Operations Management 12th Edition Stevenson Solutions Manual

Visit https://testbankfan.com to download the full version and
browse more test banks or solution manuals
Operations Management 12th Edition Stevenson
Solutions Manual
_____ Press the link below to begin your download _____
https://testbankfan.com/product/operations-management-12th-
edition-stevenson-solutions-manual/
Access testbankfan.com now to download high-quality
test banks or solution manuals

We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit testbankfan.com
to discover even more!
Operations Management 12th Edition Stevenson Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/operations-management-12th-edition-
stevenson-test-bank/
Operations Management 11th Edition Stevenson Solutions
Manual
stevenson-solutions-manual/
Operations Management 13th Edition Stevenson Solutions
Manual
stevenson-solutions-manual/
Universe 10th Edition Freedman Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/universe-10th-edition-freedman-
solutions-manual/

Business Law Today Comprehensive Text and Cases Diverse
Ethical Online and Global Environment 10th Edition Miller
Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/business-law-today-comprehensive-text-
and-cases-diverse-ethical-online-and-global-environment-10th-edition-
miller-solutions-manual/
Introducing Comparative Politics Concepts and Cases in
Context 4th Edition Orvis Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/introducing-comparative-politics-
concepts-and-cases-in-context-4th-edition-orvis-test-bank/
Options Futures And Other Derivatives Global 8th Edition
Hull Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/options-futures-and-other-derivatives-
global-8th-edition-hull-solutions-manual/
Art Past Art Present 6th Edition Wilkins Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/art-past-art-present-6th-edition-
wilkins-test-bank/
Integrated Marketing Communications 4th Edition Tuckwell
Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/integrated-marketing-
communications-4th-edition-tuckwell-test-bank/

Spreadsheet Modeling and Decision Analysis A Practical
Introduction to Business Analytics 7th Edition Cliff
Ragsdale Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/spreadsheet-modeling-and-decision-
analysis-a-practical-introduction-to-business-analytics-7th-edition-
cliff-ragsdale-solutions-manual/

Chapter 08 - Location Planning and Analysis
8-1
Copyright © 2015 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill
Education.
CHAPTER 08
LOCATION PLANNING AND ANALYSIS
Teaching Notes
Facility location refers to the location of a service or manufacturing facility with respect to customers,
suppliers, and other existing facilities such that it allows the company to gain a competitive and/or
strategic edge. In making a location decision, both tangible costs (e.g., cost of operating the facility; cost
of land (if it applies); cost of labor, taxes, and utilities; cost of inbound and outbound transportation) and
intangible costs (e.g., availability of qualified labor and labor climate) must be considered. Because the
location decision usually involves making a large capital investment, it not only affects the firm’s ability
to compete but also has long-term strategic implications. Therefore, in making the location decision, we
should consider issues related to marketing, production, transportation and other relevant costs as well as
the strategy of the organization. The importance of various factors in relation to the location decision will
vary between service and manufacturing organizations and from industry to industry as well.
Reading: Innovative MCI Unit Finds Culture Shock in Colorado Springs
1. The most severe fallouts from the move to Colorado were:
a. Numerous key executives and engineers, and hundreds of the division’s minority
population refused to relocate, or fled Colorado Springs soon after relocating.
b. The move isolated engineers from top management and from marketing colleagues at
headquarters, undermining collaboration.
c. The professionals whom Mr. Liebhaber hoped to recruit proved difficult and expensive to
woo to Colorado Springs.
d. Thousands of workers (more than expected) took advantage of the relocation package,
undercutting plans to recruit lower-cost employees in Colorado.
e. The move cost more than $200 million, far more than anticipated, and most of the
expected savings never materialized.
2. Mr. Liebhaber should have sought out more information by conducting surveys of workers,
managers, and engineers asking them for the following information: how likely they were to
move, ratings of factors that would affect their decision to move, ratings of factors that they
valued about their current work environment, and ratings about factors that they considered
important for quality of life issues. Mr. Liebhaber seems to have considered his own quality of
life and work issues only.
Reading: Site Selection Grows Up: Improved Tech Tools Make the Process
Faster, Better
1. Tech tools have improved the process of site selection by providing in-depth market research
analyzing traffic volumes, concentration of other retail businesses, and demographic data. In
addition, some of these tools provide aerial photographs of proposed sites and surrounding areas.
Some tools allow users to plug in the site characteristics criteria and a proposed location and then
push a button to receive output such as maps, reports, and models. Other tools provide market
optimization software that informs the user on how best to carve out territories, helping to
eliminate encroachment and cannibalization.
2. Franchisors also can use geoVue and other similar tools to analyze changes in performance,
demographics, or other factors that would warrant closing or relocating a facility.

8-2
Education.
Answers to Discussion and Review Questions
1. Location decisions can have an impact on access to markets, costs (including materials, labor,
rent, construction, and transportation), quality of work life (e.g., community-related factors), and
growth potential.
2. The fact that similar businesses are located widely underscores the futility of searching for that
“one best” location. However, it does not necessarily follow that little attention is needed in
finding a suitable location. Many organizations that have not been successful are no longer in
business (e.g., service stations in poor locations, motels bypassed by an expressway, and so on).
Moreover, others currently in operation might be much more profitable in another location. For
some businesses (e.g., restaurants) regional factors are not particularly significant, and even
community-related factors are of little importance. However, site-related factors are extremely
important. Similarly, there are numerous examples of firms that are less affected by community
or site factors than they are by regional factors (i.e., nearness to market, labor, or raw materials).
3. Important community factors include size of the community, public transportation, schools,
recreational facilities, libraries, restaurants, shopping centers, cultural and entertainment
selections, and so on.
4. Manufacturing and non-manufacturing organizations tend to approach location decisions in a
similar way, but the factors that are important to each tend to differ. Although both tend to take
costs and profits into consideration, manufacturing firms are often concerned with location of raw
materials, transportation costs, availability of energy and water, and similar factors. Non-
manufacturing firms often are more concerned with convenience, access to markets, traffic flow,
and the like.
5. Foreign locations may offer lower taxes, access to markets, availability of raw materials, lower
transportation costs (due to nearness to market), and lower labor costs than a comparable
domestic location. Potential drawbacks often relate to the political and economic stability of the
host country and attitudes of the populace towards a particular nation, industry, or firm.
6. Location rating, or factor rating, is a qualitative technique used to develop an overall composite
index for an alternative, which can be used to compare location alternatives. It involves
identifying relevant factors, assigning relative weights to the factors, and rating each alternative
with respect to the factors.
7. The first step is to decide on the criteria to use to evaluate location alternatives (e.g., cost, profits,
community service, etc.). The second step is to identify any important factors that will dominate
the decision. The third step is to develop location alternatives (country, general region, small
number of community alternatives, and site alternatives among the community alternatives). The
fourth step is to evaluate the alternatives and make a selection.
8. Locational breakeven analysis generally assumes the following:
a. Fixed costs are constant for the range of probable output.
b. Variable costs are linear for the range of probable output.
c. The level of output that will be required can be estimated within a narrow range.
d. A single product is involved.
9. Recent trends include the location of foreign manufacturing plants in the United States, having
smaller factories located close to markets, choosing nearby suppliers, low-cost labor is becoming
less of a factor in many industries, and advances in information technology make it less important
to have design, engineering, etc. close to the factory.
Taking Stock
1. Due to economies of scale, the centrally located large facility will be more efficient. The
scheduling and coordination between the large facility and suppliers or customers will be

