DOCSLIB.ORG

From Insects to Jumbo Jets

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
From Insects to Jumbo Jets The Simple Science of Flight From Insects to Jumbo Jets revised and expanded edition Henk Tennekes The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England 6 2009 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher. For information about special quantity discounts, email [email protected]. Set in Melior and Helvetica Condensed on 3B2 by Asco Typesetters, Hong Kong. Printed and bound in the United States of America. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Tennekes, H. (Hendrik) The simple science of flight : from insects to jumbo jets / Henk Tennekes. — Rev. and expanded ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-262-51313-5 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Aerodynamics. 2. Flight. I. Title. TL570.T4613 2009 629.132'3—dc22 2009012431 10987654321 Index Advanceratio,102,103 Climb, 46 Ailerons, 153 Cloud streets, 22 Airbrakes, 55, 69, 109 Concorde, 18, 165–167, 170 Airbus A340, 172, 178 Condors, 17, 18, 114 Airbus A380, 24, 172, 175, 178 Contrails, 118, 119 Airships, 55, 168, 182 Convair B36, 167 Airspeed, 4, 38, 63, 70, 82, 109, 121 Convergence, 19–24, 178 Air traffic controllers, 65, 93 Crows, 125 Albatrosses, 10, 45, 54, 68, 105, 106, 113, Cruising altitude, 64, 170, 185 124 Alexander, David, 23 Dacron, 143, 148 Antonov AN225, 178 Da Vinci, Leonardo, 154 Approach procedures, 89–94 Descent, 68, 70, 106–114 Argentavis magnificens, 18, 21 Design constraints, 168–170 Armstrong, Lance, 41–43, 54, 155 Dive, 152 Aspect ratio, 122–129 Dornier X, 167 Athletes, 41–43 DouglasDC7,65 Attack, angle of, 4, 5, 15, 122 Douglas DC8, 168, 172 Automobiles, 50–54 Douglas DC10, 87 Downstroke, 29, 100–102, 112, 132 Ballast, 143 Downwash, 120 Bats, 20 Drag, 46–52, 100–104, 114, 115, 121–123 Beaufort scale, 16, 66, 83 Drela, Mark, 160 Beechcraft Bonanza, 20, 111 Dudley, Robert, 23 Beechcraft Starship, 162 Bernoulli principle, 3, 4 Electromotive force, 115, 116 Boeing B29, 63 Energy consumption, 48–55, 105 Boeing B52, 55 Engine mounts, 162 Boeing 707, 168, 172 Engines Boeing 737, 17, 173–175 bypass, 166, 177 Boeing 747, 1, 16, 24, 87, 125, 179–181 diesel, 56 Boeing 777, 55, 87, 124, 166, 172 failure of, 85, 87, 108 Bristol Brabazon, 167 fanjet, 56, 176 Buzzards, 70, 72, 128 gasoline, 56, 113 Bypass ratio, 166, 176, 177 steam, 148 two-stroke, 22, 112, 132 Calories, 49, 57 Carbon fibers, 142, 158 Finesse, 105–108, 128, 166 Carnot, Sadi, 169 Flapping, 26, 29–35, 99, 129 Circulation, 117–120 Flight diagram, 14, 15 Index 200 Fokker F100, 88 Lift, 2–5, 54, 104 Force triangle, 98–106 Lilienthal, Otto, 154 Friction, 123, 124 Lindstro¨m, A˚ ke, 77 Fruit flies, 16, 23 Lissaman, Peter, 158 Fuel Lockheed Constellation, 65 consumption of, 26, 52, 169, 177 Lockheed Constitution, 167 flow of, 165 Lockheed Tristar, 87 Lungs, 21 Galilei, Galileo, 14 Geese, 42, 102, 120 Mach number, 166–170 General Dynamics F16, 162 Mallards, 137 General Electric GE90-115B, 176 Mass flow, 3, 4 Glide ratio, 105, 108, 128, 132 McCready, Paul, 18, 157–160 Gliding diagram, 109, 110 McLuhan, Marshall, 187 Gnats, 67 Mediterranean Sea, 72, 73 