text:
Research Advice
Having trouble finding what you need? Ask us for help! Research assistance and instruction is available to groups and individuals in the College community.
For assistance in the areas of biology, chemistry, computer science, environmental studies, geology, physics and psychology, consult our Subject Guides or contact Wendy Shook, Science Data Librarian (802.443.5799, email@example.com).
For assistance in other areas, visit the Davis Family Library Research Advice page.


text:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Support the Glass Message Board by finding a book via book-seek.com
Very similar to a Stevens & Williams champagne dated to 1879, Wolfenden pl.13. If you want me to take a proper look, you will have to either make your images links to .jpg files (not to pre-formatted web pages), or email them as attachments, remembering to email me first with a warning that they are coming. From a fleeting glimpse it looks a lovely example.
Support the Glass Message Board by finding glass through glass-seek.com
Patrick â Yes, it is very similar to the champagne illustrated in Wolfenden. This is an early example of S&W Rock Crystal in Japanese style. Designed by Joseph Kellar and engraved by Miller, the pattern number of the champagne is 5740 of December 1st, 1879. The champagne was sold at Sotheby's London on March 3, 1998, and is illustrated in the catalogue. It was one of two glasses forming Lot 159.
Page created in 0.56 seconds with 28 queries.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Aerospace industry, assemblage of manufacturing concerns that deal with vehicular flight within and beyond Earth's atmosphere. (The term aerospace is derived from the words aeronautics and spaceflight.) The aerospace industry is engaged in the research, development, and manufacture of flight vehicles, including unpowered gliders and sailplanes (see gliding), lighter-than-air craft (see balloon; airship), heavier-than-air craft (both fixed-wing and rotary-wing; see airplane; military aircraft), missiles (see rocket and missile system), space launch vehicles, and spacecraft (manned and unmanned). Also included among its concerns are major flight-vehicle subsystems such as propulsion and avionics (aviation electronics) and key support systems necessary for the testing, operation, and maintenance of flight vehicles. In addition, the industry is engaged in the fabrication of nonaerospace products and systems that make use of aerospace technology.
Character of the industry
Technological progress is the basis for competitiveness and advancement in the aerospace industry. The industry is, as a result, a world leader in advancing science and technology. Aerospace systems have a very high value per unit weight and are among the most complex, as measured by the number of components in finished products. Consequently, it is economically and politically prestigious for a country to possess an aerospace industry. Among the world's largest manufacturing industries in terms of monetary value of product output and employment, the aerospace industry is characterized by a relatively small number of large firms and numerous international partnerships at every level.
For the major aerospace countries, their own military establishments and, in some cases, foreign militaries constitute the largest customers. The next most important buyers are the world's commercial airlines, primarily American, European, and Asian–Pacific Rim carriers. Most general aviation (primarily private, business, and nonairline commercial) aircraft are sold in the United States, with Europe becoming a growing marketplace and special-use markets developing in the Middle East and Latin America.
Of the nearly 50 countries that have one or more aerospace companies, the United States possesses the world's largest aerospace industrial complex. (While some companies are dedicated solely to aerospace, others are more diversified.) Although their own government is the major procurer of military systems, American firms are also the dominant supplier of both military and civil aerospace hardware to the rest of the world. Today, non-American companies seek a larger portion of the global market and challenge American dominance.
Russia retains the second largest aerospace industry in the world. After the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia acquired most of the highly competent Soviet design bureaus. Partnerships with American and European firms were initiated, and Russia entered Western markets for the first time.
Western Europe's aerospace industry has become a strong global player, with France, the United Kingdom, and Germany particularly active. Through the success of cooperative programs such as the Airbus line of commercial transports and the Ariane family of space launch vehicles, the European industry has gained considerable experience in the development and manufacture of almost the entire range of aerospace systems. Sweden's industry is smaller than that of the other major European aerospace countries, but through its national policy of selective specialization it, too, has developed a high degree of competence.
In the Asia–Pacific Rim region, Japan has the leading aerospace industry, but—compared with the United States, western Europe, and Russia—its capabilities are still limited. Japanese companies also perform as key subcontractors to firms in the United States and Europe. China has built aircraft of Soviet design since the early 1950s, with indigenous design efforts generally confined to adapting Soviet technology. It is in the process of forging partnerships with a number of foreign ventures in both aircraft and spacecraft systems. The country also has developed space launchers, small satellites, and craft intended for manned spaceflight. Other countries with small but advanced aerospace industries are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, the Czech Republic, Greece, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, and Ukraine. Emerging industries exist in Austria, Belgium, Chile, Colombia, Egypt, Finland, Hungary, Iraq, Lithuania, Malaysia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, the Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, Uzbekistan, and Yugoslavia.
The interests of the U.S. aerospace industry are represented through the Aerospace Industries Association of America (AIA), an aerospace-industry-funded organization whose membership consists of the major companies in the field. The AIA provides a forum for technical and policy issues concerning the industry and serves as a lobbying agent for the common interests of its members. Its parallel in Europe is the European Association of Aerospace Industries (AECMA). Based in Brussels, AECMA interfaces with member countries as well as the European Union. In addition, Europe has several organizations at the national level. Other notable associations are the Society of Japanese Aerospace Companies (SJAC) and the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada (AIAC).
The worldwide reduction in acquisitions of aerospace defense systems after the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s has prompted many manufacturers in the United States, Europe, and Russia to shift toward a more balanced mix of military and civil products. Some firms have adapted military aerospace hardware for civilian use or have sought nonaerospace markets for their expertise. To remain profitable, many companies have engaged in an almost continuous process of consolidations, mergers, divestitures, and international joint ventures and partnerships. Nevertheless, they all have been affected to some degree by the following developments: the ever-increasing costs of producing complex new aircraft and spacecraft, the globalization of the economy, the volatile level of government spending on defense-related projects, the state of commercial air travel and its needs, and the commercialization of space and the prospect of its low-cost access. These are the factors determining the size and scope of the aerospace industry today.
The first decade
The origin of the aerospace industry dates to 1903 when Wilbur and Orville Wright demonstrated an airplane capable of powered, sustained flight (see Wright flyer of 1903). The Wright brothers' success was due to detailed research and an excellent engineering-and-development approach. Their breakthrough innovation was a pilot-operated warping (twisting) of the wings to provide attitude control and to make turns. Patents with broad claims for their wing-warping technology were granted in Europe in 1904 and in the United States in 1906. The French government was the first to negotiate with the Wright brothers for the sale of their patents for 1,000,000 francs, with a deposit of 25,000 francs for the option, which was later forfeited. The first recorded business transaction of the aerospace industry occurred in May 1906 when J.P. Morgan and Company in New York City paid the Wright brothers the forfeited deposit. The first sale of a military aircraft was made on February 8, 1908, when the Wright brothers contracted to provide one Model A flyer (see Wright military flyer of 1909) to the Signal Corps of the U.S. Army for $25,000, with a $5,000 bonus should it exceed the speed requirement of 40 miles (65 km) per hour. The following year the aircraft successfully completed qualifying trials for completion of the sale, which included the bonus.
In March 1909 the British entrepreneurs Eustace, Horace, and Oswald Short purchased a license to produce six Wright flyers and set up the company Short Brothers Limited on the Isle of Sheppey, establishing the world's first assembly line for aircraft. In the same year the American aviation pioneer Glenn Curtiss joined the list of airplane producers and made the first commercial sale of an aircraft in the United States. In France, Henri Farman, Louis Blériot, Gabriel and Charles Voisin, and Léon Levavasseur entered the industry, and experimental groups started airplane production in Germany and Russia. When Blériot crossed the English Channel in July 1909 in his Blériot XI monoplane, the ensuing fame resulted in worldwide orders for more than 100 aircraft.
In 1909, when the Wright Company was incorporated with a capitalization of $1,000,000, the Wright brothers received $100,000, 40 percent of the stock, and a 10 percent royalty on every plane sold. The company developed extensive financial interests in aviation during those early years but, counter to the recommendations of its financiers, did not establish a tight monopoly.
By 1911, pilots were flying in competitive races over long distances between European cities, and this provided enormous incentives for companies to produce faster and more reliable aircraft. In 1911–12 the Wright Company earned more than $1,000,000, mostly in exhibition fees and prizes rather than in sales. French aircraft emerged as the most advanced and for a time were superior to those of competing countries. All planes built in this early period were similar in construction—wings and fuselage frames were made of wood (usually spruce or fir) and covered with a coated fabric.
World War I
France and Germany, both aware of the military potential of aircraft, began relatively large-scale manufacturing around 1909. By the outbreak of World War I in 1914, France had built a total of 2,000 airplanes, of which 1,500 were military; Germany ranked second with about 1,000 military aircraft; and Britain a distant third with 176. The United States lost its lead in aeronautics as the combined civil and military market for American airplanes was insufficient to permit the industry to grow significantly; only 49 aircraft were produced in 1914. In addition, patent rights remained a major difficulty for the industry. Recognizing a national need to advance aircraft technology independently, the U.S. Congress created the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) in March 1915.
French industry, assisted by rapidly expanding facilities in Great Britain, carried the production load of the Allies during the war. When the United States entered the war in 1917, however, the French government requested that it furnish more than 4,000 planes for active service by early 1918. To meet the demand, including that of the U.S. Army, the U.S. government and American aircraft manufacturers entered into a patent-licensing agreement on July 24, 1917, and formed the Manufacturers Aircraft Association, which allowed its members the use of patents for a fixed royalty fee.
Because American aircraft manufacturers and suppliers had no experience in large-scale production, the government enlisted automobile manufacturers to mass-produce engines and airplanes. For its own use the U.S. Army ordered the production of the two-seat British De Havilland DH-4 bomber and the American-designed Curtiss JN-4 Jennie trainer. By the end of the war 4,500 DH-4s had been built in the United States, 1,213 of which were shipped to Europe. Although American production was too late to matter militarily, by the 1918 Armistice American factories were capable of producing 21,000 planes per year. Worldwide 210,000 aircraft were produced from 1914 to 1918. In the United States the greatest success of wartime production was the very advanced 12-cylinder, water-cooled, 400-horsepower Liberty engine, developed for the DH-4.
Between the wars
The world's aircraft industry fell into sharp decline following the Armistice. Within days most contracts were canceled. The wartime-oriented industry was overcapitalized, overstocked with raw materials, overorganized, and overmanned for peacetime needs. In Europe, national governments realized that maintaining a strong air force in case of war required an aircraft industry and, therefore, subsidized commercial air transportation. Military aircraft were adapted for passengers, and trainers and fighters were used for mail service. With the exception of providing subsidies for air mail, the U.S. government did little initially to help its struggling industry, intervening only when the few remaining manufacturers were about to close, with an agreement in which the companies would use profits from government orders toward designing and building superior aircraft for the U.S. Army and Navy.
In the 1920s Europeans and Americans competed in racing, which led to many refinements in design and performance. Notable was the general conversion from biplanes to the more streamlined monoplanes and the move to all-metal airframes, which took advantage of the new lightweight aluminum alloy Duralumin. The airframe revolution had actually begun during the war, in 1915, with the all-metal Junkers J-1 monoplane. The most successful postwar transport-aircraft designs were those of the Germans Hugo Junkers and Claudius Dornier and the Dutch Anthony Fokker; these aircraft featured cantilevered wings, which eliminated external struts or braces.
In 1927, following Charles A. Lindbergh's solo flight from New York to Paris in the Spirit of Saint Louis, public enthusiasm for flying and aircraft expanded dramatically (a phenomenon dubbed the "Lindbergh boom"). Industry sales had more than tripled by the time the stock market crashed in 1929, when scores of aircraft companies, especially smaller new entrants, were forced out of business.
Among an explosion of new ideas, one of the most fruitful was stressed-skin construction, in which the plane's skin carried loads in conjunction with the support framework. This approach eliminated many internal trusses and braces within the wing and fuselage, contributed to a lighter and more efficient airframe design, and changed construction techniques. European manufacturers were responsible for many technical innovations, but, owing to the fierce competition among airlines in the United States, American aircraft producers incorporated them faster and more successfully in their products.