8-3
Education.
simplified. However, due to distance, transportation/distribution costs to or from the large facility
will be much higher than those costs would be when using several smaller dispersed facilities
instead. Having several smaller dispersed facilities will not only reduce the transportation cost but
also increase the flexibility of the firm in terms of being able to reduce distribution lead time, thus
resulting in faster deliveries or receipts of goods or merchandise.
2. Unlike the process design decision, the facility location decision is a macro decision and thus
requires the involvement of top-level management. The larger the facility, the higher the level of
involvement of the company personnel will be. In terms of various functions or departments
within the company, manufacturing (or operations), logistics and distribution, marketing, and
strategic planning must be involved. Depending on the type of facility considered, other groups
may also need to be included in making this important decision.
3. Due to the advancement of data mining and data warehousing, and the related improvements in
computers’ ability to store and exchange data, we can generate much more useful information to
make the facility location decision.
Critical Thinking Exercises
1. The company does have some social responsibility. Because the company employs such a large
percentage of the city’s workforce, its leaving is certain to have a major impact on town
businesses. It is likely that unless new sources of employment emerge, some residents may be
forced to move away, and many businesses may fail, or barely get by.
Thus, the company must weigh the projected benefits of the move against the actual and social
costs of the move. It also must factor in the primary reasons for the move. These might include
high taxes, adverse weather conditions, a shift in its markets, poor public relations, labor strife, an
aging facility that has to be replaced, an insufficient supply of essential labor skills, and a need to
be closer to a major customer.
2. Trade-offs involved would include:
a. The nature of current, and more importantly, the forecasted future demand.
b. Current demographics and the future expected changes in demographics for this area.
c. The nature and type of competition for this area. We will need to predict what our
competitors will be doing in the short-term as well as in the long-term.
d. We need to divide the area into several sub-areas and consider the advantages and
disadvantages of opening a store in each of the sub-areas.
e. What is the projected impact of the new location(s) on the sales of the existing locations?
If the demand is too low and we decide to open more than one site, we will have to experience
the cost of closing at least one of the existing locations and perhaps absorb the loss of sales in
our existing store. On the other hand, if the demand is higher than we expected, and we opened
up a store only on one site, we will have to consider the opportunity cost of lost sales and profit.

8-4
Education.
3.
Options Pros Cons
Avoid such locations. Avoid the problem completely. Miss out on potential business.
Locate there and deal with it. Potential business. Need to make sure workers
know and abide by the policy.
Risk cheating and possible
consequences.
When in Rome … (assuming
“bribes” are more like “tips”
to service people).
Potential business. Probably a fine line between
tipping and bribing, very risky.
4. Student answers will vary. Some possible answers follow:
a. If a company located a manufacturing facility that creates heavy pollution adjacent to an
elementary school or a retirement home, this action would violate the Common Good
Principle.
b. If the CEO of a corporation accepted a bribe to locate a new facility in a city, this action
would violate the Virtue Principle.
c. If an executive asked a subordinate to alter some numbers in a factor-scoring model so that
the executive’s location choice came out on top, this action would violate the Rights Principle
and the Virtue Principle.
Solutions
1. Given: We have the following information shown below for two plant location alternatives:
Omaha Kansas City
R $185 $185
v $36 $47
Annual FC $1,200,000 $1,400,000
Expected annual
demand (units) (Q)
8,000 12,000
Determine the expected profits per year for each alternative:
Profit = Q(R – v) – FC
Omaha: 8,000($185 – $36) – $1,200,000 = -$8,000
Kansas City: 12,000($185 – $47) – $1,400,000 = $256,000
Conclusion: Kansas City would produce the greater profit.

8-5
Education.
2. Given: We have the following information shown below for three potential locations for a new
outlet:
A B C
R $2.65 $2.65 $2.65
v $1.76 $1.76 $1.76
Monthly FC $5,000 $5,500 $5,800
a. Determine the monthly volume necessary at each location to realize a monthly profit of
$10,000 (round to 1 decimal).
𝑄 =
𝑆𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑡+𝐹𝐶
𝑅−𝑣
Location A Volume:
𝑄 =
𝑅−𝑣
=
10,000 + 5,000
2.65−1.76
= 16,853.9 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑠
Location B Volume:
𝑄 =
𝑅−𝑣
=
10,000 + 5,500
2.65−1.76
= 17,415.7 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑠
Location C Volume:
𝑄 =
𝑅−𝑣
=
10,000 + 5,800
2.65−1.76
= 17,752.8 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑠
b. Determine the expected profits at each facility given the expected monthly volumes:
A = 21,000 per month, B = 22,000 per month, & C = 23,000 per month.
Profit = Q(R – v) – FC
Location A: 21,000($2.65 – $1.76) – $5,000 = $13,690 per month
Location B: 22,000($2.65 – $1.76) – $5,500 = $14,080 per month
Location C: 23,000($2.65 – $1.76) – $5,800 = $14,670 per month
Conclusion: Location C would yield the greatest profits.

8-6
Education.
3. Given: There are two alternatives for which costs and revenue are listed below:
A B
R $17,000 $17,000
v $14,000 $13,000
Annual FC $800,000 $920,000
a. Find the volume at which the two locations have the same total cost (TC).
TC = FC + VC
TC = FC + (Q x v)
TC (Location A) = $800,000 + $14,000Q
TC (Location B) = $920,000 + $13,000Q
Set the two cost equations equal and solve for Q:
$800,000 + $14,000Q = $920,000 + $13,000Q
$14,000Q – $13,000Q = $920,000 – $800,000
$1,000Q = $120,000
Q = $120,000 / $1,000
Q = 120 units
b. Range over which A and B would be superior:
Location A has the lowest fixed costs; therefore, it is preferred at lower volumes.
Conclusion:
Location A Preferred: 0 < 120 units
Location B Preferred: > 120 units
4. Given: There are three alternatives for which costs are given below:
A (new) B (sub) C (expand)
v $500 $2,500 $1,000
Annual FC $250,000 --- $50,000
a. Step 1: Determine the total cost equation for each alternative.
TC = FC + VC
TC = FC + (Q x v)
A: TC = $250,000 + $500Q
B: TC = $2,500Q
C: TC = $50,000 + $1,000Q

8-7
Education.
Step 2: Graph the alternatives.
Step 3: Determine over what range each alternative is preferred.
Looking at the graph, we can tell that Alternative B is preferred over the lowest range,
Alternative C is preferred over the middle range, and Alternative A is preferred over the
highest range.
First, we find the indifference (break-even) point between Alternatives B & C by setting their
total cost equations equal to each other and solving for Q.
B: TC = $2,500Q
C: TC = $50,000 + $1,000Q
$2,500Q = $50,000 + $1,000Q
$2,500Q – $1,000Q = $50,000
$1,500Q = $50,000
Q = $50,000 / $1,500
Q = 33.33 units
Second, we find the indifference (break-even) point between Alternatives C & A by setting
their total cost equations equal to each other and solving for Q.
C: TC = $50,000 + $1,000Q
A: TC = $250,000 + $500Q
$50,000 + $1,000Q = $250,000 + $500Q
$1,000Q – $500Q = $250,000 – $50,000
$500Q = $200,000
Q = $200,000 / $500
Q = 400 units
A (new location)
C (expansion)
B (sub-
contract)
33.3 100 200 300 400
500
400
300
200
100
0
TC
($000)
B C A
[250]
[50]
No. of Boats/yr.