Godwits, 76, 80, 81, 125 Mellisuga helenae,30 Golden Gate Bridge, 163 Metabolic rate, 36, 59 Grasshoppers, 67 Metabolic scope, 42 Gravity, 5, 6, 41, 42 Migration, 26, 45, 71, 132–134 center of, 150, 153 Monarch butterflies, 22, 67, 71 terrestrial, 6 Muscles, 36–38, 45, 59, 109, 112 Groundspeed, 63, 82, 84 Gulls, 13, 68, 74, 82, 89, 91, 125 Newton, 6, 39 Gusts, 91, 92 Newton, Isaac, 3, 6 North American P-51, 19 Hang gliders, 8, 69, 124, 146 Nutrition, 57–60 Harriers, 128 Hawker Hurricane, 145 Ocean liners, 181, 182 Helicopters, 53, 54 Oxygen, 35, 36 Hertzsprung-Russell diagram, 16 Hughes, Howard, 113, 167 Pan American Airways, 167, 183 Human-powered aircraft, 15, 18, 110, 114, Paper airplanes, 150–153 154, 155, 159, 160, 162 Parakeets, 35–43, 49, 52, 110, 115 Hummingbirds, 1, 2, 138 Peanut butter, 41, 57, 59 Pelicans, 91, 92 Insects, 30–32 Pennycuick, Colin, 103 Petroski, Henry, 163 Jackdaws, 26, 102, 111, 124 –134 Phalaropes, 75, 76 Jetliners, 55, 168–178 Pheasants, 110 Jet stream, 63–65 Piersma, Theunis, 77 Joule, 39–42 Pigeons, 111 Piper Cub, 55 Kites, toy, 143, 148 Plovers, 76, 80, 125 Kittiwakes, 12, 103 Popper, Karl, 163 Kremer, Henry, 155–159 Power, 38, 39 available, 45 Landing, 26, 82–84 continuous, 38, 45 Langford, John, 160 induced, 121 Langley, Samuel Pierpont, 148 mechanical, 36, 37, 41 Index 201 metabolic, 41, 42 Swept-back wings, 28, 29, 169 minimum, 36, 38, 43, 48 Swifts, 26–29, 45, 103, 111 muscle, 21, 30, 45, 97 propulsive, 36, 99 Takeoff, 82–85 Prandtl, Ludwig, 116, 118, 154 Terns, 10 Propellers, 102, 146–148 Thermals, 21, 70 Pteranodons, 17 Thrust, 46, 98–102, 176 Toys, 141–161 Questair Venture, 145 Trade winds, 75–78, 82, 129 Trains, 53, 54 Red knots, 71, 76–80, 125 Trippe, Juan, 167, 168, 180 Rowing, 99, 100 Tucker, Vance, 35–38 Runways, 18, 84–86, 170–175 Ultralight aircraft, 145–148 Sahara Desert, 67, 71–74 Updrafts, 21 Sailplanes, 54, 69, 106, 124, 141–143 Upstroke, 29, 132, 134 Sandpipers, 76 Upwash, 120 Sandwich construction, 142 Scale relation, 13, 14 Vogel, Steven, 3 Schleicher ASW-22B, 142 Vortices Sculling, 100 bound, 117 Shock waves, 23, 166 leading-edge, 29 Shute, Nevil, 163 roll, 22 Skating, 97–99 theory of, 115 Skydivers, 122 tip, 118, 119 Slenderness, 122, 125 trailing, 114, 120, 121 Soaring, 21, 26, 68–70, 80, 113, 129 Vultures, 68, 71 Solar-powered airplanes, 15, 18, 160–162 Sound barrier, 165, 166 Wagtails, 72–74 Space Shuttle, 35 Watt, 40 Sparrow hawks, 27 Webbed feet, 55, 69 Sparrows,7,8,42 Weight, 2, 6, 171–178 Speed. See also Airspeed, Groundspeed, Winds Windspeed cross, 89, 125 cruising, 9–20, 27, 48, 72–81, 168 head, 63–65, 71–78, 88 decision, 87 tail, 63, 64, 74, 78–82 of sound, 23, 63, 165–168 Windspeed, 65 Speed triangle, 99–106 Wind tunnel, 35, 141 Sports planes, 19, 52, 145 Wind turbines, 102 Spruce Goose, 113, 167 Wing area, 4–10 Stag beetles, 30 Wing-beat frequency, 102 Stall, 4, 28, 30, 124, 132, 150 Winglets, 125, 175 Starlings, 16, 45 Wing loading, 8–17, 27, 129, 171–175 Storm petrels, 66 Wingspan, 13, 128, 175 Stratosphere, 169, 170 Wrens, 32 Super-jumbos, 178 Wright brothers, 148 Supermarine Spitfire, 19, 20, 46, 145 Wright Flyer, 3, 20 Supersonic flight, 165–168 Swans, 21, 22, 30, 54, 59–61.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Design of a Light Business Jet Family David C