At its outset the aircraft-manufacturing industry was virtually self-contained in the producer's plant, with the exception of a few key products such as engines and tires. The majority of labour was associated with woodworking and sewing of fabric for the fuselage, wings, and empennage—skilled labour using limited tooling. The few machined parts and even components such as seats—devised by the airplane designers—were fabricated by specialized groups within factories.
In the 1930s, as aircraft became more sophisticated, the demand increased for machined parts, castings, forgings, and extrusions, which all required different machinery and different skills. The result was a major vertical expansion of aircraft businesses—i.e., the move to incorporate or control all levels of component manufacture and assembly within one organization. This took the form of either expanded internal plant capabilities or the development of a group of suppliers from whom specialized components such as instruments, radios, and passenger equipment were procured. The latter group became an intrinsic part of the industry, much as engine manufacturers had earlier.
In 1929 United Aircraft and Transport Corporation (see United Technologies Corporation) was formed in the United States, merging a number of aircraft manufacturers and airlines under William E. Boeing's chairmanship. United's subsidiary, Boeing Airplane Company (see Boeing Company), produced its Model 247, an all-metal, twin-engine, low-wing monoplane first flown in 1933 and regarded as the first "modern" airliner. Although the aircraft was sought by most American carriers, Boeing restricted sales of 247s until the order for its sister company, United Airlines, had been filled. This prompted competing carrier Transcontinental & Western Air, Inc. (TWA), to persuade Douglas Aircraft Company to launch its DC (Douglas Commercial) series of aircraft in 1933. Passenger service became consistently profitable for airlines for the first time in 1935 with the introduction of the DC-3, which was sold to almost all airlines in the United States and became the standard in the world (including the Soviet Union and Japan).
In 1934, under new U.S. antitrust guidelines, aircraft manufacture was divorced from air transport, and three distinct companies—Boeing Airplane Company, United Aircraft Corporation (later United Technologies Corporation), and United Airlines—emerged from the dissolved United Aircraft and Transport Corporation. The legal separation of aircraft manufacturing and airline firms in the United States had its derivative effect on the aircraft industry elsewhere. For example, to compete with American manufacturers, particularly in the American market, European plane makers had to convince their customers that they had no reason to favour indigenous airlines with better schedules or contract terms. In addition, as European airlines became competitive in international travel, they began to be subsidized by governments, which would have found the additional obligation of financing affiliated aircraft producers too burdensome. Consequently, since the 1930s the world's aircraft makers have remained disassociated from their airline customers.
During World War I Russian production had concentrated on large multiengine biplane bombers, few of which reached service. After 1923 the Soviet Union recognized the need for a broadly based air force. Initially planes were imported from Europe and the United States, but the need for aircraft that could operate under extreme weather conditions and from primitive airfields led to development of the indigenous Stormovik fighters about 1930. Although rugged, they did not match the German and Italian airplanes that they met during the Spanish Civil War. As a result of their designs' failing expectations and their questionable political views, many key aircraft-design leaders such as Andrey Nikolayevich Tupolev and Sergey Pavlovich Korolyov spent years in exile or confinement during the 1930s and '40s.
The 1930s and '40s were also the era of the "flying boat," or Clipper (see seaplane). Planes developed by Boeing, Martin, the Sikorsky division of United Aircraft Corporation, and Short Brothers carried up to 74 passengers across transoceanic routes. In the late l940s, however, the development of a new generation of long-range, pressurized-cabin, four-engine, land-based airliners negated the need for seaworthy planes.
The aircraft industry expanded to include autogiros and eventually helicopters in the 1930s. The first practical helicopter, the German Focke-Wulf Fw 61, flew for the first time in June 1936. In the United States in 1939, Russian émigré Igor Sikorsky designed, built, and flew the experimental helicopter Vought Sikorsky VS-300, which used a single three-bladed main rotor for lift and a small vertical rotor mounted on the tail to counteract torque. With an order from the U.S. Army in 1944, Sikorsky's R-4 became the world's first production helicopter.
Progress also was made in the development of training systems for night and all-weather flying. In 1929 an electromechanical flight simulator was built by Edwin A. Link. The U.S. Navy placed the first large order in 1931 for the Link Trainer, which, with aircraft-specific changes, became the standard for highly sophisticated simulators.
World War II
Germany's aircraft industry after World War I was heavily restricted by the Treaty of Versailles. In 1921–22 the constraints were eased, and a productive light-aircraft industry began to develop. When restrictions were basically abolished in 1926, a number of new ventures were formed; those which survived included such companies as Arado, Dornier, Focke-Wulf, Junkers, and Heinkel. When Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933, funds were channeled into the development of the German aircraft industry through these companies. Compared with the period 1927–31, when a total of 84 million Reichsmarks were spent, funding soared to 980 million marks in 1936 alone. By the start of World War II the German aircraft industry was the most advanced in the world.
The biggest importer of German aircraft was Japan, whose aircraft industry was technologically far behind its European and American counterparts until the early 1930s. After that time a new elevation of Japanese industry was punctuated by the performance of Mitsubishi's A6M Reisen (or Zero) fighter, which in the Pacific war was superior to its first American counterparts.
In 1938, alarmed by Germany's conquests, the British and French started to order military aircraft from their own sources and from the United States, resulting in a new stimulus to American industry. After the United States entered the war in 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the domestic production of 20,000 military planes in 1942 and a doubling of production every year thereafter, this from a base of fewer than 6,000 planes a year. A total of 22,000 planes were built in 1942; by 1944 the annual rate had grown to 96,000, including several thousand delivered to the Soviet Union.
From January 1, 1940, to August 14, 1945, the United States produced 300,317 military aircraft. Beginning in early 1942, factories ran 24 hours a day, six to seven days a week. By the end of 1943 the industry labour force had swelled to a high of 2.1 million workers, including tens of thousands of women. The Ford Motor Company plant in Michigan alone turned out 5,476 B-24 bombers in 1944–45. At its peak Douglas Aircraft Company's production line built one C-47 military transport (the military version of the DC-3) every five hours. By the summer of 1944, 15 airframe builders were producing 23 types of combat aircraft.
To achieve this production level, facilities of existing plants were expanded, new facilities erected, nonaircraft producers (mainly automobile manufacturers) brought into the industry, qualified personnel recruited and trained, and new production processes developed. Nonaircraft producers obtained licenses to build entire products developed by the aircraft industry or acted as subcontractors for aircraft manufacturers. As a result, a revolutionary change in the technology of airframe production occurred, shifting from "job shops" with craft labour to assembly lines with workers of lesser skills. This necessitated greater standardization of parts and job processes because of the complexity of the product. For example, the 5.5-metre (18-foot) nose section of the Boeing B-29 bomber had more than 50,000 rivets and 8,000 different parts procured from over 1,500 suppliers. On the other hand, automobile-engine manufacturers were able to use existing skills to build aircraft engines along mass-production lines in already established factories.
World War II began a differentiation among the aircraft producers. American companies such as Boeing, Martin, and Douglas, which had emphasized larger civil aircraft in the prewar years, became developers of bombers, as did Great Britain's Vickers, Avro, Bristol, and De Havilland and Germany's Dornier and Junkers. Focusing on fighters were Curtiss, Grumman, Lockheed, and North American Aviation in the United States; Hawker and Supermarine in Britain; Messerschmitt and Focke-Wulf in Germany; and Mitsubishi and Nakajima in Japan.
As a result of the earlier political suppression of its top designers, when the Soviet Union entered into combat with Germany in 1940, it needed to procure American fighters. Production of American designs from American-furnished tooling was carried out in factories evacuated to the east of the Ural Mountains. By 1944, however, fighters from the Yakovlev and Mikoyan-Gurevich (MiG) design bureaus had proved to be competent native-design aircraft; they were mass-produced and served in the defeat of Germany.
By the end of the war, airplane production in the United States and Britain had assumed the character largely maintained to the present day. Design, major assembly, and integration of systems in the makers' factories rather than the complete manufacture of an entire vehicle became the emphasis. Development departments performed most of the engineering, and supplier specialists and vendors complemented and supplemented the aircraft producers' manufacturing departments and equipment requirements. Only the United States and Britain retained advanced aircraft industries. What remained of the German industry after surrender was transported to the United States, Britain, France, and Russia. French industry had to restart completely, and the Soviet industry, although it survived the war, was not technically advanced. Japan was banned from resurrecting its industry until 1952.
After the war, the Soviet factories and newly established design bureaus were relocated west of the Ural Mountains. Research activities at the Central Aerohydrodynamics Institute (TsAGI), the Aeroengine Institute (TsIAM), and schools such as the Moscow Aviation Institute were placed under the purview of the government's Ministry of Aircraft Production (MAP). In 1957 MAP relinquished control of the schools. The design bureaus, given status during World War II, were headed by notables such as Aleksandr Sergeyevich Yakovlev, Artem Ivanovich Mikoyan, and Mikhail Iosifovich Gurevich. Prototypes were also built in these bureau plants, which specialized in particular classes of aircraft. In contrast to Western practice, responsibilities for aircraft types, military and civil, were specified explicitly by the government. (For additional information on the history of specific Soviet design bureaus, see Energia; MiG; Sukhoy; Tupolev.)
The advent of jets and missiles
The development of the jet engine about 1936–37 was the result of independent undertakings in Great Britain by Frank Whittle and in Germany by Hans von Ohain. The first successful test of a turbojet engine was conducted in 1937 in Britain, while two years later the German Heinkel He 178 became the first operational aircraft powered by a jet engine.
Jet power rendered piston-engine military aircraft virtually obsolete following the end of World War II, meaning that the surplus situation of the post-World War I era was not repeated. Nevertheless, a major contraction of the industry occurred in both the United States and Britain; by 1949, in fact, the producers were essentially the same as those of the prewar period. The Korean War saw use of the residuals from World War II, with the exception of two early jet fighters, the Lockheed P-80 and the North American Aviation F-86. Their power plants were furnished by Westinghouse, General Electric, and the Pratt & Whitney division of United Aircraft Corporation. The postwar "Century" series of fighters (i.e., fighters from various companies having an "F-" designation of 100 or higher) stressed supersonic performance, and the first production aircraft capable of flying supersonically for a sustained time was the North American Aviation F-100. Its several innovative characteristics included the use of titanium in the airframe because of the metal's lightness, strength, and heat resistance (see titanium processing: Aerospace applications).
The Soviet Union entered the jet aircraft field using conventional airframes and either German Junkers Jumo axial-flow jet engines or British Rolls-Royce Nene centrifugal-flow engines. The first all-new Soviet jet aircraft, using pirated copies of the Nene that had been upgraded by the Klimov plant, was the MiG-15, which began deliveries to front-line fighter units in 1949. More than 15,000 aircraft of this type were built, including those produced in Soviet bloc countries. The MiG design bureau became the sole producer of Soviet fighters for many years, while the Yakovlev bureau developed several radar-equipped all-weather interceptors (such as the Yak-25, of which some 10,000 were produced). The Tupolev bureau was responsible for all bombers and civil jet transport planes.
By 1958, combat aircraft worldwide had largely achieved supersonic breakthroughs, and a new breed of fighters emerged. Although, with time, the Soviet Union developed larger and faster fighters, initial versions were lacking in performance and weapons capacity. In Britain in the 1960s, Hawker Siddeley Aviation worked on a new type of jet fighter, the Harrier. Adjustment of the angle of the engines' nozzles allowed the aircraft to take off and land without a runway—the vertical/short-takeoff-and-landing (V/STOL) concept. For the American market, the Harrier was licensed by McDonnell Douglas and produced for the U.S. Marines.
Immediately following World War II, because many veterans wanted to continue or learn flying, American light-plane production soared—33,254 aircraft were sold in 1946, a 455 percent increase over the last prewar sales figures. Although prospects seemed promising, rising retail prices for aircraft, high operating costs for the owner, and other factors caused the market to narrow, and by the mid 1950s only the three light-aircraft industry leaders—Beech, Cessna, and Piper—remained major forces.
With the advent of the Cold War and as the military's transition to jet aircraft moved into high gear, a new opportunity arose—the development and production of guided missiles. During World War II German researchers had pioneered antiaircraft missiles, submarine-launched solid-fuel missiles, and surface-to-surface missiles, of which the V-2, with a top speed of 5,000 km (3,100 miles) per hour and a range of 320 km (200 miles), was the greatest achievement. The German developments and the researchers themselves provided the foundation for research and development by the victorious countries after the war. Initial postwar missile production began in the early 1950s. The first generation included artillery-like battlefield weapons, antiaircraft missiles, pilotless tactical bombers, and air-launched weapons, with increasing competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. Between 1955 and 1958 the United States worked on no fewer than nine missile programs, including ground-to-air defensive systems and pilotless bombers, both of which were also emphasized in Europe. While cooperative efforts existed between Britain and the United States, both Britain and France developed strong independent programs.