8-8
Education.
Conclusion:
Alternative B preferred: < 33.33 units
Alternative C preferred: > 33.33 units to < 400 units
Alternative A preferred: > 400 units
b. Expected volume of 150 boats:
Based on the graph, Alternative C would yield the lowest total cost (TC) at a volume of 150
boats.
c. Other factors that might be considered when deciding between the expansion and
subcontracting alternatives include subcontracting costs will be known with greater certainty,
subcontracting provides a secondary (backup) source of supply, and expansion offers more
control over operations.
5. Rework Problem 4b using this additional information: Alternative A (New Location) will have an
additional $4,000 in fixed costs per year. Alternative B (Subcontracting) will have $25,000 in
fixed costs per year. Alternative C (Expansion) will have an additional $70,000 in fixed costs per
year.
Step 1: Change the costs in the table.
A (new) B (sub) C (expand)
v $500 $2,500 $1,000
Annual FC $254,000 $25,000 $120,000
Step 2: Determine the total cost equation for each alternative.
TC = FC + VC
TC = FC + (Q x v)
A: TC = $254,000 + $500Q
B: TC = $25,000 + $2,500Q
C: TC = $120,000 + $1,000Q
Step 3: Find TC for 150 units.
A: TC = $254,000 + $500(150) = $329,000
B: TC = $25,000 + $2,500(150) = $400,000
C: TC = $120,000 + $1,000(150) = $270,000
Conclusion: Alternative C (Expand) would yield the lowest total cost for an expected volume of
150 boats.

8-9
Education.
6. Given: Expected annual volume (Q) = 10,000 units. There are three lease alternatives for which
costs are given below:
Memphis Biloxi Birmingham
Lease building &
equipment $40,000 $60,000 $100,000
Transportation $50,000 $60,000 $25,000
v $8 $4 $5
Step 1: Determine fixed cost (FC) for each alternative & add FC to table.
FC = Lease cost + transportation cost.
Memphis Biloxi Birmingham
Lease building &
equipment $40,000 $60,000 $100,000
Transportation $50,000 $60,000 $25,000
Annual FC $90,000 $120,000 $125,000
v $8 $4 $5
Step 2: Determine the total cost equation for each alternative.
TC = FC + VC
TC = FC + (Q x v)
Memphis: $90,000 + $8Q
Biloxi: $120,000 + $4Q
Birmingham: $125,000 + $5Q
Step 3: Find TC for 10,000 units.
Memphis: $90,000 + $8(10,000) = $170,000
Biloxi: $120,000 + $4(10,000) = $160,000
Birmingham: $125,000 + $5(10,000) = $175,000
Conclusion: The Biloxi alternative yields the lowest total cost for an expected annual volume of
10,000 units.

8-10
Education.
7. Given: There are two alternative shop locations for which costs are shown below:
City Outside
R $90 $90
v $30 $40
Monthly FC $7,000 $4,700
a. (1) Monthly profit for Q = 200 cars:
Step 1: Determine total profit equation for each alternative.
Total profit = Q(R – v) – FC
City: Q($90 – $30) – $7,000
Outside: Q($90 – $40) – $4,700
Step 2: Determine total profit for each alternative at the expected monthly volume.
City: 200($90 – $30) – $7,000 = $5,000
Outside: 200($90 – $40) – $4,700 = $5,300
Conclusion: Outside location yields the greatest profit if monthly demand is 200 cars.
(2) Monthly profit for Q = 300 cars:
City: 300($90 – $30) – $7,000 = $11,000
Outside: 300($90 – $40) – $4,700 = $10,300
Conclusion: City location yields the greatest profit if monthly demand is 300 cars.
b. Determine the indifference (break-even point) between the two locations.
Set their total profit equations equal to each other and solve for Q:
Q($90 – $30) – $7,000 = Q($90 – $40) – $4,700
$60Q – $7,000 = $50Q – $4,700
$60Q – $50Q = -$4,700 – (-$7,000)
$10Q = $2,300
Q = $2,300 / $10
Q = 230 cars

8-11
Education.
8. Given: We are provided the location factors below for four different types of organizations.
Factor Local bank Steel mill Food warehouse Public school
Convenience for
customers
Attractiveness of
building
Nearness to raw
materials
Large amounts
of power
Pollution
controls
Labor cost and
availability
Transportation
costs
Construction
costs
Student answers will vary regarding how they rate the importance of each factor in terms of
making location decisions using L = low importance, M = moderate importance, and H = high
importance. One possible set of answers is given below.
Factor Local bank Steel mill Food warehouse Public school
Convenience for
customers H L M–H M–H
Attractiveness of
building H L M M–H
Nearness to raw
materials L H L M
Large amounts
of power L H L L
Pollution
controls L H L L
Labor cost and
availability L M L L
Transportation
costs L M–H M–H M
Construction
costs M H M M–H

8-12
Education.
9. Given: We are given factors, weights, and factor rating scores for three locations. Scores range
from 1 – 100 (best).
Location Score
Factor Wt. A B C
Convenience .15 80 70 60
Parking .20 72 76 92
Display area .18 88 90 90
Shopper traffic .27 94 86 80
Operating costs .10 98 90 82
Neighborhood .10 96 85 75
1.00
Multiply the factor weight by the score for each factor and sum the results for each location
alternative.
Weight x Score
Factor Wt. A B C
Convenience .15 .15(80) = 12.00 .15(70) = 10.50 .15(60) = 9.00
Parking .20 .20(72) = 14.40 .20(76) = 15.20 .20(92) = 18.40
Display area .18 .18(88) = 15.84 .18(90) = 16.20 .18(90) = 16.20
Shopper traffic .27 .27(94) = 25.38 .27(86) = 23.22 .27(80) = 21.60
Operating costs .10 .10(98) = 9.80 .10(90) = 9.00 .10(82) = 8.20
Neighborhood .10 .10(96) = 9.60 .10(85) = 8.50 .10(75) = 7.50
1.00 87.02 82.62 80.90
Conclusion: Based on composite score, Location A seems to be the best.

8-13
Education.
10. Given: We are given factors, weights, and factor rating scores for three locations. Scores range
from 1 – 100 (best).
Location Score
Factor Wt. East #1 East #2 West
Initial Cost 8 100 150 140
Traffic 10 40 40 30
Maintenance 6 20 25 18
Dock space 6 25 10 12
Neighborhood 4 12 8 15
Multiply the factor weight by the score for each factor and sum the results for each location
alternative.
Weight x Score
Factor Wt. East #1 East #2 West
Initial Cost 8 8(100) = 800 8(150) = 1200 8(140) = 1120
Traffic 10 10(40) = 400 10(40) = 400 10(30) = 300
Maintenance 6 6(20) = 120 6(25) = 150 6(18) = 108
Dock space 6 6(25) = 150 6(10) = 60 6(12) = 72
Neighborhood 4 4(12) = 48 4(8) = 32 4(15) = 60
1518 1842 1660
Conclusion: Based on composite score, Location East #2 seems to be the best.

8-14
Education.
11. Given: We are given factors and factor rating scores for three locations. Scores range from 1 – 10
(best).
Location Score
Factor A B C
Business services 9 5 5
Community services 7 6 7
Real estate cost 3 8 7
Construction costs 5 6 5
Cost of living 4 7 8
Taxes 5 5 4
Transportation 6 7 8
a. Assume that the manager weights each factor equally.
Because there are seven factors, each factor will have a weight of 1/7. Therefore, we can
sum the scores and divide by 7 to determine the weighted score for each alternative.
Factor A B C
Business services 9 5 5
Community services 7 6 7
Real estate cost 3 8 7
Construction costs 5 6 5
Cost of living 4 7 8
Taxes 5 5 4
Transportation 6 7 8
Total 39 44 44
Total / 7 5.57 6.29 6.29
Conclusion: Location B or C is best, followed by Location A.

