wex@banzai-inst.sw.mcc.com (Alan Wexelblat) (11/08/88)
In article <4995@cadnetix.COM>, eriks@cadnetix.COM (Eriks Ziemelis) writes: > The early B-52 bomber (Boeing plane) had huge pointy tails. The story goes that > about 10 feet of the tail got knocked off and still managed to fly and land > no problem. Rumor has it, the pilot reported that he had better response and > control. The next generation of B-52s had shorter tails (flat topped). The WWII-era Boeing B-17 was legendary for the amount of damage it could absorb and still keep flying. Pilots flew them with one engine (of four), put them into vertical climbs & dives and got away with it, etc. Since this is sci.space.shuttle, the question is then: why isn't Boeing building our shuttles? -- --Alan Wexelblat ARPA: WEX@MCC.COM UUCP: {rutgers, uunet, &c}!cs.utexas.edu!milano!wex "Old VW buses never die - they just get captured by Deadheads."
jallred@bbn.com (John Allred) (11/08/88)
In article <1543@banzai-inst.sw.mcc.com> wex@banzai-inst.sw.mcc.com (Alan Wexelblat) writes: > >The WWII-era Boeing B-17 was legendary for the amount of damage it could >absorb and still keep flying. Pilots flew them with one engine (of four), >put them into vertical climbs & dives and got away with it, etc. > >Since this is sci.space.shuttle, the question is then: why isn't Boeing >building our shuttles? They weren't the lowest bidder. Can you imagine the confidence that evokes from the astronauts? ("Hey, Herb, we're riding something that was designed, built, and repaired by the lowest bidder. Great!"). ____ John Allred BBN Systems and Technologies Corp. (jallred@bbn.com) A truly wise man never plays leapfrog with a unicorn.
eriks@cadnetix.COM (Eriks Ziemelis) (11/09/88)
In article <31974@bbn.COM> jallred@hellcat.BBN.COM (John Allred) writes: > >They weren't the lowest bidder. Can you imagine the confidence that >evokes from the astronauts? ("Hey, Herb, we're riding something that was >designed, built, and repaired by the lowest bidder. Great!"). >____ Who knows, the next generation of shuttles or enhancements to current ones might be done by Boeing. They have made some big money by fixing other aerospace companies mistakes. Boeing has a rep for bidding the true cost for a program, losing the contract, then getting it later to fix the bugs. Eriks A. Ziemelis Internet: eriks@cadnetix.com UUCP: ...!{uunet,sunpeaks,boulder}!cadnetix!eriks U.S. Snail: Cadnetix Corp. 5775 Flatiron Pkwy Boulder, CO 80301 Baby Bell: (303) 444-8075 X221
mears@hpindda.HP.COM (David B. Mears) (11/09/88)
> / hpindda:sci.space.shuttle / wex@banzai-inst.sw.mcc.com (Alan Wexelblat) / 12:44 pm Nov 7, 1988 / > In article <4995@cadnetix.COM>, eriks@cadnetix.COM (Eriks Ziemelis) writes: > > The early B-52 bomber (Boeing plane) had huge pointy tails. The story goes that > > about 10 feet of the tail got knocked off and still managed to fly and land > > no problem. Rumor has it, the pilot reported that he had better response and > > control. The next generation of B-52s had shorter tails (flat topped). > > The WWII-era Boeing B-17 was legendary for the amount of damage it could > absorb and still keep flying. Pilots flew them with one engine (of four), > put them into vertical climbs & dives and got away with it, etc. This really isn't the right notes group for this, but I'll tell it anyway. A couple of years ago I went on a tour of the Boeing 747 plant near Seattle. The tour guide told us of a test that was done there once. The engineers wanted to find out how much stress the 747 wings could take before breaking. So they built a frame work of the fuselage and wings, fastened it to the ground, attached a large crane to the wing tips and pulled. The wings never did break; instead the fuselage finally buckled inward. They must be doing something right there! > > Since this is sci.space.shuttle, the question is then: why isn't Boeing > building our shuttles? What's really disturbing is not so much that we end up with a product that was built by the lowest bidder (with the quality to match) but that the contracter always ends up with cost overruns and the thing ends up costing more than the higher bidders anyway. I don't how to do it, but the govt. needs to change the way it does contracts so that bidders are forced to meet the bids they make along with the quality required. > > -- > --Alan Wexelblat ARPA: WEX@MCC.COM > UUCP: {rutgers, uunet, &c}!cs.utexas.edu!milano!wex > > "Old VW buses never die - they just get captured by Deadheads." > ---------- David B. Mears Hewlett-Packard Cupertino CA hplabs!hpda!mears "The trouble with this world is that there are too many cynics in it."