Despite the claim of American aircraft manufacturers that they were best qualified to produce missiles, they were faced with significant competition. Nonairframe producers, particularly companies in the electronics field, were considered by the federal government to be as technically well qualified to produce missiles as companies with years of experience as aircraft manufacturers. Thus, the new dependency on electronics technology swept away an important barrier to entry into the production of military aerial vehicles. Completely new facilities were required, and the labour force, already changing as the result of the transition to jets, became increasingly composed of highly skilled scientists, engineers, and technicians. Nonetheless, the traditional aircraft companies were successful in responding to the new technological challenges and the competition. This was attributable to their already having a significant assemblage of top research-and-development personnel and an established position in handling government business. By 1959, of the 16 companies that dominated the U.S. missile business, eight—including the six largest—were traditional aircraft firms. Of the remaining eight, six were electrical and electronics manufacturers, one an automobile manufacturer, and one a subsidiary of a rubber company.
The space age
Both the Soviet and the American space industries had much the same origins and impetus. The development of intermediate-range and intercontinental missiles provided not only the critical electronic technologies but also the rockets necessary to boost small payloads into orbit. Thus, the launch of Sputnik in 1957 signaled not only Soviet technical leadership in a new field but also the capability and extent of Soviet large-missile development and production. This leadership persisted into the era of manned spaceflight, and, exploiting a minimalistic but sophisticated approach to technology, it continued in the pioneering era of space vehicles and space stations.
In the military use of space, the United States and the Soviet Union quickly turned to photographic reconnaissance from satellites, from which the film was recovered by means of reentry vehicles parachuted to the Earth. Their highly successful programs, including the U.S. Air Force's Corona program, which flew more than 200 camera-carrying satellites, were the forerunner of higher-resolution imaging systems as well as infrared systems for the sensing of missile launches and other phenomena, with the gathered data relayed electronically to the ground. The techniques developed for the programs were later translated into new government and commercial remote sensing applications, primarily for atmospheric, weather, and Earth-resource investigations. In 1958, in a program called Project SCORE, the U.S. Air Force launched the first low-orbiting communications satellite, premiering the transmission of the human voice from space. Others followed, initiating a rapidly growing national and international telecommunications satellite industry (see satellite communication).
In 1958 in the United States, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics was succeeded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Mercury manned spaceflight program was initiated. In 1959, to reflect the changing nature of the industry, the U.S. Aircraft Industries Association (formed in 1919 as the Aeronautical Chamber of Commerce of America to promote American civil aviation) changed its name to the Aerospace Industries Association (AIA). The Soviet Union, nevertheless, held manned space leadership, and on April 12, 1961, cosmonaut Yury A. Gagarin, aboard Vostok 1, completed one full orbit of the Earth to become the first human being in space. Within two months, U.S. President John F. Kennedy announced the goal of the United States to land people on the Moon and to return them safely to the Earth before the end of the 1960s. In preparation for the lunar landing, NASA undertook the two-person Gemini spacecraft and recovery project with McDonnell Aircraft, which had been the prime contractor for Mercury, thus extending its role in the space program.
NASA conducted many in-house research-and-development projects at its numerous space centres. The final development and production of flight hardware for the subsequent Apollo program, however, was carried out by a few prime contractors and elaborate networks of subcontractors and suppliers in virtually every part of the United States. For example, Grumman Aircraft produced the Lunar Modules, the actual vehicles to land on the Moon, and North American Aviation built the Command and Service modules, which remained in lunar orbit during the landings. Boeing, North American, and McDonnell Douglas each served as a contractor for one of the three stages of the Saturn V launcher, while the main engines for all stages were supplied by Rocketdyne, then a division of North American Rockwell. The number of personnel involved in the U.S. space program reflected intense activity in the industry, increasing from 36,000 in 1960 to 377,000 by 1965.
In the early 1970s, following on the success of Apollo, NASA strove to sustain its manned space program with the development of a reusable space transportation system, or space shuttle. In initiating the project, it again distributed industrial participation throughout the United States, under the control of its own centres. Because the shuttle would have the characteristics of both an airplane and a spacecraft, NASA gave its Langley Research Center (with a long history as an aeronautical laboratory) the responsibility for the vehicle's aerodynamic design, in support of the agency's lead facility, the Johnson Space Center. The latter chose North American Rockwell (later Rockwell International) as prime contractor for the shuttle orbiter, while the craft's orbital maneuvering engine system and heat-resistant ceramic tiles were furnished by McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed, respectively. Hamilton Standard was responsible for the life-support systems, and the Marshall Space Flight Center and the Stennis Space Center had cognizance over the strap-on solid rocket boosters and external propellant tank, the former furnished by Thiokol and Hercules and the latter by Martin Marietta. Rockwell's Rocketdyne division developed the shuttle's cryogenic liquid-fuel main engines. Many other companies also played roles in development and manufacture, including suppliers of controls, components, and experiments.
Growth of the aircraft industry
American aircraft manufacturers dominated the early post-World War II years. In 1951, 80 percent of the world's piston-engine commercial aircraft were made in the United States, and 56 percent of that American production was from Douglas. The United States, however, lagged behind Great Britain in understanding the potential of the jet airliner. In 1943 Britain had established the Brabazon Committee to assess the country's postwar needs in civil aviation. The committee suggested nine types of aircraft, of which two were produced: the turboprop Vickers-Armstrongs Viscount, which made its first airline flight in 1950, and the De Havilland DH-106 Comet, which in 1952, with the inauguration of passenger service, became the world's first jet airliner. The Comet was able to carry 36 passengers over a range of 3,200 km (2,000 miles) at a speed of 790 km (490 miles) per hour. A combination of technical flaws, however, caused explosions in flight and resulted in its withdrawal from service and the redesigning of subsequent versions of the Comet.
American companies learned from the design errors of the Comet. Drawing on its experience with the B-47 and B-52 jet bombers, Boeing in 1954 brought out the Boeing 367-80, the prototype of a new class of jet aircraft. Featuring an impressive combination of speed and range, the aircraft evolved into the KC-135 aerial military tanker and later into the company's first jet airliner, the 707. Pan American Airways's order for 20 Boeing 707s—and 25 similar Douglas DC-8s—initiated a worldwide jet-buying frenzy. In the 1960s jets also began to replace short-haul piston-engine aircraft. This time Europe—in particular British Aircraft Corporation, Hawker Siddeley, and France's Sud Aviation—competed successfully against American manufacturers with the BAC One-Eleven, HS 121 Trident, and SE 210 Caravelle models, respectively. The French Caravelle, the prototype of which first flew in 1955, pioneered the "clean wing" design by mounting two engines, one on each side, on the rear section of the fuselage.
The general aviation sector experienced an almost steady growth after 1955. The product lines of Beech, Cessna, and Piper expanded to include a wide variety of new aircraft types. In terms of production volume, Cessna emerged as the leader. By the mid 1960s general aviation aircraft also began to make use of turboprop engines, jet engines, and pressurized cabins. While American companies continued to dominate this market, increasing global demand stimulated non-American manufacturers. Japan, for example, successfully offered the medium-range Mitsubishi MU-2 turboprop, and Britain and France marketed competitive capability from Short Brothers and Sud Aviation, respectively. In the United States, William P. Lear paved the way for volume sales of business jets. His Learjet 23, the first aircraft of this type, began deliveries in 1964.
The first major cooperative venture of European countries to design and build an aircraft began on November 29, 1962, when Britain and France signed a treaty to share costs and risks in producing a supersonic transport (SST), the Concorde. The two countries were not alone in the race for a supersonic airliner. The Soviet Union built the delta-wing Tupolev Tu-144, which made its maiden flight in December 1968 and which in June 1969 was the first passenger jet to fly faster than Mach 1 (the speed of sound). The Tu-144 was in service only briefly in the late 1970s before being withdrawn for reasons that proved ultimately to be fundamental design problems. The delta-wing Concorde made its first flight in March 1969 and entered revenue service in January 1976 (see supersonic flight). British Aircraft Corporation and Aerospatiale were responsible for the airframe, while Britain's Rolls-Royce and France's SNECMA (Société Nationale d'Étude et de Construction de Moteurs d'Aviation) developed the engines. The Concorde's cruise speed of about Mach 2 (twice the speed of sound) reduced the flight time between London and New York to about three hours. Although financially not profitable, the Concorde, which was taken out of service in 2003, proved that European governments and manufacturers could cooperate in complex ventures and that they remained at the technical forefront of aircraft development. In the United States the federal government was willing to pay 75 percent of the research-and-development cost of an SST. But after four years and more than $1 billion expended, with little progress and growing environmental concerns, the Boeing 2707 SST project was canceled in 1971 following withdrawal of government funding.
In the 1960s Boeing and Lockheed submitted proposals to build a large transporter for the U.S. Air Force. Lockheed and engine manufacturer General Electric won the contract and developed the world's largest aircraft at that time, the C-5 Galaxy. Boeing and its engine partner Pratt & Whitney, however, embarked on an ambitious undertaking to develop an aircraft capable of carrying as many as 500 passengers. The end product was the first wide-body passenger jet, the four-engine Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet, which entered service in 1970. Douglas and Lockheed followed suit with somewhat smaller triple-engine wide-body aircraft, the DC-10 (1971) and L-1011 TriStar (1972), with worldwide acceptance, though not profits, for all three.
As another outgrowth of wartime aircraft development, helicopters entered civilian service, first with the medical-emergency and police units of civil governments for rescue and transport operations and then with commercial companies for short-range passenger transportation in environments such as cities and forested areas requiring vertical ascent and descent. As helicopters achieved increased lift capabilities, they were used in construction for the economical transport of girders and other large structures. In the 1950s helicopter-manufacturing licenses were granted by Sikorsky (see United Technologies Corporation) to Westland in Great Britain and later by Bell Helicopter (see Textron Inc.) to Agusta in Italy and Mitsubishi in Japan. The introduction of turbines as power plants for the rotor was led by Sud-Est Aviation and later Sud Aviation (predecessors of Aerospatiale) in France. The Sud-Est Alouette II, which first flew in 1955, was the world's first turbine-powered helicopter to go into production.
The debut of turbine-powered helicopters and their application as military attack aircraft by NATO and Soviet bloc countries and their clients marked the development of a new generation of rotary-wing aircraft. In the United States during the Vietnam War, the Bell Helicopter division of Textron developed the Bell 209 (AH-1G HueyCobra), the first helicopter designed specifically for attack. At the end of the 1960s the Soviet Union's Mil Mi-12 became the world's largest helicopter, with a maximum takeoff weight of 105 tons, and in 1978 the smaller Mil Mi-24 set a helicopter speed record of 368.4 km (228.9 miles) per hour.
Cooperation and consolidation in a global economy
In the 1960s the high development cost of wide-body jets started a trend toward international risk sharing and cost sharing in aircraft development. American firms sought foreign partners because international cooperation was not subject to antitrust regulations and provided an excellent entry into overseas markets. This kind of partnership proved particularly important for nationalized airlines that preferred to purchase aircraft whose construction involved, at least in some way, their own domestic aerospace industry. Collaboration on an international scale also was attractive in that it lessened the possibility of a participant's canceling a project before completion, as many agreements had penalty clauses to discourage premature pullout and political pressure could be exerted from other team members. In 1969 there were worldwide about 10 cooperative ventures among manufacturers (both airframe and engine); by 1992 the number had risen close to 50.
In 1965 the French and German governments initiated discussions about forming a consortium to build a European high-capacity short-haul airliner. The outcome was Airbus Industrie, formed in 1970 as a Groupement d'Intérêt Economique (GIE; "Grouping of Mutual Economic Interest"), a unique and flexible form of partnership instituted by French law, in which the partners have a dual role as both shareholders and industrial participants. Later other European countries joined Airbus, resulting in the following distribution of ownership: Aerospatiale Matra (France) and DaimlerChrysler Aerospace (Dasa; Germany) with 37.9 percent each, BAE Systems (Great Britain) with 20 percent, and Construcciones Aeronáuticas S.A. (CASA; Spain) with 4.2 percent. In 2000 all the partners except BAE Systems merged into the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), which thus came to own 80 percent of Airbus. Belairbus (Belgium) and Alenia (Italy) participated in some projects.
