C-23A	Sherpa	74.7	453	22900	12.32	50.55
Hawker Siddeley	Hawker Siddeley HS 748	Turboprop	102.5	829	46500	12.67	56.09
DeHaviland	DHC-8-400	Twin Turboprop	93.2	679	64500	12.79	94.99
Sonex	Xenos	homebuilt sailplane	45.7	158	1275	13.22	8.07
DeHaviland	DHC-8-300	Twin Turboprop	90	604.7	43000	13.39	71.11
Lockheed	RQ-3	Dark Star	69	321	8500	14.83	26.48
Schweizer	S1-26	Sailplane	46.2	140.7	710	15.17	5.05
Grob	G-102	Astir (sailplane)	49.3	133	990	18.27	7.44
General Atomics	MQ-1	Predator	48.7	123.3	2250	19.23	18.25
Schleicher	ASW28	Sail Plane	49.2	113	1157	21.42	10.24
Northrop	RQ-4A	Global Hawk	116.2	540	22900	25.01	42.41
Scaled Composites	Model 311	Global Flyer (non-stop SEJ)	114	400	22100	32.49	55.25
Rutan	Model 76	Voyager (non-stop prop)	110.7	362	9694.5	33.85	26.78

Happy St. Patrick's Day 2010 !!

2010-03-16T22:42:00.000-07:00

Happy Saint Patrick's Day wishes to all our fellow bloggers!

Especially Shane and our other friends in Ireland. (Of course, today, "Everyone is Irish"!).

I contemplated a "pot of gold" at the end of the rainbow picture, and smiled when I considered how the optics and color contained therein would have fascinated the early scientists from our previous headlines, as they spent much of their time considering such subjects.

Speaking of pot's of gold- I a headline post is coming up on economists- and also one on aerodynamics and engines, so don't fret that our blog is turning into The Economist (although it is one of my favorite magazines. Also one of the few "news" sources that is a) a news source, and b) not owned by Rupert Murdoch- I do not consider those two facts a mere coincidence).

But hey, what the heck- it's Saint Patrick's Day! No heavy reading allowed on Wednesday- technology and socioeconomics will wait for another day (Sunday night).

So in the mean time- I hope everyone has a smashing Saint Patrick's Day (although I admonish revelers to be responsible, and NOT have a smashing ending, as an interesting video Baron kindly put up might illustrate. (-I hope we can all celebrate many MORE St. Patrick Day's to come!)

Cheers to all, and best wishes for a jovial and safe Saint Patrick's Day!

Modern Science, Part 3 of 3

2010-03-08T21:37:00.000-08:00

After this week's compilation of scientific contributors to modern science as it applies to modern aviation, I feel about as frazzled as ole 'Bert looks here, after his perhaps equally trying years struggling with Unified Field Theory, a.k.a., "the theory of everything".

Well, okay, I only struggled for the past month or so. And I'm probably not quite as smart as he was. But I like to think I have a better hairdo (even if there's not quite as much gray matter under the gray matter).

I originally started out trying to make my "theory of everything" tie the evolution of mathematics, physics, and engineering contributions to modern aviation. In my mind, Thermodynamics is a common thread to these endeavours, but I suppose this is just a philosophical favorite, and others would consider mathematics more appropriate- I prefer the physical world experimental aspects which fill out the theoretical framework.

Astronomy- or perhaps a purist would insist on the term astrophysics- also proved to be a demonstrable common link to the developments, stimulating activity in mathematics, mechanics, and physics.

The notes I've compiled tally a few hundred pages= trying to down-size them into one post (or even the three) has proved somewhat impractical (as the ungainly length of the "Part 1" and "Part 2" posts demonstrates).

So, for the concluding "Part 3" installment, I will let the reader browse as they desire, with a starting point of links to the Wikipedia articles on the movers and shakers born in the 1800's (mostly- although I extended it a bit into the first decade or so of the 1900's, neatly concluding with those born almost a century ago- and some just passing from the scene a few years ago). Noteably absent are most of the aviation giants of the 20th century- the intent of the study was to explore the history of science contributing to aviation, with the end of WW2 as my approximate practical, if artificial, deliniation of "then" and "now" (although there are some notable extrapolations into the last half of the 1900's).

As such, the list is largely centered around the developments of the mid-1800's, but discoveries made then, particularly in subatomic physics, had a logical extension into the first half of the 20th century. I confess to finding nuclear weapons somewhat unsavory, but the physics and engineering involved was perhaps the ultimate combination of theory and experimentation. (In my humble, but protracted, attempt at analysis of the morality/immorality of the entire episode, it has proven to be an intractable conundrum).

