Re: Time to retire?

["John S. Denker" <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

Rick Tarara wrote:
>  yearly, per-capita.....?
> total cost over 100 years--only a factor of 45 billion too high!

Is this a test?

I would have thought the fudge factor would be > 620 billion.
  http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/popclockw

==================

While I'm on nit-patrol:  Kossom wrote:
> Good mutiple choice questions can be written but it is very hard.

Yeah.

> Fighter jets have short wings; passenger jets have long wings. In terms of
> what we have learned in the last unit (rotational motion), why does each
> kind of jet have the length wings that it does have?

Long compared to what?
 1) Absolute length?
 2) Long compared to length of fuselage?
 3) Long compared to chord (which is called aspect ratio)?
 4) Long compared to what you would expect by scaling according to mass?

The single-seat F/A-10 has a 57.5 ft/ 17.42 m wingspan
  http://www.salute.org/a-10_warthog.htm

The 9-passenger Learjet-45 has a 47.8 ft / 14.6 m wingspan.
  http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/learjet/specs.html

So it's simply not true that fighter jets necessarily have
less wingspan.

Most supersonic fighter jets have an aspect ratio > 3
  http://aerodyn.org/Wings/ar-tables.html

whereas the Concorde has an aspect ratio of 1.8
  http://www.aerodyn.org/Wings/delta.html

So it's simply not true that fighter jets have less aspect
ratio compared with airliners that operate in a comparable
speed range.

Bottom line:  Anybody who answers "in terms of what we
have learned in the last unit (rotational motion)" had
better hope there's a generous policy on partial credit.....