Airbus Industrie's premier aircraft, which entered service in 1974, was the A300—the world's first twin-engine wide-body jetliner. The consortium's next airliner, the A310 (entered service in 1983), introduced many new concepts, among them a two-pilot cockpit (in which the duties of a third crew member, the flight engineer, were performed by computers) and extensive use of composite materials for the airframe. Its third product, the A320 (1988), was the first subsonic commercial aircraft to be designed with fly-by-wire (electric rather than mechanical) primary controls and the first commercial aircraft to feature the so-called glass cockpit, which used electronic rather than mechanical displays. Through its innovations and the growing range of aircraft offered, the European consortium became the second largest maker of commercial aircraft worldwide, deferring only to Boeing while relegating McDonnell Douglas to a distant third place by the mid 1990s (prior to its merger with Boeing in 1997). Although Airbus aircraft used many American-manufactured components, the program gave a tremendous boost to European aircraft suppliers.
Europe's growing involvement in space activities provided another opportunity for international cooperation. In 1962 six western European countries and Australia signed a convention leading to the formation of the European Launcher Development Organisation (ELDO) to develop the experimental heavy-lift satellite launcher Europa, based on the British Blue Streak and French Coralie rockets. A parallel effort set the stage for the establishment of the European Space Research Organisation (ESRO), devoted to scientific space programs and the construction of satellites. In the summer of 1972 the French government proposed to other European countries a new and technologically simpler launcher. The 5th European Space Conference in December 1972 proved to be a landmark for the development of a European space industry. It approved the L-3S launcher, later named Ariane, with France as a project leader, and sanctioned Spacelab, a manned research laboratory to be carried in the cargo bay of a U.S. space shuttle, this project to be led by Germany. On an organizational level it merged the parallel activities of ELDO and ESRO under the umbrella of a single organization, the European Space Agency (ESA), which came into existence in 1975.
The Ariane program involved nearly 50 companies from 11 European countries, with France's Aerospatiale providing strong leadership. The initial version of Ariane was first launched successfully on December 24, 1979, beginning a new era in Europe. To finance and operate the Ariane rocket and to commercialize space launch services with it, ESA set up Arianespace in March 1980 and gave it responsibility for operating the launch centre in Kourou, French Guiana. Its shareholders were 36 of the principal European aerospace firms, primarily those involved in actually building the rocket, as well as 13 major European bank groups and the French space agency CNES (Centre National d'Études Spatiales). Subsequently the Ariane series became the world's most successful commercial expendable launch vehicles.
Spacelab, the second major European program, was developed by German companies in cooperation with manufacturers from Italy, France, Britain, and six other European countries. Taken into Earth orbit in the payload bay of a space shuttle, the laboratory consisted of two separate segments: a pressurized 16-ton module in which astronauts could work and supervise experiments in a shirtsleeve environment and a pallet for external payloads. Spacelab made its maiden voyage in November 1983 and more than a dozen flights thereafter.
Following the lead of the flagships of international cooperation—Airbus and Ariane—many other civil and military programs were established that involved two or more companies from different countries. In 1969 European manufacturers Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm, British Aircraft Corporation, and Aeritalia (predecessor of Alenia) founded Panavia Aircraft, while European engine makers Motoren- und Turbinen-Union (MTU), Rolls-Royce, and Fiat incorporated Turbo-Union. The result of this joint effort was the successful Panavia Tornado, a multirole combat aircraft that entered service in 1980. Other European cooperations produced the French-British Jaguar fighter and the French-German Alpha Jet trainer, which entered service in 1972 and 1979, respectively. A later example, first flown in 1995, is the military transport helicopter NH-90, developed by Aerospatiale (France), DaimlerChrysler Aerospace (Dasa; Germany), and Agusta (Italy). When Boeing developed the 777 in the late 1980s and early '90s, the company for the first time offered full partnership to some subcontractors; Japanese firms held a 20 percent share in the airframe structure and also shared market and program risks.
In the commercial engine sector, General Electric Aircraft Engines in the United States and France's SNECMA established a joint venture, called CFM International, in 1974 for production of the widely sold CFM56 turbofan engine. International Aero Engines (IAE), formed in 1983 as a collaboration of the American firm Pratt & Whitney, Germany's MTU, Britain's Rolls-Royce, Italy's FiatAvio, and a Japanese consortium, Japanese Aero Engines Corporation, produced the V2500 turbofan.
Mergers and divestitures
With a decline in defense funding and a narrowing of commercial markets in the decades following World War II, the number of business opportunities shrank, and competition for each project became more intense. In response, aerospace companies sought mergers as a way to integrate strengths, to combine talent and other resources, and to reduce costs by eliminating redundancies in administrative functions, personnel, and physical facilities. Previous competitors having complementary capabilities joined forces to expand product lines and, in some cases, to offer a more comprehensive system of services and products to potential customers.
In the 1960s, American manufacturers went through a first wave of mergers. Martin joined forces in 1961 with the nonaerospace materials firm American Marietta to form Martin Marietta Corp. Similarly, North American Aviation sought a nonaerospace partner and merged with automobile-parts supplier Rockwell Standard to form North American Rockwell Corporation (later Rockwell International Corporation) in 1967. In the same year, military manufacturer McDonnell Aircraft merged with the largely civil manufacturer Douglas Aircraft to form the balanced enterprise McDonnell Douglas Corporation. Another move involved Bell Aircraft's becoming a part of Textron Inc. in 1960.
A second series of American divestitures and mergers began in the early 1990s. General Dynamics sold its general aviation aircraft maker, Cessna, to Textron Inc., its missile business to the Hughes Electronics subsidiary of General Motors, its tactical fighter business to Lockheed, and its space systems division to Martin Marietta. Ford and IBM also left the aerospace-defense sector by selling their divisions to Loral in 1992 and 1994, respectively. General Electric maintained its GE Aircraft Engines subsidiary, but its aerospace division became the property of Martin Marietta in 1993. In 1994 and 1995, four well-known airframe manufacturers merged into two. Lockheed combined with Martin Marietta to form Lockheed Martin Corporation, and Northrop acquired the ailing Grumman Corporation and later the Vought Aircraft division of LTV Corporation to create Northrop Grumman Corporation. In late 1996 Boeing acquired Rockwell International's space and defense units, and in 1997 it merged with McDonnell Douglas to establish the world's largest aerospace company. In the same year, Lockheed Martin announced its intention to acquire Northrop Grumman, but, in the face of objections from the U.S. Department of Defense that such a merger would result in an overconcentration of defense electronics in a single company and the threat of a federal antitrust suit, the acquisition plan was abandoned. This consolidation reduced the number of prime American aerospace companies to only two—Boeing and Lockheed Martin. In October 2000 Boeing acquired three units from Hughes Electronics—Hughes Space and Communications Company, Hughes Electron Dynamics, and Spectrolab—and Hughes's interest in HRL Laboratories, the company's primary research facility. These elements were combined into new subsidiary, Boeing Satellite Systems.
In the general aviation sector, most small American manufacturers lost their independence in the 1980s and '90s and became parts of large industrial conglomerates. Beech became a subsidiary of Raytheon Company, and Cessna, as noted earlier, was acquired by Textron. Canada's Bombardier acquired business jet makers Learjet and Canadair, as well as De Havilland Canada and Britain's Short Brothers.
In Europe the changes were perhaps even more dramatic. In Britain, 12 companies, including well-known firms such as De Havilland, Bristol, and Supermarine were combined in a series of mergers in the 1950s and early '60s. The resulting two manufacturers were British Aircraft Corporation and Hawker Siddeley Aviation. In 1977 these two companies and two others were taken into public ownership and reorganized as British Aerospace (BAe). In 1999 BAe signed an agreement with General Electric Company PLC (GEC) in which GEC would divest itself of its defense electronics business, Marconi Electronic Systems, which would then merge with BAe. The resulting company became BAE Systems.
In France, Sud Aviation, Nord Aviation, and SEREB merged in 1970 as Aerospatiale to form the country's strongest aerospace firm, while Dassault absorbed Breguet Aviation in 1971. In 1999 Aerospatiale merged with Matra Hautes Technologies, a subsidiary of the Lagardère Group, to form Aerospatiale Matra. Germany followed Britain and France in creating a national "aerospace champion." Beginning in 1985, luxury-car maker Daimler-Benz (later DaimlerChrysler) acquired the aerospace group Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm (MBB), Dornier, and other companies to form Deutsche Aerospace, which subsequently was renamed DaimlerChrysler Aerospace (Dasa).
The national consolidation of German aerospace companies was followed in 1990 by the merger of the space activities of France's Matra Espace and Britain's Marconi Space Systems to create Matra Marconi Space. The latter increased in size in 1994 with the acquisition of British Aerospace Space Systems. In May 2000 Matra Marconi Space and the space divisions of Dasa were combined in a joint venture under the name Astrium, 50 percent of which was owned by Aerospatiale Matra and BAE Systems and 50 percent by Dasa. Astrium was the first trinational space company, with facilities in France, Germany, and Great Britain. Its activities covered the whole spectrum of the space business, from ground systems and launch vehicles to satellites and orbital infrastructure. Two months later, in July, Aerospatiale Matra, Dasa, and Spain's Construcciones Aeronáuticas S.A. (CASA) merged to create the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS). With central offices in France and Germany, EADS at its formation became the third largest aerospace company in the world (after Boeing and Lockheed Martin).
In the United States and Europe, national governments played quite different roles in the mergers involving their countries. The U.S. government scrutinized each proposed merger for antitrust and anti-competition infringements and, in some cases, denied the merger, most notably that proposed by Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. It approved the merger of Boeing and McDonnell Douglas with the recognition that survival of McDonnell Douglas's commercial business on its own was questionable and that one strong supplier could compete more successfully with the European Airbus consortium and maintain a favourable balance of trade. By contrast, national governments in Europe, once they overcame concerns about national pride and prestige, generally encouraged mergers in order to enhance Europe's combined ability to supply its economic union with products and compete with the United States for commercial and defense contracts. In addition, the critical mass afforded by these mergers provided a basis for negotiating with the United States for European roles in major aerospace projects such as the International Space Station.
The aerospace industry of the former Soviet Union, particularly the defense and space sectors, absorbed a significant portion of the country's overall budget. Following the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. in 1991, its design bureaus, which were confined to Russia and Ukraine, represented the resources for the development of all aircraft and space systems. They stayed largely intact, continuing to develop advanced products while making individual partnering and marketing arrangements for aerospace vehicles and technology with the industries of Western countries, China, and India. At the same time, they supplied a dwindling market in Middle Eastern client states such as Syria and Iraq. At the start of the 21st century, negotiations were under way with the aim of merging the aircraft-oriented and space-oriented bureaus into single corporations.
Recognizing the competitive status of its military aircraft and space launchers in the world market, Russia, in conjunction with those former Soviet republics having aircraft and space-related facilities, sustained these activities despite countervailing economic pressures. It successfully marketed MiG and Sukhoy fighters to Third World countries and formed partnerships with American and European firms in new aircraft and satellite-launcher ventures and with NASA in its manned space program—in particular, the joint effort on the International Space Station. It should also be noted that as the Soviet Union developed advanced military aircraft in the 1970s and '80s, earlier designs such as the MiG-25 series were licensed for production to Eastern bloc partners such as Poland and the German Democratic Republic. Even older designs of the 1950s, the MiG-17 and MiG-19, were made available to China, which developed its own industry around versions of these aircraft. (For additional information on Russian design bureaus, see Energia; Tupolev.)
Learn More in these related Britannica articles:
Gliding, flight in an unpowered heavier-than-air craft. Any engineless aircraft, from the simplest hang glider to a space shuttle on its return flight to the Earth, is a glider. The glider is powered by gravity, which means that it is always sinking through the air. However, when…
Balloon, large airtight bag filled with hot air or a lighter-than-air gas, such as helium or hydrogen, to provide buoyancy so that it will rise and float in the atmosphere. Transport balloons have a basket or container hung below for passengers or cargo. A self-propelled steerable balloon is called an…
Airplane, any of a class of fixed-wing aircraft that is heavier than air, propelled by a screw propeller or a high-velocity jet, and supported by the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings. For an account of the development of the airplane and the…
rocket and missile system
Rocket and missile system, any of a variety of weapons systems that deliver explosive warheads to their targets by means of rocket propulsion. Rocket is a general term used broadly to describe a variety of jet-propelled missiles in which forward motion results from reaction to the rearward ejection of matter (usually…
airplane: Current trends in aircraft design and construction…technology in all aspects of aviation. A second factor has been the widespread development of the use of composite materials in aircraft structures. While these two elements are the results of advances in engineering, they are also indirectly the product of changing social and legal considerations.…
More About Aerospace industry2 references found in Britannica articles
Assorted References
- modern aircraft design and construction
- welding