8-15
Education.
b. Two of the factors (business services and construction costs) are given weights that are
double the weights of the other factors.
We will give these two factors weights of 2/9 and the other five factors weights of 1/9.
Then, we will multiply each factor’s rating by that factor’s weight.
Factor Location Score Weight Weight x Score
Business Services 9 5 5 2/9 18/9 10/9 10/9
Community Services 7 6 7 1/9 7/9 6/9 7/9
Real Estate Cost 3 8 7 1/9 3/9 8/9 7/9
Construction Costs 5 6 5 2/9 10/9 12/9 10/9
Cost of Living 4 7 8 1/9 4/9 7/9 8/9
Taxes 5 5 4 1/9 5/9 5/9 4/9
Transportation 6 7 8 1/9 6/9 7/9 8/9
1.0 53/9 55/9 54/9
Conclusion: Location B is best, followed by Location C, and then Location A.
12. Given: A toy manufacturer produces toys in five locations and will ship raw materials from a
new, centralized warehouse. The monthly quantities to be shipped to each location are identical.
The coordinates for all five locations are shown below.
Location X Y
A 3 7
B 8 2
C 4 6
D 4 1
E 6 4
We know that the quantities to be shipped to each location are identical so we can eliminate
quantities from consideration. The correct formulas for the center of gravity are shown below:
𝑥̅ =
∑ 𝑥𝑖
𝑛
𝑦
̅ =
∑ 𝑦𝑖
𝑛

8-16
Education.
Sum the values in each coordinate’s column.
Location X Y
A 3 7
B 8 2
C 4 6
D 4 1
E 6 4
Sum 25 20
n = 5 locations.
𝑥̅ =
∑ 𝑥𝑖
𝑛
=
25
5
= 5.0 (round to 1 decimal)
𝑦
̅ =
∑ 𝑦𝑖
𝑛
=
20
5
Conclusion: The new warehouse should be located at 5.0, 4.0.
13. Given: A clothing manufacturer produces clothes at four locations. The manufacturer must
determine the location of a central shipping point. The coordinates and weekly shipping quantities
to the four locations are shown below.
Location X Y
Weekly
Quantity (Q)
A 5 7 15
B 6 9 20
C 3 9 25
D 9 4 30
The correct formulas for the center of gravity are shown below:
𝑥̅ =
∑ 𝑥𝑖𝑄𝑖
∑ 𝑄𝑖
𝑦
̅ =
∑ 𝑦𝑖𝑄𝑖
∑ 𝑄𝑖
Sum the values in the quantity column.
Location X Y
Weekly
Quantity (Q)
A 5 7 15
B 6 9 20
C 3 9 25
D 9 4 30
Sum 90

8-17
Education.
𝑥̅ =
∑ 𝑄𝑖
=
5(15)+6(20)+3(25)+9(30)
90
𝑦
̅ =
∑ 𝑄𝑖
=
7(15)+9(20)+9(25)+4(30)
90
Conclusion: The central shipping point should be located at 6.0, 7.0.
14. Given: A company handling hazardous waste wants to minimize shipping cost for shipments to a
disposal center from five stations that it operates. The coordinates for each of the five stations and
the volumes shipped to the new disposal center are shown below.
Location X Y
Volume in Tons
per Day (Q)
1 10 5 26
2 4 1 9
3 4 7 25
4 2 6 30
5 8 7 40
𝑥̅ =
∑ 𝑄𝑖
𝑦
̅ =
∑ 𝑄𝑖
Sum the values in the quantity column.
Location X Y
Volume
Tons per
Day (Q)
1 10 5 26
2 4 1 9
3 4 7 25
4 2 6 30
5 8 7 40
Sum 130
𝑥̅ =
∑ 𝑄𝑖
=
10(26)+4(9)+4(25)+2(30)+8(40)
130
𝑦
̅ =
∑ 𝑄𝑖
=
5(26)+1(9)+7(25)+6(30)+7(40)
130
Conclusion: The disposal center should be located at 6.0, 6.0.

8-18
Education.
15. Given: A company is considering two locations for a distribution center: L1 & L2. The five
shipment destinations and the monthly shipments (Q) to all five destinations are shown below.
Destination Q
D1 900
D2 300
D3 700
D4 600
D5 1200
Step 1: Use the map to determine the coordinates of each destination (use a ruler if necessary).
Add those coordinates to the table. Then, sum the values in the quantity column.
Destination X Y Q
D1 1 2 900
D2 2 4 300
D3 3 1 700
D4 4 2 600
D5 5 3 1200
Sum 3700
Step 2: Determine the center of gravity for the optimal location for the distribution center.
𝑥̅ =
∑ 𝑄𝑖
=
1(900)+2(300)+3(700)+4(600)+5(1200)
3700
𝑦
̅ =
∑ 𝑄𝑖
=
2(900)+4(300)+1(700)+2(600)+3(1200)
3700
Step 3: Use the map to determine the coordinates for L1 & L2. Use a ruler if necessary.
L1 coordinates ≈ 2.6, 2.4
L2 coordinates ≈ 3.5, 2.5
Step 4: Determine the distance between each proposed location and the center of gravity.
Distance between two points = |Difference in X coordinates| + |Difference in Y coordinates|
Distance between L1 & Center of Gravity |2.6 – 3.2| + |2.4 – 2.3| = 0.6 + 0.1 = 0.7
Distance between L2 & Center of Gravity |3.5 – 3.2| + |2.5 – 2.3| = 0.3 + 0.2 = 0.5
Conclusion: L2 is closer to the center of gravity and is the better site.

8-19
Education.
Case: Hello Walmart?
[This is a good case for in-class discussion. Three groups can be formed: one to take the position of
residents, one to take the position of small businesses, and one to take the position of Walmart.]
1. Owners of small businesses:
Pro: Restaurants and other businesses that do not compete directly with Walmart generally would
welcome the additional traffic that Walmart would attract.
Con: Businesses that compete directly would not fare well unless they provided a product or
service value that would offset Walmart’s lower price.
2. Residents:
Pro: Another shopping option, lower prices, and other, non-competing businesses that would be
attracted by the increased traffic that Walmart would generate.
Con: Increased traffic and noise, construction inconveniences, loss of small-town atmosphere,
and loss of local businesses and jobs.
Walmart responses: The company would be a “good neighbor,” supporting the community
and providing jobs for low-skilled and handicapped workers. Construction would create
construction jobs and generate taxes and revenues for the community. Shoppers would benefit
from Walmart’s low prices. In addition, there would be an increase in the tax base.
Enrichment Module
A. Distance Measurement
B. Center of Gravity Method with Predetermined Sites
C. Factor Scoring Model
D. Emergency Facility Location
A. Distance Measurement
The companies measure distance when making two important decisions:
1. Facility Layout Decision:
Distances are estimated/measured in determining the best layout of equipment or departments
within a manufacturing facility such as a plant, a distribution facility such as a warehouse, or
a service facility such as a department store. Distance is an important input in determining the
best possible layout that minimizes the total distance traveled between departments or
workstations.
2. Facility Location Decision:
Distance measurement also is a very important input measure in determining the best location
for a new service or a manufacturing facility, relocation of an existing facility, or elimination
of an existing facility.
In most instances, distance measurements are used to estimate the distances between existing
warehouses or plants and the newly proposed potential location sites. The estimated distance
measures then are used to estimate the transportation costs. Transportation cost is considered
a critical factor in the facility location decision.

8-20
Education.
Distance Measurement Methods:
There are four methods of measuring distance:
1. Empirical Method
2. Rectilinear Method
3. Euclidean Method
4. Weighted Average Method
1. Empirical Method:
The empirical method is the most accurate distance measure. Using the empirical method,
distance can be measured in one of two ways. The first type of empirical measurement is the
actual recorded travel distance, where a driver records the distance based on a vehicle
odometer reading. The second type of empirical measurement of distance is estimation from a
map. When there are no actual travel data available, then the map estimation can be very
useful. However, the actual travel data obviously provides a more accurate measure of
distance than the map estimation.
The main advantage of using either empirical method is that they generally provide the most
accurate distance measures. On the other hand, the disadvantage is that it can be very time
consuming to gather the data and use it as a part of a computerized layout or a location
technique, especially if there are many existing and/or proposed locations.
2. Rectilinear Method
This mathematical method is very easy to compute and lends itself to easy implementation of
computerized layout or location techniques. Rectilinear method requires the use of a two
dimensional space with a horizontal axis, X, and a vertical axis, Y. Rectilinear distance often
is called “Manhattan” distance because it requires going around the block when no straight-
line route is available.
If A and B are the locations in question, the Rectilinear distance between A and B is given by
the following formula:
Dr = B
A
B
A Y
Y
X
X −
+
−
Where:
Dr = Rectilinear distance measure between location A and location B;
XA = X coordinate of location A;
XB = X coordinate of location B;
YA = Y coordinate of location A;
YB = Y coordinate of location B.