    Design of a Light Business Jet Family David C. Alman Andrew R. M. Hoeft Terry H. Ma AIAA : 498858 AIAA : 494351 AIAA : 820228 Cameron B. McMillan Jagadeesh Movva Christopher L. Rolince AIAA : 486025 AIAA : 738175 AIAA : 808866 I. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Mr. Carl Johnson, Dr. Neil Weston, and the numerous Georgia Tech faculty and students who have assisted in our personal and aerospace education, and this project specifically. In addition, the authors would like to individually thank the following: David C. Alman: My entire family, but in particular LCDR Allen E. Alman, USNR (BSAE Purdue ’49) and father James D. Alman (BSAE Boston University ’87) for instilling in me a love for aircraft, and Karrin B. Alman for being a wonderful mother and reading to me as a child. I’d also like to thank my friends, including brother Mark T. Alman, who have provided advice, laughs, and made life more fun. Also, I am forever indebted to Roe and Penny Stamps and the Stamps President’s Scholarship Program for allowing me to attend Georgia Tech and to the Georgia Tech Research Institute for providing me with incredible opportunities to learn and grow as an engineer. Lastly, I’d like to thank the countless mentors who have believed in me, helped me learn, and Page i provided the advice that has helped form who I am today. Andrew R. M. Hoeft: As with every undertaking in my life, my involvement on this project would not have been possible without the tireless support of my family and friends.
    [Show full text]
  • Requirements and Selection of Design Concepts to Be Investigated
    GF_WP1_TN_Requirements GF_WP1_TN_Requirements Department of Automotive and Aeronautical Engineering Hamburg University of Applied Sciences (HAW) Berliner Tor 9 D - 20099 Hamburg Green Freighter – Requirements and Selection of Design Concepts to be Investigated Kolja Seeckt Dieter Scholz 2007-11-29 Technical Note 1 GF_WP1_TN_Requirements Dokumentationsblatt 1. Berichts-Nr. 2. Auftragstitel 3. ISSN / ISBN GF_WP1_TN_Requirements Grüner Frachter (Entwurfsuntersuchungen zu --- umweltfreundlichen und kosteneffektiven Fracht- flugzeugen mit unkonventioneller Konfiguration) 4. Sachtitel und Untertitel 5. Abschlussdatum Green Freighter – Requirements and Selection of Design Concepts to 29.11.2007 be Investigated 6. Ber. Nr. Auftragnehmer GF_WP1_TN_Requirements 7. Autor(en) (Vorname, Name) 8. Vertragskennzeichen Kolja Seeckt ([email protected]) 1710X06 Dieter Scholz ([email protected]) 9. Projektnummer FBMBF06-004 10. Durchführende Institution (Name, Anschrift) 11. Berichtsart Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften Hamburg (HAW) Technische Niederschrift Fakultät Technik und Informatik 12. Berichtszeitraum Department Fahrzeugtechnik und Flugzeugbau Forschungsgruppe Flugzeugentwurf und Systeme (Aero) 06.12.2006 - 20.09.2007 Berliner Tor 9 13. Seitenzahl D - 20099 Hamburg 96 14. Fördernde Institution / Projektträger (Name, Anschrift) 15. Literaturangaben Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) 70 Heinemannstraße 2, 53175 Bonn - Bad Godesberg 16. Tabellen Arbeitsgemeinschaft industrieller Forschungsvereinigungen 10 „Otto