text:
It has been recently scientifically proven that regular mental exercise can significantly improve your memory and this app has been designed to do just that (and be tons of fun as well). In particular, Memory Trainer works out your spatial memory, working memory, focus and concentration skills.
Frequent memory exercises, like the ones in Memory Trainer, help to strengthen and improve your memory.
This was proven in a UCLA study in 2006, published in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, which you can read here (http://goo.gl/aiBg). Another benefit of training your memory is that it lowers your risk of Alzheimer's disease. Exercises that keep your mind active, tone your mental muscle and keep your brain healthy. Read more about the link between brain training and Alzheimer's here (http://goo.gl/4AoN).
Memory Trainer helps strengthen your spatial memory.
Spatial memory is the part of memory responsible for recording information about one's environment and its spatial orientation. For example, you use your spatial memory is required when you navigate around a familiar city. You also use this kind of memory when you remember the position of objects as well as visually remembering patterns. By remembering the locations of target tiles in a visual grid, you are actively working out this type of memory when you use Memory Trainer. Scientists think spatial memory is tied to the right hemisphere of the brain.
Daily mental exercise is recommendet for a healthy brain - so use the Memory Trainer as often as possible!


text:
GershBV necesitaba un nuevo diseño de logotipo y lanzó un concurso de diseño en 99designs.
Un ganador ha sido elegido entre 1975 diseños de 537 diseñadores freelance.
RadioAddict will be playing Internet Radio on the web.
Tech savvy, general public, all types of people into computers and music
I need a logo that has the words clearly in it: RadioAddict
The service does not exist yet, so it's a clean slate.
I would prefer if the two words are together with no spaces in between. But hey, if you can make it look good I am willing to check it out.
RadioAddict capitalization is one idea. All caps may work as well, if the two words are of different colors. It may work (like http://www.jazzradio.com logo for example).
One or two solid colors preferred. Don't use effects here, looking for solid colors only.
Needs to be simple and original.
DO NOTs:
- Do not make it all lower caps, like radioaddict
- Do not use italics
- Do not make it more than two colors. One or two only.
- Do not use obvious stock icon graphics that just scream stock icons at you! I am looking for something original.
- Do not use icons of radio towers, nor old style radio players. Because this is Internet, digital radio, and nothing to do with old style radio.
One final note. There are going to be many submissions, with a ton of those that will be really bad. If you are not that good, please do not submit because I will be eliminating designs fast. This is to save time for both YOU and myself. I don't think it's right to ask you to spend time improving a design which I hate from the start.
So with that said, I apologize for quick eliminations in advance. Thank you very much for all your effort too.
Descubre cómo funciona un concurso de diseño u obtén más información sobre nuestros servicios de diseño de logo.


