Biplanes and Triplanes were the best !

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:


Score on Trollmeter

1/10 - Very Poor Effort

Keith

C'mon Keith!...he's just starting out, cut him some slack
here!...

Than he should be using the practise forum, alt.disasters.aviation

Keith

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
robert arndt wrote:

The new Zeppelin and plans for even larger types from around the world
arouse great interest but lack suitable funding. It WOULD be
absolutely amazing to fly in an 800+ ft long Zeppelin across the
Atlantic. That IMO is comparable to those that flew on the Concorde.

Especially traveling at mach 2!

Is there no end to advanced German technical achievement?


SMH

Hey Steve,

Notice how I said "from around the world"? Here's a site with airship
companies around the world:

http://www.myairship.com/

Don' you feel like an ass? You should.

BTW, the Hindenburg predated the Concorde by 3 decades and although it
couldn't do Mach 2 it sure was the largest thing in the air-ever, with
a spectacular view and luxury accomodations that won't fit on any
airliner. The 747 and A380 are gnats compared to that giant. In fact,
the Hindenburg was taller than most skyscrapers of the time.
Many people around the world want a come-back for the huge airships
and Lockheed is rumored to already operate a massive stealth airship
for surveillance. So what's your problem Steve?
I actually would like to see both a new Concorde and the Zeppelin
return.

Rob

In message , robert
arndt writes
Stephen Harding wrote in message
...
robert arndt wrote:

The new Zeppelin and plans for even larger types from around the world
arouse great interest but lack suitable funding. It WOULD be
absolutely amazing to fly in an 800+ ft long Zeppelin across the
Atlantic. That IMO is comparable to those that flew on the Concorde.

Especially traveling at mach 2!

Is there no end to advanced German technical achievement?


SMH

Hey Steve,

Notice how I said "from around the world"? Here's a site with airship
companies around the world:

http://www.myairship.com/

Don' you feel like an ass? You should.

BTW, the Hindenburg predated the Concorde by 3 decades and although it
couldn't do Mach 2 it sure was the largest thing in the air-ever, with
a spectacular view and luxury accomodations that won't fit on any
airliner. The 747 and A380 are gnats compared to that giant. In fact,
the Hindenburg was taller than most skyscrapers of the time.
Many people around the world want a come-back for the huge airships
and Lockheed is rumored to already operate a massive stealth airship
for surveillance. So what's your problem Steve?
I actually would like to see both a new Concorde and the Zeppelin
return.

Seconded all opinions. I have a few books on airships. Fancy crossing
the Atlantic by air, getting out of your seat, walking to a window,
opening it and learning out looking at the view! Or a dining room with
proper tables, white tablecloths and proper cutlery!

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

"M. J. Powell" wrote:

Seconded all opinions. I have a few books on airships. Fancy crossing
the Atlantic by air, getting out of your seat, walking to a window,
opening it and learning out looking at the view! Or a dining room with
proper tables, white tablecloths and proper cutlery!

My sentiments exactly. Air travel these days is an incredibly
dehumanizing experience.

"M. J. Powell" wrote in message
...


Seconded all opinions. I have a few books on airships. Fancy crossing
the Atlantic by air, getting out of your seat, walking to a window,
opening it and learning out looking at the view! Or a dining room with
proper tables, white tablecloths and proper cutlery!


Which was fine if you were one of the 1% of the population
who could afford the fare. That same 1% today travels in
pretty good style up in first class.

In the 30's we mere mortals would have been fortunate
to travel in steerage class packed like sardines for 6 days
instead of 6 hours.

Keith

"James Linn" wrote in message
...

"sddso" wrote in message
...
Closeup examination of the Dr.1 at Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome indicates
that its main airfoils had far less wire bracing than any Sopwith design
(can't recall if Rhinebeck has a Camel or not at the moment). Were the
differences in parasitic drag enough to cause difference in max
attainable speed?

Memory suggests that Rhinebeck's airframes are as faithful to original
as can be found anywhere.


As discussed in the program, the wires did make the Sopwith more
vulnerable
to enemy fire.

But the limiting factor in the design was the drag of three wings. Sopwith
had realised this and not gone into big production with their triplane.


With the Dr-1 the wing structure was completely internal (it was a
cantilever design) which removed the conventional wire bracing and the
associated high drag. For this reason the Dr-1 had one of the best zero-lift
drag co-efficients of the war.