Another Random Scribd Document
with Unrelated Content

sort that is used on an airplane which is built to “climb” rather than
to develop speed.
As the arched wing cuts through the air it leaves above it a partial
vacuum. Nature always tends to fill a vacuum, and so the airplane is
drawn upward to fill this space. As the wings cut through the air a
new vacuum is constantly created and so the airplane mounts higher
and higher. The airplane is being carried upward by two forces: the
air pressure beneath it and the vacuum above it which draws it up.
The air pressure beneath it increases with the speed at which the
airplane is traveling, and it has a tendency to press the wing into a
more horizontal position, thus destroying its climbing properties. At
the same time, when this happens, the thick front section of the
wing presents a great “head resistance” which retards progress, and
a very high speed becomes impossible.
Wings of this type can never be used on an airplane which is
intended to travel at high speed. They were used on the heavy
bombing and battle planes of the Great War, for they are capable of
lifting a very great weight. But on the scouting planes, where speed
is essential, a totally different sort of surface was employed. Here
the plane is very little arched and of almost even thickness, tapering
only very slightly to the rear edge. It also tapers somewhat at the
front, so as to lessen its “head resistance” as it cuts through the air.
Such a surface creates little vacuum above it, and consequently
has not a great lifting power. On the other hand it offers little “head
resistance” and so permits a high speed. And right here it should be
mentioned that a powerful motor does not in itself make a swift
airplane, unless the wings are right,—for if the wings create a strong

resistance in front of the airplane they destroy speed as fast as the
motor generates it.
Remember that the lifting power of the airplane wing is made up
of two factors. First, there is the resistance or the supporting air
pressure created by the weight and speed of the wing; second, the
arch of the wing creates a vacuum above it which tends to lift the
airplane up. Now when for speed the arch is made very slight, the
lifting power can still be increased by increasing the area of the
wing, thus adding to the upward pressure. Thus for certain war
duties an airplane with very large, comparatively flat wings can
develop both a very good lifting power and a very high speed.
We have already mentioned the “head resistance” of the airplane
wing. If the wing could strike the air in such a way as to sharply
divide it into currents flowing above and below, there would be no
head resistance. But the very arch of the wing in front gives it a
certain amount of thickness where it strikes the air, so that instead
of flowing above or below, a portion of the air is pushed along in
front, retarding the progress of the airplane. This resistance is called
by aviators the “drift.” The best wing is the one which has the
maximum lifting power with the minimum head resistance, or, to use
technical language, the greatest “lift” in proportion to its “drift.”
Of course, not only the wing but all parts of the airplane offer
resistance to the air. In order to reduce this total head resistance to
the minimum, every effort is made to give the body or “fuselage” of
the airplane a “streamline” form,—that is, a shape, such as that of a
fish or a bird, which allows the air to separate and flow past it with
little disturbance. For this purpose the fuselage of the airplane is

usually somewhat rounded and tapering toward the ends, often “egg
shaped” at the nose.
The method of “wing warping” invented by the Wright brothers is
still used on all modern airplanes to preserve lateral stability. The
part of the wing which can be warped is called the aileron. There are
two ailerons on every wing, one on each side at the rear, and they
may be raised or drawn down by the action of a lever operated by
the pilot.
If the pilot feels that the left side of his machine is falling, he
draws down the aileron on that side and raises the right hand
aileron. The aileron which is lowered catches the air currents flowing
beneath the wing on that side. At the same time the raised aileron
on the right lessens the pressure under the wing on that side and so
gives it a tendency to fall. In this way, in a fraction of a minute the
wings are brought level again and lateral stability is restored.
Whereas the old Wright biplane had an elevating plane in front of
the main planes, most machines to-day have the elevating surfaces
at the rear. By raising the “elevators” an upward motion is obtained,
or by lowering them, a downward motion.
Steering to right and left is accomplished by a rudder at the rear
of the airplane body or “fuselage.” This rudder may be turned to
right or to left, working on a hinge.

WRIGHT STARTING WITH PASSENGER
AN EARLY FARMAN MACHINE PRIOR TO START

CHAPTER III
The Pioneers
While the Wright brothers, lacking both funds and encouragement
to continue their remarkable project, remained, from 1905 to 1908
in almost total obscurity—their wonderful flying machine packed
away ignominiously in a barn,—in France a number of eager
experimenters were working assiduously to outstrip them, and it was
only by great good fortune that when Wilbur Wright arrived in
France in 1908 he did not find himself beaten from the field. Actually
the Wright machine was far in advance of the early French models,
and although the French, with true spirit of sportsmanship, were
quick to admit it when the fact was demonstrated, yet prior to 1908
they had no idea that such was the case, and were enthusiastically
proud of their home-made models.
Among the very first of the French pioneers of flight was that
gallant little Brazilian, Santos-Dumont, whose exploits with the
dirigible had done so much to popularize air sports. His name was a
household word with the French, who literally lionized him.
Impatient of the limited opportunities for adventure presented by
the dirigible, Santos-Dumont cast about in his mind for some means
of procuring a more agile steed on which to perform his aerial tricks.
In 1904 he became deeply interested in the subject of gliding, and
made up his mind to try a few gliding experiments of his own. Like
everything else he had attempted his method of attacking this new
problem was startlingly original. Lilienthal and the other gliders had
all made their flights above the solid ground. Santos-Dumont liked

the idea of rising from the water much better. He ordered built for
him a glider of his own design for this particular purpose. On every
clear day when the wind was favorable, the plucky little aeronaut
was out, learning to use his new-found wings. His glider, which
floated on the surface of the water, had to be towed swiftly for some
distance by a boat in order to give it the initial speed which Lilienthal
secured by taking advantage of the force of gravity in his downward
jump from the hilltop. Once he felt his speed to be sufficient,
Santos-Dumont gently inclined his wings upward to catch the air
current. To the surprise of every one he was remarkably successful.
He actually succeeded in soaring short distances, and after a series
of efforts he acquired a fair amount of skill in the use of his glider
apparatus.
The next step was to attach some motive power to his flying
machine. Before very long he had ready for trial a much more
pretentious biplane glider, equipped with an 8 cylinder motor which
drove a two-bladed aluminum propeller, and fitted with several
original appliances to increase its soaring powers and its stability. In
front was a curious arrangement resembling a box-kite, which was
intended to fulfil the same purpose as the elevating plane which the
Wright brothers placed in front of the two main planes of their
machine. Santos-Dumont had experienced the same trouble as all
the other gliders: the difficulty of keeping his machine in a horizontal
position. The tiniest gust, blowing from one side or the other, was
sufficient to cause it to lose its balance, and over it would topple
sidewise. To overcome this obstacle the Wright brothers had
adopted the ingenious method of wing-warping, imitated directly
from the habits of birds. Santos-Dumont was not nearly of so
scientific a turn of mind as the two great American pioneers. Without
having gone so deeply into the subject, he determined to place

upright planes between his main planes, to ward off gusts and
increase the lateral stability. The idea was not a bad one, though far
from being the best. In the summer of 1906 he flew with his glider
successfully very short distances. In October of the same year he
accomplished a demonstration flight of 200 feet at Bagatelle, near
Paris. At the present day when airplanes go soaring above our heads
faster than express trains, making long, continuous cross-country
flights, that journey of 200 feet seems humorous, but at the time it
was the European record. It aroused a great deal of popular
enthusiasm, for the French, with their vivid powers of imagination,
were quick to see the possibilities in this new, heavier-than-air
contrivance. At once the Brazilian set to work to outstrip this first
achievement. This time his originality took an entirely new turn.
Instead of the biplane type he decided on a monoplane, and he
began laying out plans for a monoplane so tiny, yet so efficient, that
it was destined to become famous. But it was several years before
this miniature flier was ready, and so for a while the idol of the
French public dropped almost completely out of sight.
In the meantime others were up and doing in France. Henry
Farman, who already had made his name famous in motor car
racing, was the next to win popular acclaim for exploits in the air.
Farman was known as a man of the most consummate daring, cool-
headedness in emergency, and quick judgment. An Englishman by
birth, he had resided all his life in France, where with his brother
Maurice he had achieved an enviable reputation as a sportsman.
Farman afterward designed and constructed airplanes of his own,
but it was in one built by the Voisin brothers that he first took to the
air.