text:
5.01 acres in Overton County, Tennessee
For more information, contact Susan Roberts at (931) 256-0446. Visit http://www.crye-leike.com/cumberland/188228 to view more pictures of this property. Come build your dream home on this stunning 5 acres of nature at its finest!
Tax Data (Show Tax Data)
Loading Tax Data
Contact Seller
Fill out this form to contact Seller about this property
Other Land for Sale in Overton County
- Properties for Sale in Nearby Counties
- Clay County Land for Sale
- Fentress County Land for Sale
- Jackson County Land for Sale
- Pickett County Land for Sale
- Putnam County Land for Sale
NOTE: The information contained herein is provided as general information only and has been obtained from sources deemed reliable. It is provided without any guaranty, warranty or representation, expressed or implied, made by Lands of America, or any related entity, as to the accuracy or completeness of the information. The information is presented subject to errors, omissions, change of price or conditions, prior sale or withdrawal without notice. Prospective purchasers should make their own investigations, projections and conclusions concerning the information.


text:
'Tune In to Find Out What Sex Is Like for Lauren and What 2 Vaginas Looks Like!'
PR is a discipline that demands the delicate touch of a surgeon and the sober judgment of a sober judge. You can't just wildly issue press releases like, "Hey, We Got a Lady With Two Vaginas Here!" Or can you?
Just reading this press release once is equivalent to obtaining a master's degree in Communications from a mid-tier public university.
"The Tyra Show"
International Exclusive: Woman with TWO Vaginas!
Click Here for Video: http://tyrashow.warnerbros.com/2009/01/woman_two_vaginas_lauren.php
Air Date: 11.6.09
(New York, NY) — It's a "Tyra Show" international exclusive, meet the woman who was born with two vaginas in an episode scheduled to air on Friday, November 6th.
Lauren Williams, who is now 29 years old, was born with two vaginas.
Lauren Williams: "I've got two uteruses. Just one to each (fallopian tube), then they go down to two cervixes, and then it did go down to the two vaginas."
Williams, who was diagnosed with two vaginas when she was 25-years-old, also believes she has 2 periods.
Lauren Williams: "I think so because my periods generally last about 21 days...When I was a teenager I had really heavy periods...I would have to change pads every hour."
Tyra also questions Williams on her ability to have children and was amazed by her answer.
Lauren Williams: "The doctor in England said pregnancy wise, it should be okay...if I do get pregnant it should push the other uterus over to one side and keep it out of the way. Me and my partner would need to plan on using condoms just in case I got pregnant in the other one."
Tyra Banks: "You're the only pregnant woman that can get pregnant while pregnant."
Tune in to find out what sex is like for Lauren and what 2 vaginas looks like!
"The Tyra Show" airs weekdays on The CW at 4:00 PM.