    [Show full text]
  • The Sad Saga of the Beechcraft Starship. Captains Kirk and Picard
    50SKYSHADESImage not found or type unknown- aviation news THE SAD SAGA OF THE BEECHCRAFT STARSHIP News / Manufacturer Image not found or type unknown Captains Kirk and Picard had starships to explore the universe. Earthly mortals could have had futuristic Starships to crisscross the world, but circumstances, both in development and marketing, limited the success of what was otherwise a stunning aircraft. © 2015-2021 50SKYSHADES.COM — Reproduction, copying, or redistribution for commercial purposes is prohibited. 1 In the early 1980s, Beechcraft began looking for a successor to its popular King Air. The objective was for this successor to be faster, quieter, and safer with an equal or greater payload, and, of course have the sales success as the King Air. Developmental History The design result was a sleek, twin turboprop pusher, canard design. Another goal was to use composite materials to maximum extent possible to reduce weight and increase structural integrity compared to the metal structures of their previous aircraft. An added safety feature of the canard design is that it would be essentially stall proof. Canards are a front wing that actually produce lift. As the aircraft approaches a stall, the canards stall first, causing the nose to drop slightly, ensuring that the main wing continues to fly, enabling a prompt stall recovery. Although there several very successful canard experimental aircraft such as the Rutan Long E Z and the Velocity, a six-to-eight passenger composite canard was a new concept, and Beechcraft would experience unexpected developmental challenges. The Starship is a two-surface aircraft, i.e., it has a main wing and the canard, while the canard Piaggio P.180, successfully introduced in 1990, is a three-surface design that includes a conventional horizontal stabilizer and elevators.
    [Show full text]
  • Damage Tolerance Testing and Analysis Protocols for Full-Scale
    Damage Tolerance Testing and Analysis Protocols for Full-Scale Composite Airframe Structures Under Repeated Loading John Tomblin, PhD Executive Director, NIAR and Sam Bloomfield Distinguished Professor of Aerospace Engineering Waruna Seneviratne Sr. Research Engineer, NIAR The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence Motivation & Key Issues • Produce a guideline FAA document, which demonstrates a “best practice” procedure for full-scale testing protocols for composite airframe structures with examples • Although the materials, processes, layup, loading modes, failure modes, etc. are significantly different, most of current certification programs use the load-life factors generated for NAVY F/A-18 program. – Guidance to ensure safe reliable approach – Correlate certified “life” to improved LEF (load-life shift) • With increased use of composite materials in primary structures, there is growing need to investigate extremely improbable high energy impact threats that reduce the residual strength of a composite structure to limit load. – Synthesize damage philosophy into the