What's most important is the first use of thick aerofoil sections, based on
the work of Prandtl's Gotteingen laboratory in '17. These were proved
superior over the thin aerofoils used by the Allies, who were plagued with
the associated poor high-lift characteristics of slender aerofoils. The
Dr-1's thick aerofoil gave the lil' Fokker a tremendously high rate of climb
and enhanced manoeuvrability; Sopwith were just simply barking up the wrong
tree.



Anyway, Sopwith's preference for thin aerofoils is based on birds having
similarly slender wing cross-sections, so they weren't even barking.



The D-VII's excellent performance (also due to its high t/c) made it so
respected by the allies that it was the only aircraft to be specifically
listed in the armistice (article IV). Just goes to show how much a couple of
inches on the thickness of a main spar can go a long way!





Jim Doyle

In message , Keith Willshaw
writes

"M. J. Powell" wrote in message
...


Seconded all opinions. I have a few books on airships. Fancy crossing
the Atlantic by air, getting out of your seat, walking to a window,
opening it and learning out looking at the view! Or a dining room with
proper tables, white tablecloths and proper cutlery!


Which was fine if you were one of the 1% of the population
who could afford the fare. That same 1% today travels in
pretty good style up in first class.

In the 30's we mere mortals would have been fortunate
to travel in steerage class packed like sardines for 6 days
instead of 6 hours.

Spoilsport. One can always hope.

Mike
--
M.J.Powell

robert arndt wrote:
Stephen Harding wrote in message ...

robert arndt wrote:

The new Zeppelin and plans for even larger types from around the world
arouse great interest but lack suitable funding. It WOULD be
absolutely amazing to fly in an 800+ ft long Zeppelin across the
Atlantic. That IMO is comparable to those that flew on the Concorde.

Especially traveling at mach 2!

Is there no end to advanced German technical achievement?


Notice how I said "from around the world"? Here's a site with airship
companies around the world:

http://www.myairship.com/

Don' you feel like an ass? You should.

I'm quite familiar with some plans in he US and UK to reintroduce
airships. I actually would like the plans to succeed. Seems like
a great way to fly.

As to feeling like an ass? Not particularly.

It's always difficult portraying humor in a NG when you refuse
to use little smiley faces to explicitly convey intent.

You clearly don't find what I wrote as amusing. C'est la vie.
Doesn't make me an ass because you don't recognize my sense of
humor.

BTW, the Hindenburg predated the Concorde by 3 decades and although it
couldn't do Mach 2 it sure was the largest thing in the air-ever, with
a spectacular view and luxury accomodations that won't fit on any
airliner. The 747 and A380 are gnats compared to that giant. In fact,
the Hindenburg was taller than most skyscrapers of the time.
Many people around the world want a come-back for the huge airships
and Lockheed is rumored to already operate a massive stealth airship
for surveillance. So what's your problem Steve?

Your lack of humor apparently. Or at least meshing with mine.

I actually would like to see both a new Concorde and the Zeppelin
return.

What's it going to cost?

We can travel to Europe via QE2 (guess that's QM2 now). It costs
a bundle. Similar service in the air won't be cheap. On the Concorde,
you paid top dollar for the speed. On the Hindenburg II, it will be
for the high level of service.

Will many be able to afford it, assuming they *want* it to begin with?
Remember, the purpose of getting on an air machine has always been to
get somewhere, and typically, to *get somewhere quickly*. Not an
airship trait. (Airships could get right into a city destination,
eliminating the drive from the airport, which can be attractive).

But just as there are ocean cruises that are the purpose all to
themselves, I suppose there could be airship "cruises" as well. It
would be neat if it isn't prohibitively expensive.

And lighten up, OK?


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote:

Remember, the purpose of getting on an air machine has always been to
get somewhere, and typically, to *get somewhere quickly*. Not an
airship trait.

Why not commercial ground-effect vehicles (i.e: "Caspian Sea
Monsters") that theoretically could make transatlantic trips
at approximately .5 mach economically, safely and luxuriously?

http://www.att-nn.com/ENGL/MPE.htm

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...
Stephen Harding wrote:

Remember, the purpose of getting on an air machine has always been to
get somewhere, and typically, to *get somewhere quickly*. Not an
airship trait.

Why not commercial ground-effect vehicles (i.e: "Caspian Sea
Monsters") that theoretically could make transatlantic trips
at approximately .5 mach economically, safely and luxuriously?

http://www.att-nn.com/ENGL/MPE.htm


Those ae fine in low wave states but the notion of doing that
speed in the North Atlantic is not attractive, a large wave
could have serious effects on your health.

Keith