text: On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Greg Lindahl wrote: > On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 11:30:30AM -0500, Robert G. Brown wrote: > > > So I reiterate -- MTBF for hard disks, as reported by the manufacturer, > > is a nearly useless number. > > It is useful if you use it for what it's meant to be used for: the > failure rate in the bottom of the bathtub. I don't know why you were > thinking of using it for anything else, like disk lifetime, or infant > mortality. I have found that my actual failure rates have been 2X-3X > the manufacturer's number, but you always have to worry about dust, > power surges, and excess heat incidents in real machine rooms. I think >>everybody<< finds that actual failure rates are (at least) 2x-3x the mfr number, and finds that it varies wildly in time and with environmental conditions and with plain old luck. That's why (and what I mean by stating that) mfr MTBF quotations are optimistic and cheery. If you've developed Kentucky Windage for their numbers that makes them useful to you, that's great, but you've got a LOT of experience on which to base that correction, and can still get burned by the fact that actual failures are (at best) not terribly uniformly distributed -- the "lemon" phenomenon of manufacturing, also known as "the box of disks that fell from the truck during shipping". Otherwise, what I was basically doing is describing the bathtub (which might, in fact, be more of a kitchen sink with a quite small flat region, given that the testing cannot, obviously, take long enough to define a proper tub floor). That is, we don't really know much about the bathtub size or shape for any drive except (perhaps) for whatever we can infer from the mfr warranty on the particular drive in question, and even THAT is bent out of ideal shape by the actual conditions (such as the particular case it is mounted in and how good its ventilation is and the temperature of the ambient air and how hard it is being run). As was pointed out by Karen (and I agree) the mfr warranty period is perhaps a better number for most people to pay attention to than MTBF as it is the only number that actually costs mfrs money when a disk "prematurely" fails and the only number that does you any good if you buy a hundred disks -- or even just one -- that turn out to be from a "bad batch". Being a cynic, I cannot keep from thinking of the dozens of ways an overgood MTBF number could be "cooked" by a mfr, the near certainty that nobody will ever do anything like a study that could refute it if they pulled it out of thin air, and the lack of financial incentives to make it pessimistic or even acurate. Maybe they are all perfectly honest and drive failure rates are really just 1%/year or thereabouts (on the bathtub floor) and I just never noticed it, or was unlucky, or beat the disks to death by using them in actual computers that only rarely used the disks at all;-) With a warranty, though, while I still care I care less -- I still have to hassle with the replacement but I don't have to buy the disk over again, even if it is just one drive in 100 in a year. Even the warranty period and marginal cost is a less than perfect predictor. I'll bet that in the consumer marketplace they don't actually have to make good on more than two potential warranty claims out of three for three year drives -- RMA is a PITA and probably daunts many a should-be claimant after a 1 year system warranty expires, or they are sold the systems and never told that the drives have a three year warranty. Dropping the warranty on most OTC disks to 1 year sends a pretty negative signal to me, at least, as does the explicit marginal cost of adding back the missing two years. The dollar amounts imply that the MANUFACTURERS are expecting a whole lot more than 1% of ANY batch of disks to fail per year, even out there on the bathtub floor. Who should I believe -- the MTBF or the money? > MTBF for just about everything is computed the same way, and most gizmos > have the same bathtub-shaped failure curve. I'm reminded of a line in a statistics book I once read (I can't remember which one, alas) in which the author had just done a lengthy analysis of failure rates and probability and arrived at a mathematically proven and statistically sound conclusion based on the observations and premises, who then ended up his argument with "but everybody >>knows<< that things go wrong more often than >>that<<" or something similar. His point (I think) was that statistics are lovely but use your gut and your head as well -- reality check time. I tend to think more in terms of warranties and Murphy than in mfr's MTBF, especially when MTBF is a number with absolutely no financial penalty attached to it derived from measurements that (necessarily) are not in the actual context of most usage. rgb -- Robert G. Brown http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/ Duke University Dept. of Physics, Box 90305 Durham, N.C. 27708-0305 Phone: 1-919-660-2567 Fax: 919-660-2525 email:rgb at phy.duke.edu


text:
Express. Home of the Daily and Sunday Express.
Redknapp reflects on a bad day
Harry Redknapp slammed Tottenham's first-half performance after seeing his side exit the FA Cup at the fourth round stage with a 4-0 hammering at Fulham.
Danny Murphy opened the scoring from the spot after 11 minutes before Michael Dawson was sent off minutes later for pulling back Moussa Dembele in the box. The Fulham captain made no mistake with his second penalty before Brede Hangeland and Dembele made it 4-0 by the break.
"Everything that could have gone wrong did go wrong," Redknapp said. "We gave two horrendous goals away and had Michael Dawson sent off and gave two penalties away. How do you come back from that? You can't keep coming back from those situations."
Tottenham captain Dawson, usually such a reliable member of Redknapp's side, had a nightmare in the 13 minutes he was on the pitch.
His poor pass allowed Fulham in in the run up to Fulham's first penalty and he then pulled back Dembele's shirt to gift Fulham their second penalty and earn a red card in the process.
"Michael started sloppily," Redknapp said.
"He gave two goals away which is not like him. He is usually fantastic for us but he got off to a terrible start today.
"I haven't seen a replay of any of the decisions but I thought the second one was harsh. Michael thinks so too."


text:
We're sorry, but we currently have no tickets available for this event.
Check out our full selection of World Music tickets or sign up to be notified when tickets are available and exclusive discounts!
Jungua Tickets and Concert Schedule
Nothing beats the excitement of a live event and Vivid Seats has the Jungua tickets that will put you in the middle of the experience. As a reputable broker of World Music tickets, we understand the planning that goes into your event, and that's why we're here to help you purchase your Jungua concert tickets every step of the way. Our user-friendly website allows our customers to get the Jungua ticket information they need quickly and easily - from Jungua tour dates and venue listings, to full seating maps that can help you determine where you want to sit.
When you purchase tickets with us, you can be assured that your purchase is backed by our full 100% Buyer's Guarantee, so if the Jungua concert is cancelled for any reason, you will receive a full refund within 30 days. If you have any questions when purchasing your tickets to Jungua, make sure that you utilize our Live Chat feature and receive answers online from one of our friendly Vivid Seats representatives. Thanks for choosing us and enjoy the show!


text: I think it's a good idea to be able to add reason, when I add a email or IP address in postfix blacklist. I trying to add [email protected] as blacklist sender and send from this mail. When send mail I received mail on [email protected] from mailer demon: said: 554 5.7.1 <[email protected]>: Sender address rejected When opening ispconfig db and find [email protected] I add after REJECT (spacekey)You are banned. REJECT You are banned. and update table. When send new messege from [email protected] mailer demon said: 554 5.7.1 <[email protected]>: Sender address rejected: You are banned. Sorry for my bad english..


text:
Each player deserves the recognition of their coach. This certificate gives the coach the opportunity to encourage each player to continue their development in the game. It also creates a lasting memory of the season you had together. Perfect for end of the season award banquets.
Provide support and applaud the effort and commitment of your child throughout their International season with this country specific note. Designed to create a lasting memory for both you and your child.
The coach plays a huge role in the enjoyment of your child soccer experience. Acknowledge their effort and say thanks for their time and commitment to a wonderful International soccer experience.
Insert your child's photo and create a lasting memory of their International soccer experience.
Remember the friends your child made during their International soccer experience. Simply print out the photo surround and insert your child's team picture.


text:
Anyone expecting a scorched Earth approach from Wes Welker on his way out of New England can keep waiting. The wide receiver had only nice things to say about the Patriots during his introductory news conference with the Denver Broncos.
The first thing out of Welker's mouth Thursday was a thank-you to the Patriots for everything they did for him in his six seasons. He made it clear it wasn't easy to leave New England.
"Yeah, that was definitely the hardest part was leaving Tom (Brady)," Welker said. "He's a great competitor, great player, great friend across the board. So I wish the best to him."
Welker said he only wanted to play for two teams, presumably the Broncos or Patriots. (This supports a report that he turned down more money from the Tennessee Titans.) Welker was asked at one point how John Elway, the Broncos' executive vice president of football operations, sold him on Denver.
"I was probably the one pitching to (Elway)," Welker said. "Trying to make this happen and everything."
It was a strange, surreal news conference. Despite the countless reports about the lack of respect he felt from the Patriots, Welker didn't publicly convey any animosity.
"Everything was on good terms," Welker said about his relationship with Patriots coach Bill Belichick. "I feel like everything was good. Any time you are a competitor, you are going to clash at times. But overall we always had a great relationship. Everything's on good terms. I have no ill feelings or anything else."
Welker said he's "looking forward" to playing the Patriots in New England next season. I'm looking forward to watching that. From Patriots-Ravens to Patriots-Broncos and Ravens-Steelers, the AFC suddenly is loaded with meaningful rivalries.
Peyton Manning vs. Tom Brady is annually great. Now we get a delicious subplot.Follow Gregg Rosenthal on Twitter @greggrosenthal.


text:
'Sesame Street's' Bert Now Has a Talk Show [VIDEO]
No longer content with just being Ernie's uptight foil, Bert is now a talk show host.
In the maiden episode of 'Conversations with Bert,' the Muppet sits down with funnyman Andy Samberg for a discussion that touches on 'Harry Potter,' imaginary jet packs and other topics.
Bert proves to be an insightful and inquisitive interviewer, however it's unclear if 'Conversations with Bert' will just be a one-off feature, or part of a continuing series.