scatter analysis – Multiple LEF for different stage of test substantiation The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence 2 Objectives Primary Objective • Develop a probabilistic approach to synthesize life factor, load factor and damage in composite structure to determine fatigue life of a damage tolerant aircraft – Demonstrate acceptable means of compliance for fatigue, damage tolerance and static strength substantiation of composite airframe structures – Evaluate existing analysis methods and building-block database needs as applied to practical problems crucial to composite airframe structural substantiation – Investigate realistic service damage scenarios and the inspection & repair procedures suitable for field practice Secondary Objectives • Extend the current certification approach to explore extremely improbable high energy impact threats, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • 8/15/2007 Beechcraft Starship Production List 1 Nc-1
    8/15/2007 BEECHCRAFT STARSHIP PRODUCTION LIST 1 NC-1 N2000S 1985.. BUILT BEECHCRAFT. FIRST PROTOTYPE 2000 N2000S 15-Feb-86 F/F FIRST FLIGHT. PILOTS BUD FRANCIS & THOMAS CARR STARSHIP 1 N2000S 2-Feb-87 APPLICATION FOR TYPE CERTIFICATE LODGED N2000S 14-Jun-88 FAR PART 23 CERTIFICATION OBTAINED. # A38CE N2000S 00-00-88 WFU WITHDRAWN FROM USE AT BEECHCRAFT WICHITA, KS N2000S 28-Feb-89 SOR REGISTRATION CANCELLED AS 'DESTROYED' UN-REG LOCATION UNKNOWN. (BELIEVED USED AS 'DESTRUCTION TEST UNIT') UN-REG * SEE NOTE # 1. NC-2 N3042S 1986.. BUILT BEECHCRAFT. SECOND PROTOTYPE 2000 N3042S 14-Jun-86 F/F FIRST FLIGHT. PILOTS LOU JOHANSEN & THOMAS SCHAFFSTALL STARSHIP 1 N3042S 5-Dec-89 A/W DATE BEECH AIRCRAFT COMPANY N3042S 00-Nov-94 C/O RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT COMPANY N3042S CURRENT LOCATION UNKNOWN. (BELIEVED AT BEECH FACILITY, WICHITA) COMPILED BY:- NOEL B. OXLADE. email:- [email protected] 8/15/2007 BEECHCRAFT STARSHIP PRODUCTION LIST 2 NC-3 N3234S 1986.. BUILT BEECHCRAFT. THIRD PROTOTYPE 2000 N3234S 5-Jan-87 F/F FIRST FLIGHT. PILOTS THOMAS CARR & TONY MARLOW STARSHIP 1 N3234S 20-Apr-87 A/W DATE BEECH AIRCRAFT COMPANY N3234S 00-Jun-87 DISPLAYED AT PARIS AIR SHOW, ENTRANT # 330 N3234S 00-Nov-94 C/O RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT COMPANY N3234S 16-Jan-01 WFU OFFICIAL 'SCRAPPED' DATE N3234S 15-Feb-01 SOR REGISTRATION CANCELLED AS 'DESTROYED' UN-REG LOCATION UNKNOWN. (BELIEVED USED AS 'DESTRUCTION TEST UNIT') UN-REG * SEE NOTE # 1. NC-4 N2000S 1990.. BUILT BEECHCRAFT. FIRST PRODUCTION AIRFRAME. 2000 N2000S 21-Mar-90 A/W DATE BEECH AIRCRAFT COMPANY STARSHIP 1 N75WD
    [Show full text]
  • Extensions of Remarks E2091 EXTENSIONS of REMARKS
    July 31, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E2091 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS JOHN ARTHUR ‘‘JACK’’ JOHNSON Agreeing to the Wittman of Virginia amend- submitting the following information regarding POSTHUMOUS PARDON ment to H.R. 3293), ‘‘aye’’ on rollcall vote No. projects that I support for inclusion in H.R. 645 (On motion to recommit with instructions 3293, the Departments of Labor, Health and SPEECH OF to H.R. 3293), ‘‘no’’ on rollcall vote No. 646 Human Services, and