The Voisins were very ambitious indeed in their first airplane
project. The machine which they built was both large and heavy, and
possessed of many unscientific features. Like the Wrights' machine it
had two large horizontal planes, in front of which was placed a small
elevating plane, which could be inclined up or down to lift the
airplane into the air or bring it to earth again. Unlike the Wright
model it had a large “tail,” or horizontal plane at the rear, intended to
give it increased longitudinal stability. This feature represented an
improvement. The Wrights had to keep their machine on the level by
raising or lowering the front elevating plane in such a way as to
counteract any pitching motion, but the tail of the Voisin biplane
gave it a great deal more steadiness in the air. Fitted to the tail was
a rudder, by which turning to right or left was accomplished. But the
Voisin brothers had no wing-warping device on their large flier.
Instead they used the upright curtains or planes between the main
planes, which we have already seen on the machine designed by
Santos-Dumont. Their airplane was equipped with an 8-cylinder
motor, which turned a large propeller.
In this large and unwieldy machine, weighing possibly 1400
pounds, Henry Farman made a short flight in a closed circuit in
1908. At the time it was the record flight in Europe, and the French
people fondly imagined it was the best in the world. That same year
Wilbur Wright arrived on French soil and showed them in a few
astounding experiments what the Wright biplane could do.
The successes of this tall, untalkative American, who had come
over to France and with ease made the aerial adventures of Santos-
Dumont and Farman seem like the first efforts of a baby learning to
crawl, greatly as they surprised, and, perhaps, disappointed the
French people, in the outcome had the result of spurring Frenchmen

on to greater effort in the problem of airship design. Before the end
of 1908 Henry Farman, in an improved Voisin, had wrested back the
lost honors by flights which were longer than those made by Wilbur
Wright.
And other Frenchmen were hard at work. After building a number
of machines and meeting with many accidents and failures, Blériot
emerged in the summer of 1909 with a successful monoplane. At
almost the same time the Antoinette monoplane made its
appearance, and soon these two similar machines were pitted
against each other in a famous contest.
The London Daily Mail, with the intention of stimulating progress
in aviation, put up a prize of £1000 for the first machine to fly the
British Channel. In July, Blériot brought his monoplane to Calais; and
Hubert Latham appeared as his antagonist, with an Antoinette
machine. Both of the contestants were skilled pilots, and both were
men of fearless daring. The feat which they were about to attempt
required men with those qualities, for in these pioneer days of
aviation it was not the easy task to fly the Channel which at first
glance it might seem to be. Over the Channel the winds were almost
always very severe, and they represented the greatest danger the
airman had to face. The first airplanes had so small a factor of
stability that it was almost impossible to fly them in even the
gentlest breeze. The most intrepid aviators never once thought of
attempting flight in unfavorable weather. To be overturned in
crossing the Channel meant taking a big risk of death, and both
Blériot and Latham realized that they were taking their lives in their
hands in undertaking the trip. They had a long wait for calm
weather, but on July 24th conditions seemed right for a start the
next morning. Just at dawn Latham flew out across the sea and

disappeared in the distance. Not very long behind him, Blériot,
having tested with the utmost care every part of his little machine,
climbed into the pilot's seat, and with a “Good-by” to the little group
of mechanics and friends who stood about, sped away, hot on the
trail.
On and on flew Latham in his larger Antoinette monoplane, and
the hope of victory began to loom big. Far out over the Channel
however, his engine suddenly “went wrong,” as engines in those
days had a habit of doing, and the much feared thing happened: he
began to fall. In a very few moments the plucky pilot was clinging to
his airplane, as it floated for a few moments on the choppy sea.
Before it could sink a vessel had hurried to the rescue, and Latham
was hauled on board, disappointed, but safe.
Blériot, meanwhile, was far from being sure of his course as he
flew on steadily through the early morning haze. But his engine
continued to run smoothly, and finally far ahead, the white cliffs of
England began to emerge out of the distance. With joy in his heart
the Frenchman flew proudly in over the land and brought his
airplane to the earth in the vicinity of Dover Castle. He was greeted
as a hero by the British and the glad message of his triumph was
speeded back to Calais.
Loth to be behindhand in airplane activities, America was also
busily at work developing the heavier-than-air machine, and another
famous name had by this time been added to that of the Wright
brothers. By 1909 Glenn Curtiss with a group of distinguished co-
experimenters had succeeded in constructing several very interesting
flying machines. Curtiss' story is an interesting one. In 1900 he was
the owner of a small bicycle shop in Hammondsport, New York. He

had a mania for speed, having ridden in many cycling races, and it
was he who first thought of attaching a motor to a bicycle for
greater speed. He soon sprang into the limelight as a motorcyclist
and a manufacturer of motorcycles. A small factory went up at
Hammondsport, and achieved a reputation for the very good motors
it turned out.
Curtiss first became interested in flying through an order he
received from Captain Thomas Scott Baldwin for a motor to be used
in a dirigible balloon. He set to work on the problem of constructing
a motor suitable for the purpose, and, as might be expected, he
became fascinated with the possibilities of flight. Curtiss and Baldwin
made some very interesting experiments with the dirigible. Then, in
1905, Curtiss made the acquaintance of Dr. Alexander Bell. The
famous inventor of the telephone was engrossed in the study of
gliding machines, and had been carrying on a series of experiments
with kites by which he hoped to evolve a scientific airplane. To
further these experiments he had called in as associates in the work
two engineers, F. W. Baldwin, and J. A. D. McCurdy, while Lt.
Thomas Selfridge of the U. S. Army was also greatly interested.
Thus it came about that in the summer of 1907 this group of
capable men formed what they were pleased to call the “Aerial
Experiment Association,” of which Curtiss was perhaps the moving
spirit. The first machine built by the Association was christened the
Red Wing, the second the White Wing; the third was called the June
Bug, and it proved so successful a flier that on July 4th, 1908, it was
awarded the Scientific American trophy for a flight of one kilometer,
or five-eighths of a mile.