text:
By Ollie Irish
Looks like Royston Drenthe will be a Liverpool player soon, if you believe the lad's Facebook page:
This could be bullcrap, of course, especially as there are several Royston Drenthes on FB. But, Drenthe seems like the sort of airhead who would be this indiscrete.
The Dutch utility player, still only 23, has also been linked with moves to Stuttgart, Juventus and Lazio. Watch this space, basically.
Via COS


text:
The State Board of Elections
Campaign Disclosure
What's New
Report Filings
Learning About
IDIS Electronic Filing
Enforcing the Law
The Board
Related Material
Electoral Board (SOEB)
Employment Opportunities
Election Authorities
Voting and Elections
Election Results
District/Official Search
Registration and Voting
Election Administration
Learning About Elections
Federal Legislation
Polling Places
Business Registration
Search Businesses
Search Affiliates
Existing Contracts
Available Contracts
Register a Business
Freedom of Information Act
External Links
Menu ▼
Coming soon, a redesign to the SBE website. We want to hear from our users. Here is your chance to tell us what you would like us to change in order to build a website that creates a user friendly experience that serves your needs. Please be as detailed as possible when submitting your suggestions. If you have multiple suggestions, we encourage you to submit them separately.
Select a Category
Type of User:
Select a User Type
Election Attorney
Election Authority
E-mail (Optional):
Organization (Optional):
Thank you for your submission! If you have further suggestions, please feel free to submit another recommendation by clicking the button below. Otherwise you are welcome to close the form and continue using our site. You can access this form from any page, so please let us know if you think of something in the future!
Submit Another
We Want Your Input! ▼
Banner Left Alignment
Image Links Banner
Banner Search Alignment
Next Election:
Tuesday, March 17, 2020
Return to Previous Page
Contact Us
We're redesigning our website and
we want your input!
Frequently Asked Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the State Board of Elections?
The State Board of Elections is an independent state agency that was provided for by the 1970 Illinois Constitution to supervise the registration of voters and the administration of elections throughout the state.
Who created it?
Created by the Illinois General Assembly in 1973, the Board's purpose is to serve as the central authority for all Illinois election law, information and procedures in Illinois.
What is its makeup?
The Board is an 8-member, bipartisan panel consisting of four Republicans and four Democrats, two of each party from Cook County and two of each party from Downstate. Day-to-day agency operations are handled by a full-time, professional staff in Springfield and Chicago offices.
How are Board members selected?
The Governor appoints four members from his own political party and selects four from a list of nominees submitted to him by the highest ranking official of the opposite political party. Board members serve staggered, four-year terms. They elect a Chairman and a Vice Chairman of opposite political parties. The Chairman and Vice Chairman serve two-year terms on a party rotation basis.
How does the Board function?
Recommendations for new laws, new interpretations, different procedures, forms, etc., come to the Board from its own staff, election authorities, and a wide variety of other sources. All of these recommendations are thoroughly researched, discussed, and considered for action at open, public meetings. Five members of the Board are necessary to constitute a quorum and five votes are necessary for any action of the Board to become effective.
When does the Board meet?
State law requires that the Board meet at least once per month. Meetings are held in the Springfield and Chicago offices, rotated between the two on a monthly basis. Special meetings and hearings are often necessary.
Who actually conducts elections in Illinois?
Elections are administered locally by the state's 109 election authorities. These are the county clerks in 101 counties, one county election commission and 7 municipal election commissions. These local authorities are a very important part of Illinois' election process. As part of their many responsibilities they handle local voter registration programs, train election judges, find polling places, arrange for the printing of ballots, oversee election day activities, and supervise the vote count at the local level.
How does the State Board work with the local authorities?
The State Board works closely in all parts of the state with the election authorities by answering their questions and generally providing the information necessary to conduct elections effectively and in accordance with Illinois law. Ongoing training programs for election authorities are conducted, encouraging an exchange of ideas and information to refine the state's election process.
What's unique about the Illinois election process?
Illinois elects more than 40,000 public officials and has well over 6,000 units of local government in the state - more than any other state. A major objective of the State Board is to make election procedures uniform throughout the state so that every voter and every governmental unit has access to the same information and the same rules concerning election procedures.
How does the State Board deal with charges of voting irregularities and fraud?
All claims of irregularity or fraud in any Illinois election presented to the Board are carefully and thoroughly investigated. Most often, clarification of the law resolves many of the problems. The Board is not a police agency but has the power to investigate and refer apparent violations to law enforcement agencies. The Board's role is to see that procedures provided for by state law are complied with throughout the state.
What about election reform?
Since the State Board is the only organization that has statewide jurisdiction, it is in the unique position of recognizing the differences in election terminology and procedures in various parts of the state. This statewide overview makes it possible for the Board to gather information and offer recommendations to the General Assembly and the Election Laws Commission to simplify and bring uniformity to the election process.
What about campaign disclosure?
The Campaign Financing Act covers the public's right to know certain financial information about candidates, elected officials and those individuals and groups who are financially involved in political campaigns. The State Board of Elections supervises the administration of the Illinois act and closely monitors campaign expenditures which appear on reports submitted by candidates and committees as required by law. These reports, detailing contributions and expenditures, give the media and the public information on where candidates received their campaign money and where it is being spent. Board hearings are held if suspected or actual violations of the Campaign Financing Act occur. The Board is authorized to levy fines and turn over evidence of wrongdoing to local prosecutors.
What does the Board do between elections?
The Board's supervision of elections in the state not only covers election day activities, but all activities prior to and subsequent to every election. The State Board is regularly called upon for guidance and the Board is constantly in the process of collecting information, providing educational materials and programs, and acquiring knowledge necessary to simplify and improve election procedures for Illinois citizens who comprise what is one of the busiest electorates in the country.
Illinois Amber Alert
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
Privacy Statement
Freedom of Information Act
Frequently Asked Questions


text:
Trek Mates India invites you Himalayan Trek to Brahmatal On 31st Dec'17 to 5th Jan'18.
Key Information about
Place: Brahmatal
Type: Himalaya
Endurance: Medium
Difficulty: Easy
Activities: Trekking
Brahmatal Trek:-
Himalayas lets you venture into a few treks in winter that are as adventurous and stunning like Brahmatal. The amount of snow at the Trek teases every trekker to take up the challenge. Forests coupled with impressive views of the Himalayas is a treat to the shutterbugs.
Brahmatal reveals a heavenly face in winter when the snow gently falls on its slopes. The frozen lake with the mighty Himalayan peaks overlooking it creates a mesmerizing ambiance. The trekkers are awed by the views of summits over 7000 meters.
Itinerary of the event:
Kathgodam to Lohargunj - 217 km (7,575 ft.). Night Stay in Tourist Lodge.
Loharjung To Bekaltal (7611 – 9875 ft. 6KM). Night stay in Tents.
Bekaltal To Khabekhal (Or Brahmatal) (9875 – 10738 ft. / 2.5 Km). Night Stay in Tents.
Khabekhal To Daldum Via Brahmatal Peak (12618 ft.) (10728 – 9350 ft. 5 Kms). Night stay in tents.
Daldum TO Loharjung (9350 – 7627 ft. 3.7 KM). Night stay in Tourist Lodge.
Loharjung To Kathgodam Drop. End of Services. Keep some time at Hand and plan your departure from Kathgodam after 6 PM.
The Cost of the Trek is INR 9000/-
Things to Carry:
• Identity Proof
• Camera
• Cap
• Woolen cap
• T-shirts
• Fleece Sweatshirt
• Sweater
• Windproof Jacket 01 nos.
• Leggings from a Track-suit
• Pair of sturdy sports shoes with rubber sole
• Cotton Socks
• Woolen Socks
• Extra shoe laces
• Raincoat
• Poncho 01 nos.
• Full Body Towel 01 nos.
• Torch with spare batteries
• Sunscreen lotion
• min 30 SPF
• Toiletries
• Cam charger
• Medicines as specified by doctor
Transportation Kathgodam to Lohajung and Lohajung to Kathgodam
Accommodation Two Nights at Lohajung on Triple Sharing Basis
Three Nights Camping during Trek on Triple Sharing Basis
Dome Tents, Mattresses and Sleeping Bags
Toilet Tents - Dry Pit Style
All Meals (Veg.) during the Trek
Support Team with One Qualified Trek Leader
One Assistant Trek Leader / Local Guide
Safety & Rescue
Oxygen Cylinder with the Team
First-Aid Medical Kit with the Team
Oxymeter with the Team
Equipment Purchase and Rental Support
Permits up to Rs. 500/-
Personal Gears
Meals During Transportation
Any additional permit cost if charged over Rs. 500/-
Tips, Gratitude to the Team
Our travel desk can help you with air ticket bookings. Pleases call Alok Singh on 8097327743.
Terms & Conditions - http://trekmatesindia.com/terms/
Rules & Regulations - http://trekmatesindia.com/rr/
FAQs at - http://trekmatesindia.com/faqs/
For registrations & More details, contact us at
firstname.lastname@example.com | email@example.com
8422 888 006 | 007 | 008
Trek Mates India
Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/trekmatesindia/
Twitter - https://twitter.com/trekmates
Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/trekmatesindia/


text:
Yorkshire > North Yorkshire > Brearton
Bold: brief description available.
Italics: picture/s available.
Bold and italics: Both of them available.
Map of Brearton with its only one textile mill ().
Aerial photographic view of Brearton, North Yorkshire.
Towns with historical textile mills near Brearton.
Get the conversation started by leaving the first comment on Brearton as a mill town.
Your email address will not be published. All fields are required.
Yorkshire textile mills, 2010-19. This site is kindly hosted by Cèdula d'habitabilitat.