Education, and Related HON. PETER T. KING (On passage to H.R. 3293). Agencies Appropriations Act of 2010. f Amount: $600,000 OF NEW YORK Account: U.S. Department of Health and IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HONORING BRITTANY BASS AND Human Services—Health Resources and Wednesday, July 29, 2009 KIRSTEN MUELLER UPON RE- Service Administration CEIPT OF THE GIRL SCOUT GOLD Entity receiving funds: Central Washington Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, today AWARD I rise in support of S. Con. Res. 29 (the com- Hospital located at 1201 South Miller Street, panion bill to H. Con. Res. 91), a resolution Wenatchee, WA 98807. Description: These funds will be used to ex- granting a posthumous pardon to John Arthur HON. STEVE ISRAEL pand Central Washington Hospital’s medical ‘‘Jack’’ Johnson for his 1913 racially motivated OF NEW YORK campus so that the hospital can continue to conviction. On April 1, 2009, I introduced my IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES meet the health care needs of North Central resolution with Congressman JESSE JACKSON, Thursday, July 30, 2009 Washington. This region is currently facing a Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • G:\JPH Section\ADU CODELIST\Codelist.Snp
    Codelist Economic Regulation Group Aircraft By Name By CAA Code Airline By Name By CAA Code By Prefix Airport By Name By IATA Code By ICAO Code By CAA Code Codelist - Aircraft by Name Civil Aviation Authority Aircraft Name CAA code End Month AEROSPACELINES B377SUPER GUPPY 658 AEROSPATIALE (NORD)262 64 AEROSPATIALE AS322 SUPER PUMA (NTH SEA) 977 AEROSPATIALE AS332 SUPER PUMA (L1/L2) 976 AEROSPATIALE AS355 ECUREUIL 2 956 AEROSPATIALE CARAVELLE 10B/10R 388 AEROSPATIALE CARAVELLE 12 385 AEROSPATIALE CARAVELLE 6/6R 387 AEROSPATIALE CORVETTE 93 AEROSPATIALE SA315 LAMA 951 AEROSPATIALE SA318 ALOUETTE 908 AEROSPATIALE SA330 PUMA 973 AEROSPATIALE SA341 GAZELLE 943 AEROSPATIALE SA350 ECUREUIL 941 AEROSPATIALE SA365 DAUPHIN 975 AEROSPATIALE SA365 DAUPHIN/AMB 980 AGUSTA A109A / 109E 970 AGUSTA A139 971 AIRBUS A300 ( ALL FREIGHTER ) 684 AIRBUS A300-600 803 AIRBUS A300B1/B2 773 AIRBUS A300B4-100/200 683 AIRBUS A310-202 796 AIRBUS A310-300 775 AIRBUS A318 800 AIRBUS A319 804 AIRBUS A319 CJ (EXEC) 811 AIRBUS A320-100/200 805 AIRBUS A321 732 AIRBUS A330-200 801 AIRBUS A330-300 806 AIRBUS A340-200 808 AIRBUS A340-300 807 AIRBUS A340-500 809 AIRBUS A340-600 810 AIRBUS A380-800 812 AIRBUS A380-800F 813 AIRBUS HELICOPTERS EC175 969 AIRSHIP INDUSTRIES SKYSHIP 500 710 AIRSHIP INDUSTRIES SKYSHIP 600 711 ANTONOV 148/158 822 ANTONOV AN-12 347 ANTONOV AN-124 820 ANTONOV AN-225 MRIYA 821 ANTONOV AN-24 63 ANTONOV AN26B/32 345 ANTONOV AN72 / 74 647 ARMSTRONG WHITWORTH ARGOSY 349 ATR42-300 200 ATR42-500 201 ATR72 200/500/600 726 AUSTER MAJOR 10 AVIONS MUDRY CAP 10B 601 AVROLINER RJ100/115 212 AVROLINER RJ70 210 AVROLINER RJ85/QT 211 AW189 983 BAE (HS) 748 55 BAE 125 ( HS 125 ) 75 BAE 146-100 577 BAE 146-200/QT 578 BAE 146-300 727 BAE ATP 56 BAE JETSTREAM 31/32 340 BAE JETSTREAM 41 580 BAE NIMROD MR.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Composites to Aircraft Structural Integrity Management