While, in France, Farman and the Voisin brothers, Latham and
Blériot were pushing steadily along the rough road to aviation
successes,—in America, the Wright brothers and Curtiss with his
associates, were demonstrating to the public on this side of the
water what flying machines could do.
In fact, the airplane had definitely begun to assert its superiority
as master of the air, and many eyes in all parts of the world were
fixed on it and on the great future possibilities for which it stood.
Everywhere, warm interest had been aroused, and, at least in
France, the military importance of the heavier-than-air machine was
coming to be realized.
Now the time was ripe for the great public demonstration of the
world's airplanes which took place at Rheims in August, 1909. The
Rheims Meeting is probably the most memorable event in the history
of aviation. It placed the work of a dozen or more earnest
experimenters definitely in the limelight, and gave the chance for
comparisons, for a summing up of knowledge on the subject of
flight, and for a test of strength, which resulted in the mighty
impetus to aerial progress which followed immediately afterward.
Here at Rheims were gathered many famous flying men who
already had made their names known throughout Europe and
America. There were Farman, Latham, Paulhan, Blériot, Curtiss, and
the three who flew Wright machines, the Comte de Lambert, Lefevre
and Tissandier,—as well as many others, for there were thirty
contestants in all. Many unusual feats delighted the spectators.
Lefevre, a student of the Wrights, and up to that time unknown,
amazed the assemblage by his wonderful aerial stunts. He circled

gracefully in the air, making sharp, unexpected turns with the utmost
skill, and winning round after round of applause.
Curtiss and Blériot emerged as contestants for the speed prize
over 10 kilometers, and after several breathless attempts in which
records were made and broken, the honor was finally carried off by
Blériot, who covered the distance of 10 kilometers (about 6¼ miles)
in 7 minutes, 47.80 seconds. Curtiss replied by beating his famous
opponent in the contest for the Gordon Bennett Cup, offered for the
fastest flight over 20 kilometers; and Curtiss also was the winner of
the 30 kilometer race.
It was Farman, in a biplane of his own design, who surprised
every one by his remarkable performance, and turned out to be the
victor of the occasion. Flying for three hours without stopping, round
the course, he covered 112 miles without the slightest difficulty, and
was only forced to make a landing because of the rapidly
approaching dusk. For his feat he was awarded the Grand Prize, and
was hailed as the most successful of all the contestants.
Finally Latham, in an Antoinette monoplane, proved he had the
machine with the greatest climbing powers, and carried off the
Altitude prize on the closing day of the meeting.
Among those who looked on at the famous Rheims Meeting of
1909 there were none more keenly and intelligently interested than
the representatives of the French military authorities. They had
come for two reasons: to ascertain at first hand which were the best
machines and to order them for the French Government; on the
other hand, to encourage to the fullest extent possible all those men
present who were earnestly working in the interests of aviation.
France was ready and willing to spend money freely for this purpose,

and the Rheims Meeting resulted in orders for machines of several
makes. Some of these were regarded as having great possibilities
from a military point of view; and others, though not looked on so
favorably, were purchased as a sign of goodwill and support to
future experiment. It was this far-seeing patronage which paved the
way for France's later aerial triumphs, for it gave her a diversity of
machines and a devoted coterie of workers all following original lines
of experiment.
Let us glance for a moment at the little group of machines which
stood out by their merits most prominently at that Rheims Meeting
of 1909, and which gave the greatest promise for the future. To-day
they seem antiquated indeed, but for all their rather curious
appearance they were the legitimate forefathers of our powerful
modern airplanes. Among the biplanes, those especially worthy of
note were the Farman, the Wright, and the Voisin; while the Blériot
and Antoinette monoplanes gave a most excellent account of
themselves.
Farman, who had first learned to fly in a machine designed and
built by the Voisin brothers, was far from satisfied with his sluggish,
unmanageable steed and at once set to work on a design of his
own. His one idea was to construct a biplane of light weight, speed
and general efficiency. He did away with the box-kite tail of the
Voisin model and substituted two horizontal tail planes with a vertical
rudder fitted between them. Instead of the vertical planes or
“curtains” between the main planes by which the Voisins attempted
to preserve the lateral stability of their airplane, Farman adopted the
“wing-warping” plan of the Wrights in a somewhat modified form.
The Wright machine, it will be remembered, had wings whose rear
portions were flexible, so that they could be drawn down at the will

of the pilot. If the latter felt that the left side of his machine was
falling he simply drew down or “warped” the rear edges of the wings
on that side. The air rushing under the wing was blocked in its
passage and the greater pressure thus created forced the wing
upward on the left side until balance had been restored. Acting on
this principle, Farman attached to the rear edges of the main planes
at each side a flap, or as it is called to-day, an aileron, which worked
on a hinge, so that it could be raised or lowered.
Another novel feature of this first Farman biplane was its method
of starting and landing. Below the planes had been placed two long
wooden skids, and to these small, pneumatic tired wheels had been
attached by means of strong rubber bands. In rising, the airplane
ran along the ground on these wheels until it had acquired the
momentum necessary to lift it into the air. When a descent was
made, the force of contact with the ground sent the wheels flying
upward on their flexible bands, and allowed the strong skids to
absorb the shock. This underbody or chassis was a distinct
improvement on anything that had yet been devised, for it was light
in weight and efficient.
In one other important respect the Farman machine was superior
to all those demonstrated at Rheims in 1909, and that was in its
engine. Airplane engines up to this time had been nothing more or
less than automobile engines built as light in weight as possible. But
in France a new engine had made its appearance, designed
especially for airplane needs. Hooted as a freak at the first, and
rejected by experts as “impossible,” it carried Farman round the
course on his three hour flight without a hitch and made him the
winner of the Grand Prize. This remarkable engine was the Gnome
and the reason for its excellence lay in its unusual system of cooling.

The overheating of his motor was a thorn in the flesh of many an
early aviator. An engine which gave good service in an automobile
would invariably overheat in an airplane because of the constant
high speed at which it must run. Now motor car engines of whatever
type, and whether water-cooled or air-cooled, had fixed cylinders
and a revolving crankshaft. In the Gnome motor the cylinders
revolved and the crankshaft was stationary. Flying through the air at
tremendous speed they necessarily cooled themselves. This was the
secret of the perfect running of the Farman biplane. Though Farman
had been the first to recognize the merits of the Gnome and install it
in his machine, he was not the last, for after the Rheims Meeting it
rapidly became the favorite of practically all builders.
Next to the Farman, the Wright machine was probably the best for
all-around service of the many demonstrated at the great meeting.
Its one greatest disadvantage was the fact that it had to be
launched from a rail. It carried no wheels—merely skids for landing—
and so to gain initial momentum it had to be placed on a small
trolley which ran down a rail. Such a method of gaining speed was
exceedingly complicated, and the question at once arises: What
would the pilot do if forced to make a landing far from his starting
point? Of course it would have been quite impossible for him to have
risen into the air for a return trip, and his machine, though in perfect
condition, would have to have been packed and carted back home.
The Voisin biplane, though improved since Farman had piloted it in
1908, was still in 1909 an overly heavy, slow flying machine, more or
less difficult to steer. It still had its “box-kite” tail and its upright
curtains between the main planes. And it carried a rather weighty
landing chassis built of hollow metal tubing, to which were attached

pneumatic-tired bicycle wheels. Small wheels were also placed under
the tail, to support it when running along the ground.
The Blériot monoplane could have claimed the honors for
simplicity. It had a body built up of light woodwork, over part of
which fabric had been stretched. On either side of the body
extended the two supporting planes, supported above and below by
wires. In the front of the body was the engine and at the rear
extremity a small stabilizing plane. At the ends of the stabilizing
plane, on either side, were two small planes which could be moved
up and down. They took the place of the front elevating plane
employed on the other machines. Just behind the stabilizing plane
was the vertical rudder, which turned to right or left. The wings of
the Blériot had the Wright brothers' wing warping arrangement. The
pilot sat just behind the engine, operating the controls.
Larger in wing span and longer in body than the Blériot was the
Antoinette monoplane. Like the Blériot it had its elevating planes at
the rear, and carried its engine in the bow. Instead of the wing
warping device it made use of movable flaps or ailerons at the rear
edges of the wings. Another idea had been incorporated in this
machine for the purpose of maintaining lateral stability. Its wings,
instead of extending in a horizontal position from the body were
inclined slightly upward,—a plan which met with serious
condemnation from the engineering experts.
These five then, were the machines which claimed most attention
in 1909, although many others,—as for instance the R. E. P.
monoplane, built by M. Esnault-Pelterie, and the Breguet biplane—
were flown at the famous meeting.