aaa@pixar.UUCP (Tony Apodaca) (11/09/88)
In article <1543@banzai-inst.sw.mcc.com> wex@banzai-inst.sw.mcc.com (Alan Wexelblat) writes: >In article <4995@cadnetix.COM>, eriks@cadnetix.COM (Eriks Ziemelis) writes: >> The early B-52 bomber (Boeing plane) had huge pointy tails. >> The story goes that about 10 feet of the tail got knocked off >> and still managed to fly and land no problem. > >The WWII-era Boeing B-17 was legendary for the amount of damage it could >absorb and still keep flying. Pilots flew them with one engine (of four), >put them into vertical climbs & dives and got away with it, etc. When I used to work at McDonnell-Douglas, I heard a story about an F-15 involved in a midair collision with some other aircraft. The 15 continued to fly, though the pilot was not at all surprised to find that the plane had lost much of it's maneuverability and had a tendency to roll to one side. He fought the plane down to an emergency landing at the nearest air field, and then discovered that he had quite a bit of damage. He was, in fact, MISSING A WING! (I know, it's not about the shuttle. Sorry.) -- UUCP: {sun,ucbvax}!pixar!aaa Tony Apodaca ARPA,BITNET: aaa%pixar.uucp@sun.com Pixar, San Rafael, CA, USA
jallred@bbn.com (John Allred) (11/09/88)
In article <5069@cadnetix.COM> eriks@cadnetix.COM (Eriks Ziemelis) writes: >Who knows, the next generation of shuttles or enhancements to current ones >might be done by Boeing. They have made some big money by fixing other >aerospace companies mistakes. Boeing has a rep for bidding the true cost >for a program, losing the contract, then getting it later to fix the >bugs. True, Boeing has a great record. They do have some current problems, such as the A-6 composite wing fiasco. ____ John Allred BBN Systems and Technologies Corp. (jallred@bbn.com) A truly wise man never plays leapfrog with a unicorn.
jallred@bbn.com (John Allred) (11/10/88)
In article <3330012@hpindda.HP.COM> mears@hpindda.HP.COM (David B. Mears) writes: > <a story about 747 wing stress tests> A year or so ago a trans-pacific 747 flight ended up doing some abnormal maneuvers (my memory is hazy, but it was caused by an autopilot and engine-out interaction). When the pilot finally got the 747 straight and level (after losing something like 20000 feet in a minute or two), the wingtips had been moved six feet up from their previous positions. The six foot set in the wings was *within tolerance*! Now that's one tough bird. ____ John Allred BBN Systems and Technologies Corp. (jallred@bbn.com) A truly wise man never plays leapfrog with a unicorn.
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (11/10/88)
jallred@hellcat.BBN.COM (John Allred) writes:
+>
+>Since this is sci.space.shuttle, the question is then: why isn't Boeing
+>building our shuttles?
+
+They weren't the lowest bidder. Can you imagine the confidence that
+evokes from the astronauts? ("Hey, Herb, we're riding something that was
+designed, built, and repaired by the lowest bidder. Great!").
I seem to recall one of the original 7 astronauts (Glenn? Shepard?)
recalling his thoughts while waiting for launch. They were indeed to the
effect that "every last bolt in this mission was supplied by the lowest
bidder."
--
-- bob,mon (bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu)
-- "Aristotle was not Belgian..." - A Fish Called Wandapv04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Philip Verdieck) (11/11/88)
Yahh, even though it doesn't belong here. There is a famous picture of a daylight raid over some AXIS target. The Superforts were in the middle of their run when a pilot a lower level cut into the delivery path of someone above. He caught part of the other guys stick (bomb column) on his right side tail aileron. It completely knocked it off, But the plan returned home ...
dmc@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (Dave Cole) (11/11/88)
The only picture I've seen of a B-17 getting its one of it's horizontal stabilizers blown off by a bomb stick being dropped by a B-17 higher up was followed by a series of pictures showing the B-17 spiralling into the ground....