    The Impact of Composites to Aircraft Structural Integrity Management Aaron J. Warren A thesis in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters by Research July 2013 School of Engineering & Information Technology Faculty of UNSW Canberra at ADFA - 1 - Table of Contents 1 - INTRODUCTION 1.1 - WHAT IS A COMPOSITE? 1.2 - AIM OF RESEARCH 1.3 - SCOPE OF RESEARCH 2 - STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT 2.1 - EVOLUTION OF AIRCRAFT STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY 2.1.1 - In the Beginning 2.1.2 - The Post-War Years 2.1.3 − 1954 – de Havilland Comet Accidents 2.1.4 − 1958 - Boeing B-47 Accidents 2.1.5 − 1969 - General Dynamics F-111 Accident 2.1.6 − 1977 - Dan Air Boeing 707 Accident 2.1.7 − 1978 – Issue of Advisory Circular 20-107 2.1.8 − 1988 - Aloha Airlines Boeing 737 Accident 2.1.9 − 2010 – Introduction of Limit of Validity 2.1.10 - Summary 2.2 - REVIEW OF STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY REGULATIONS 2.2.1 - Military Aircraft Structural Integrity Regulations 2.2.2 - Civil Aircraft Structural Integrity Regulations 3 - DRIFTING INTO STRUCTURAL FAILURE 3.1 - WHAT IS OUR EXPERIENCE WITH COMPOSITE AIRCRAFT STRUCTURES? 3.1.1 - United States Navy Boeing F/A-18 3.1.2 - Beechcraft Starship 3.1.3 - Sailplane Experience 3.1.4 - NASA Research into Composite Aging 3.1.5 - Boeing 787 Certification 3.1.6 - In-Service Summary 3.1.7 - Future Direction of Composite Structures 3.2 - ACCIDENT THEORY 3.2.1 - Introduction to Resilience 3.2.2 - Structural Resilience 3.2.3 - Total Structural Residual Strength 3.2.4 - Unruly Technology 3.3 - RESILIENCE OF THE
    [Show full text]
  • Pitot/Static Adapters -RVSM Accessory Kits -Air Data Probe Covers -RVSM Test Sets -Custom Tooling Solutions
    Catalog Rev. FEB 2017 -Pitot/Static Adapters -RVSM Accessory Kits -Air Data Probe Covers -RVSM Test Sets -Custom Tooling Solutions February 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Air Data Covers ................................................................................................................................. 7 AD450E Pitot/Static Test Set ...................................................................................................... 8 Hose Grip Assembly ........................................................................................................................ 9 Business Jets / General Aviation ............................................................................................... 10 Commercial / Airline ...................................................................................................................... Helicopter ........................................................................................................................................... 32 Military ................................................................................................................................................. 43 Capabilities Statement ................................................................................................................... 57 67 3 | P a g e February 2017 Please join Cobra Systems, Inc. at the following trade shows and events.
