(ONE OF WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - email re any larger! 0.039%)
Tel: 0 8 9 1 - 8 8 - 1 9 - 5 0 for U.K. Hotline (new message Mondays)
(dial 1550-111-442 in Republic of Ireland)
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jul 93 02:32:47 GMT
From: Henry A Worth <haw30@ras.amdahl.com>
Subject: In article 876@access.digex.net, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
Newsgroups: sci.space
>
> Michael Jensen again shows his lack of Knowledge....
>
>
> For what it's worth, The DC-3 was very high Risk for it's
> time and considered very experimental..
>
> a 2 Engine Plane for Oceanic Flight??????
>
The single-engine performance issue for the DC-3 and its predecessors was not trans-Oceanic, it was trans-Rockies. Demonstrating a crossing with a single-engine shut-down was an important milestone in getting CAA certification for mountain operations and the Airlines were reluctant to order until it had that certification
(if memory serves, the demo was Phoenix to Denver in a DC-2, and required a portion
of the climb to be made single-engine). Prior to the DC-2/3, trans-Rockies scheduled
passenger flights required tri-motors and were often substituted for by rail links.
The DC-3 did not have the range for trans-Oceanic operations (island hopping doesn't count), that had to wait for the DC-6 (I think even the DC-4 required favorable
winds and payload for even the shortest non-stop trans-Alantic routes, and was used
on such routes primarily as a VIP and critical-freight hauler during WWII, and even
then diversions to Greenland or Iceland were common, if not the norm).
The DC-2 and DC-3 differ primarily in a larger cabin cross-section for the DC-3.
They were similar enough that during WWII, DC-2's were often canabalized to repair DC-3's, and on at least one occasion a DC-2 wing was mated to a DC-3 resulting in
the rather well known DC-2 1/2 (there were slight differences in the wing).
---
Henry Worth
No, I don't speak for Amdahl... I'm not even sure I speak for myself.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 23:12:13 GMT
From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv!gary>
Subject: Low Tech Alternatives, Info Post it here!
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1993Jul28.175458.9978@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>
>It should be clear that some optimum cost vs. performance point must
>exist for launch vehicle hardware. What evidence is there that we are
>on the low-performance side of that point? Analysts in the 60s
>concluded that, in fact, we were on the high side, and should make
>less sophisticated, less complex vehicles, whose poorer mass ratio was
>more than offset by much lower per pound construction cost. We make
>cars out < $1/lb sheet steel, not $1,000/lb exotic composites. It is
>not clear why rockets should be any different.
Autos are produced by the millions, rockets by the tens. Hand built
Ferraris use $1,000/lb exotic composites too. Even Peterbilt is going
to carbon fiber, fiberglass, and aluminum for over the road trucks. If
GM can save $.01 a car, they make $5,000,000 additional profit per year.
But that doesn't apply in small production ru Making Orbit proceedings
Retro Aerospace (3 msgs)
Why I hate the space shuttle (3 msgs)
Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to
"space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form
"Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