rogers@orion.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Brynn Rogers) (11/11/88)
I have seen in WWII footage a B-17 getting the 'stick' of bombs right where the wing joins the fusalage. this plane then dropped like a rock, but it didn't roll much or spin. I also have seen pictures of B-17 limping back to some runway in england where planes in all states of damage (no gear, half the tail gone ...) come in and make emergency landings I saw this on a show called WORLD AT WAR, or one of its clones. Great footage for planes in some episodes
dbowen@chip.UUCP (Donald Bowen) (11/12/88)
The picture of the bomb shearing off the horizontal stabilizer is just one of a series which ends as the plane goes down. the picture can be found in several Time Life books on WWII. An even more impressive and common photo shows a B17 returning to England after a mid air. There is a long gash almost shearing off the vertical stabilizer. The plane did make it. DonB
sheppard@caen.engin.umich.edu (Kenneth Charles Sheppardson) (11/12/88)
In article <217@chip.UUCP>, dbowen@chip.UUCP (Donald Bowen) writes: > > An even more impressive and common photo shows a B17 returning > to England after a mid air. There is a long gash almost shearing off > the vertical stabilizer. The plane did make it. > > An even more impressive photo shows an Israeli F-15 flown back after having a wing torn off all the way to the root. The F-15 gets enough lift from its body ( apparently ) that all the pilot had to do was hang on for a while and bring it on home. Makes you appreciate the Israeli pilots... ...and makes you wonder why McDonnell Douglas didn't get the orbiter contract... I can see it now : The flyoff between the Boeing orbiter with no vertical stab and the McDD orbiter with no wing.. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Sheppardson Aero Engin Dept U of Michigan
dsmith@hplabsb.HP.COM (David Smith) (11/12/88)
In article <15090@oddjob.UChicago.EDU> dmc@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Dave Cole) writes: >The only picture I've seen of a B-17 getting its one of it's >horizontal stabilizers blown off by a bomb stick being dropped >by a B-17 higher up was followed by a series of pictures showing >the B-17 spiralling into the ground.... Well, I saw what was probably the same picture that the previous poster referred to, and it was said in the caption to have made it back. While we're at it, let's give due recognition to British Aerospace. Check out AW&ST, Oct. 31, 1988, p.27. Photo included. "A British Aerospace 125-800 carrying the president of Botswana landed safely in Cuito Bie, Angola, after a heat-seeking missile fired from an Angolan fighter ripped off an engine and seriously damaged the right wing and fuselage. ... The aircraft apparently was the target of two air-to-air Soviet heat-seeking missiles, either AA-2 Atolls or AA-8 Aphids, fired from what is believed to have been an Angolan MiG-21. The first missile hit the starboard engine and destroyed it by ripping the entire pod off the aircraft. It is believed that the second missile hit the engine after it was off the aircraft. ... Botswana wants the same aircraft returned after repairs have been made." -- David Smith HP Labs dsmith@hplabs.hp.com
ahiggins@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (11/13/88)
From bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu: > I seem to recall one of the original 7 astronauts (Glenn? Shepard?) > recalling his thoughts while waiting for launch. They were indeed to the > effect that "every last bolt in this mission was supplied by the lowest > bidder." I think you are referring to a quote of John Young. When asked what it felt like before an Apollo launch, he replied, "You're lying on your back...thirty- five stories in the air...on top of six million pounds of parts and fuel... all submitted by the lowest bidder." -- Andrew J. Higgins | Illini Space Development Society 404 1/2 E. White St apt 3 | a chapter of the National Space Society Champaign IL 61820 | at the University of Illinois phone: (217) 359-0056 | P.O. Box 2255 Station A e-mail: ahiggins@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu | Champaign IL 61820 "Someone once defined a crank as an enthusiast without a sense of humor, and I have always believed that nothing is so important that you cannot make fun of it." - Arthur C. Clarke
prune@guardian.UUCP (prune) (11/22/88)
Alan Wexelblat writes: > > The WWII-era Boeing B-17 was legendary for the amount of damage it could > absorb and still keep flying. Pilots flew them with one engine (of four), > put them into vertical climbs & dives and got away with it, etc. > > Since this is sci.space.shuttle, the question is then: why isn't Boeing > building our shuttles? John Allred replies: > They weren't the lowest bidder. Can you imagine the confidence that > evokes from the astronauts? ("Hey, Herb, we're riding something that was > designed, built, and repaired by the lowest bidder. Great!"). Am I getting old, or are memories short? Alan Sheppard raised exactly this point when asked about this feelings toward being the second person in space. DISCLAIMER: Intel pays me well for the opinions it wants; the other stuff remains mine. Some of the latter is posted; it's worth what you paid for it. Of course it hurts. The trick is in not minding. -- from "Lawrence of Arabia" local backbone: tektronix uunet!littlei!ihf1!myrddyn!prune USA phone: (503) 696-5192 prune@myrddyn.hf.intel.com