Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.cpm > #1665

Re: This must be progress

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

> Indeed it is.  The original Wright brothers' plane was so much
> simpler than the airliners of today...

Ah, but that's the logic trap.
It LOOKS simple but the design was NOT enduring

1) turning involved the rudders and "wing warping":
   flexing the wings. The wings can't do that forever:
   the parts will fatigue.
2) although other flying machines use a "canard" design,
   the front control surface were moved to the tail,
   now known as "elevators"
3) Glenn Curtiss was forced to invent the
   aileron control surface to avoid the
   Wright Brothers' wing warping patent.
   Now all planes use that.
   Despite all the initial hostilities & competition
   between Curtiss and the Wrights, he beat them with
   more reliable designs (flying boat) and better engines,
   eventually taking over the Wright Brothers business.


Software is similar: that LOOKS simple
does not always mean it's more reliable
or can scale up.

Back to comp.os.cpm | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

This must be progress "Mr Emmanuel Roche, France" <roche182@laposte.net> - 2012-08-16 01:02 -0700
  Re: This must be progress sampsa <sampsal@gmail.com> - 2012-08-16 01:25 -0700
  Re: This must be progress "Henk SWT" <swt@tiscali.nl> - 2012-08-16 10:44 +0200
  Re: This must be progress John Crane <johncrane@nowhere.net> - 2012-08-16 12:38 -0700
  Re: This must be progress Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> - 2012-08-18 00:53 +0700
    Re: This must be progress jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2012-08-17 15:09 -0400
      Re: This must be progress The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-08-17 20:57 +0100
        Re: This must be progress GangGreene <GangGreene@invalid.com> - 2012-08-17 18:37 -0400
          Re: This must be progress The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-08-18 00:26 +0100
    Re: This must be progress "Mr Emmanuel Roche, France" <roche182@laposte.net> - 2012-08-18 01:40 -0700
      Re: This must be progress Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2012-08-18 13:24 +0000
      Re: This must be progress "Mr Emmanuel Roche, France" <roche182@laposte.net> - 2012-08-18 09:07 -0700
        Re: This must be progress Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2012-08-18 20:39 +0000
  Re: This must be progress Rob Doyle <radioengr@gmail.com> - 2012-08-17 16:38 -0700
    Re: This must be progress "dott.Piergiorgio" <chiedetelo@ask.me> - 2012-08-18 07:04 +0200
    Re: This must be progress "Mr Emmanuel Roche, France" <roche182@laposte.net> - 2012-08-18 01:02 -0700
      Re: This must be progress Zhu Feng <zhufeng@notmail.com> - 2012-08-20 00:28 +1000
        Re: This must be progress Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> - 2012-08-20 01:19 +0700

csiph-web