    [Show full text]
  • Your Glass Panel Future: Strategies for Selecting a Glass-Panel Retrofit
    PILOT’S GUIDE Your Glass Panel Future: Strategies for Selecting a Glass-Panel Retrofit S T O R Y B Y P a u l N O v a c e k n this information age, we have been led to believe more data is good, but this is not necessarily the case. Often more is not better; it’s Ijust more. Bits and pieces of data are meaningless unless the data is integrated into information. Modern avionics, as capable as they are, do not guarantee your situ- ational awareness is improved; they could lead to an information over- load situation. To benefit from their advanced design and increased situ- ational awareness, two things must take place: the myriad of data must be integrated into true information, and you must be proficient enough to know exactly where to look for the information. With this in mind, you might be at the point of seriously consider- ing how to best equip your panel. Complex avionics have undoubtedly increased the capability of our aircraft, but much time is spent looking down at the avionics systems, either learning their operation or manipu- lating their controls to finally get what you want. This reduces heads-up time looking for other aircraft or absorbing the entire flight situation. In other words, it’s all about situational awareness. Selecting the right avionics is not an easy task, especially when trying to add capability in increments to an older panel with original equipment. Instrument panels have changed dramatically in the past few years. Glass displays are the norm now, rather than a high-priced option.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the International Space Market
    ()6E-- 0271— 14 0V - C Review of the International Space Market Brian Brighenti, Eric Griffel, Kyle Unfus Advised by Professor Oleg Pavlov Department of Social Science and Policy Studies Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester, MA 01609 (508) 831-5234 [email protected] May 26, 2006 2 This report was prepared for the purpose of completing the Interactive Qualifying Project requirement at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. The project is part of the Space Policy Interactive Qualifying Project Initiative at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. 3 Table of Contents Executive Summary 6 History 7 Technology 10 Propulsion 10 Solid-Fuel Engines 12 Liquid Hydrogen Fuel 14 Engines Currently in Use 16 Power Systems 17 Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators 17 Photovoltaic Power Generators 18 Satellites 19 Body 19 Attitude Control System 20 Transponders 21 Launch Vehicles 21 Expendable Launch Vehicles- NASA 23 Reusable Launch Vehicles 25 International Legal Environment 30 Overview of Major International Treaties 30 Property Rights 32 Other Influential Space Treaties 34 Space Regulations 36 Commercial Launch Regulations 36 Commercial Manned Space Flight Regulations 38 Commercial Spaceport Regulations 41 International Cooperation in Space 43 History of International Cooperation 43 Present Space Cooperation 44 Russia 45 United States 49 China 50 Market Analysis 54 Space Industry 54 Traditional Players 54 New Entrants 55 Scaled Composites 56 Space Adventures 56 XCOR 57 t/Space 59 Starchaser 60 Amroc & SpaceDev 61 SpaceX 62 Kistler Aerospace 64 4 Regional Analysis
    [Show full text]
  • Aging of Composite Aircraft Structures Beechcraft Starship and B-737
    AgingAging ofof CompositeComposite AircraftAircraft StructuresStructures BeechcraftBeechcraft StarshipStarship andand BB--737737 HorizontalHorizontal StabilizerStabilizer John Tomblin, PhD Executive Director, NIAR Lamia Salah Sr. Research Engineer, NIAR June 17th, 2008 The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence FAA Sponsored Project Information ¾ Principal Investigators & Researchers ¾ Dr. John Tomblin, Wichita State University ¾ Lamia Salah, Wichita State University ¾ FAA Technical Monitor ¾ Curtis Davies ¾ Other FAA Personnel Involved ¾ Larry Ilcewicz, Peter Sheprykevich ¾ Industry Participation ¾ Mike Mott, Ric Abbott Wichita State University June 17th, 2008 The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence 2 Motivation/ Objective ¾ Current market/ economic conditions are requiring the use of aircraft structures beyond their DSO ¾ Industry is relying on existing inspection standards to ensure aging aircraft airworthiness ¾ Most aging studies are focused on metallic structures, need to address composite aging as well ¾ To evaluate the aging effects on a Beechcraft starship (NC-8) main wing after 12 years of service (1827 hours) Wichita State University June 17th, 2008 The Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence 3 Background ¾ Program was launched in 1982 ¾ Objectives were to produce the most advanced turboprop business airplane feasible at the time and to promote the use of composites in a business aircraft ¾ Benefits: to achieve elaborate contours through composite molding, lower part count, manufacturing simplicity, composite’s resistance to corrosion, good fatigue properties, weight savings. ¾ 70% of the airframe by weight is composite ¾ FAA certification was obtained on June 14th 1988 to FAA part 23 regulations and special conditions ¾ A total of 53 airframes were built but only a handful ever sold. In 2003, the OEM decided to retire the entire Starship fleet except five that were still flying as of Summer of 2007.
    [Show full text]