More cheerful were the innovations of our aviation enthusiast predecessors, who did not so much develop math or physics, as engineer appliances of the air. What do those guys who 100 years ago were building gliders with sticks and canvas have to do with differential equations and particle accelerators? Not much, other than chronology, and getting our aviation industry where it is today. And where it will be 100 years from now.

I have tried to narrow the list below down to substantial contributors, who "threaded" well with others in the list- some continuity (such as mentorship or correspondence), although there are a few "outliers" whom I thought made substantial contributions on their own, advancing science inquiry as a whole.

So here it is, the concluding installation on math/physics/engineering/aerospace pioneers- Q.E.D.

1803 Doppler (29 November 1803 – 17 March 1853)
1804 Weeber (24 October 1804 – 23 June 1891)
1805 Hamilton (4 August 1805 – 2 September 1865)
1806 de Morgan (27 June 1806 – 18 March 1871)
1809 Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882)
1814 Angstrom (August 13, 1814 – June 21, 1874)
1815 Boole (2 November 1815 – 8 December 1864)
1815 Lovelace (10 December 1815 – 27 November 1852)
1818 Joule (24 December 1818 – 11 October 1889)
1819 Stokes (13 August 1819–1 February 1903)
1820 Rankine (5 July 1820 – 24 December 1872)
1821 Helmholtz (August 31, 1821 – September 8, 1894)
1822 Clausius (January 2, 1822 – August 24, 1888)
1824 Kirchhoff (12 March 1824 – 17 October 1887)
1824 Kelvin (26 June 1824 – 17 December 1907)
1831 Maxwell (13 June 1831 – 5 November 1879)
1832 Chanute (18 February 1832 – November 23, 1910)
1832 Otto (14 June 1832 - 26 January 1891)
1834 Langley (22August 1834 – 27 February 1906)
1838 Mach (18 February, 1838– 19 February, 1916)
1839 Gibbs (11 February 1839 – 28 April 1903)
1842 Reynolds (23 August 1842 – 21 February 1912)
1842 Rayleigh (12 November 1842 – 30 June 1919)
1844 Boltzmann (February 20, 1844 – September 5, 1906)
1847 Edison (11 February 1847 – 18 October 1931)
1847 Alexander Graham Bell(3 March, 1847 – 2 August, 1922)
1848 Lilienthal (May 23, 1848-August 10, 1896)
1852 Michelson (19 December 1852 – 9 May 1931)
1853 Lorentz (18 July 1853 – 4 February 1928)
1856 Tesla (10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943)
1856 Thomson (18 December 1856 – 30 August 1940)
1857 Hertz (22 February, 1857 – 1 January, 1894)
1858 Planck (23 April, 1858 – 4 October, 1947)
1864 Nernst (25 June 1864 – 18 November 1941)
1867 Wilbur Wright (16 April, 1867 – 30 May, 1912)
1867 Marie Curie (7 November 1867 – 4 July 1934)
1868 Charlie Taylor (24 May, 1868 – 30 January, 1956)
1871 Orville Wright (19 August, 1871 – 30 January, 1948)
1871 Rutherford (30 August 1871–19 October 1937)
1872 Bleriot (1 July 1872 – 2 August 1936)
1873 Santos Dumont (20 July 1873 – 23 July 1932)
1874 Marconi (25 April 1874– 20 July 1937)
1875 Prandtl (4 February 1875 – 15 August 1953)
1878 Glenn Curtis (May 21, 1878 – July 23, 1930)
1878 Meitner (7 November 1878 – 27 October 1968)
1879 Einstein (14 March 1879–18 April 1955)
1881 von Karman (11May 1881 – 7 May 7 1963)
1885 Bohr (7 October 1885 – 18 November 1962)
1887 Schrodinger (2 August 1887, Erdberg – 4 January 1961)
1889 Fowler (17 January 1889 – 28 July 1944)
1898 Szilard (11 February 1898 – 30 May 1964)
1901 Fermi (29 September 1901 – 28 November 1954)
1902 Dirac (8 August 1902 – 20 October 1984)
1904 Oppenheimer (April 22, 1904 – February 18, 1967)
1906 Bethe (2 July 1906 – 6 March 2005)
1908 Teller (15 January 1908 – 9 September 2003)
1912 von Braun (March 23, 1912 – June 16, 1977)