The Rheims event had been hugely successful, and the news of
the splendid achievements of the airplane spread like wildfire
throughout the world. Smaller meetings were arranged for in other
cities, and everywhere the great aviators were called for to give
exhibition flights. In September Santos-Dumont came once more
before the public with the tiniest monoplane in existence, a little
machine which he called the Demoiselle, and in a series of
experiments proved its remarkable capabilities. Santos-Dumont had
been residing for some time at St. Cyr, where he had worked on his
designs for the Demoiselle. One of his aviator friends, M. Guffroy,
was also experimenting at Buc, five miles away. The two men agreed
that the one who first completed an airplane should fly in it to the
home of the other and collect £40. In 6 minutes and 1 second
Santos-Dumont covered the five miles on the 14th of September and
claimed his reward.

WRIGHT MACHINE RISING JUST AFTER LEAVING THE
RAIL

AN EARLY WRIGHT MACHINE, SHOWING ITS METHOD
OF STARTING FROM A RAIL
Orville Wright at about this time was exhibiting his airplane in
Berlin and winning new laurels before the Crown Prince and Princess
of Germany. By the middle of October he was in France, and was
present at the Juvisy Meeting, when the Comte de Lambert, leaving
the course unexpectedly, made his sensational flight over Paris,
circling round the Eiffel Tower at a height of 1,000 feet. Paris was
filled with amazement and delight at the sight of an airplane soaring
over the city. It was almost an hour before the Comte de Lambert,
flying with the greatest ease, arrived once more at the course, to be
overwhelmed with congratulations.

Copyright Underwood and Underwood
THE PROPELLER DEPARTMENT IN ONE OF THE GREAT
CURTISS FACTORIES
On November 3rd, Henry Farman made a world's record of 144
miles in 4 hours, 17 minutes and 53 seconds, wresting from Wilbur
Wright the coveted Michelin Cup. In December Blériot attempted an
exhibition of his monoplane in Constantinople, but his machine lost
its balance in the severe wind which was blowing and came crashing
to earth. Though severely wounded, the great aviator recovered
rapidly, justifying the oft-repeated superstition that he was
possessed of a charmed life.
Thus the year which had meant so much in the forward march of
aviation drew to a close. Beginning at Rheims, the reputation of the
heavier-than-air machine had spread in ever widening circles
throughout all civilized lands. Most important of all, the military
authorities of several nations had opened their eyes to tremendous
importance of the airplane as an implement of warfare, and their
realization of this fact was destined to bring about new and weighty
developments within the next few years. Among the great European
states only one nation slept while the rest were up and doing, and

she saw the day when, with the shadow of war looming on the
horizon, she had cause for bitter regrets.
The beginning of 1910 saw the famous aviator Paulhan in the
United States for a series of exhibition flights. On January 12th he
made a world's record for altitude, climbing at Los Angeles to a
height of 4,140 feet, in a Farman machine.
In the Spring there occurred in England a memorable contest
between Paulhan and a young flier who up to that time was unheard
of, but who rapidly made a reputation for himself in aviation. The
London Daily Mail, which had already done so much to arouse
enthusiasm for the airplane in the British Isles, now offered a prize
of £10,000 for the first cross-country flight from London to
Manchester. There arose as England's champion Claude Grahame-
White, and Paulhan with his Farman biplane was on hand to dispute
the honors with him. The distance to be covered was about 183
miles, and the task seemed almost impossible, largely owing to the
nature of the country over which the flight must be made. It was
rough and hilly and thickly sprinkled with towns, making the task of
a forced landing a very perilous one. Engines in 1910 were none too
reliable and were apt to play strange tricks. To be forced to descend
over a town or in rough country meant a chance of serious accident
or death. Rough country moreover is apt to be windy country, with
sharp, unlooked-for gusts blowing from unexpected quarters. It was
these above all things which filled the airman's heart with dread, for
he knew only too well the limited stability of his pioneer craft.
Late in the afternoon of April 27th, Paulhan, whose biplane, in
perfect repair, was awaiting him at Hendon, near London,
ascertained that the wind was favorable, and at once rose into the

air and started on his long trip. Grahame-White had assumed that it
was too late in the day to make a start, and had left his machine, all
ready for flight, at Wormwood Scrubbs, intending to make a start in
the early morning. Shortly after six the news was brought to White
that Paulhan was on his way, and he immediately rushed to his
starting point and hurried after his rival.
Paulhan had studied every inch of the ground and knew what
conditions to expect. His earlier start gave him a great advantage,
for he managed to get farther before nightfall, and also before any
adverse winds arose. With darkness both pilots were forced to make
landings, but Paulhan was far ahead, and the prospect of victory
began to wane for the plucky young English flier. In the emergency
he determined on a desperate attempt to overcome his handicap.
Night flying then was a thing unheard of, but Grahame-White
prepared to try it, however risky. At half past two in the morning, by
the wan light of the moon he arose from the field where his machine
had been landed and flew off into the murky night.
Disappointment awaited the dauntless pilot, however. He had a
stern struggle with the wind, his engine began to give trouble, and
finally he was compelled to come to earth.
Paulhan got away at dawn and being the more experienced pilot
of the two, managed, after a sharp tussle with the wind, to arrive
intact at his destination. He was greeted with wild enthusiasm and
was indeed the hero of the day.
But England was not without gratitude to her defeated airman,
who in the face of enormous difficulties, had persisted so gallantly in
his effort to uphold his country's honor in the records of aviation.
Though official England was slow to recognize the airplane's claims,

the British public showed keenest interest in all the exploits of their
sportsmen of the air, and before long there was quite a fair-sized
group of such men demanding attention.
America also had a remarkable feat to record in the summer of
1910. The New York World had offered a $10,000 prize for a flight
down the Hudson River from Albany to New York. The difficulties
were even greater than those of the London-Manchester contest, for
here the airman had to fly the entire distance over a swift stream.
The high hills on either side meant increased peril, for there were
sure to be powerful wind gusts rushing out between the gaps in the
hills and seeking to overturn the machine. If the engine should give
out, there was no place to land except in the water itself, with slight
chance of escape for either the pilot or his airplane.
Nevertheless, Glenn Curtiss, whose accomplishments at the
Rheims Meeting we have already witnessed, determined to try for
the prize. His machine was brought from Hammondsport to Albany
ready for a start, and on May 31, after a long wait for favorable
atmospheric conditions, he was on his way. A special train steamed
after him, carrying newspaper reporters and anxious friends, but he
left it far in the distance while he flew swiftly down the Hudson.
Villagers and boatmen waved and shouted to him as he passed. At
one point he encountered an air “whirlpool” that almost sucked him
down, but he succeeded in righting his machine and getting on his
way again. Near Poughkeepsie he made a landing to obtain more
fuel, and from there he flew straight on to his journey's end,
reaching New York City and descending in a little field near Inwood.
In July of 1910 came the second big Rheims Meeting, to show
what unprecedented advances had been made in one short year.

Almost 80 contestants appeared, as compared with the 30 of 1909.
Machines were in every way better and some very excellent records
were made. The Antoinette monoplane flew the greatest distance
(212 miles), and also reached the greatest height; while a new
machine, the Morane monoplane, took the prizes for speed.
Meanwhile the French Army had been busy training aviators and
securing new machines. In the Fall these were tried out at the Army
Maneuvers in Picardy, and for the first time the world saw what
military airplanes really could accomplish. In the sham warfare the
army pilots flew over the enemy's lines and brought back
astonishingly complete reports of the movements of troops,
disposition of forces, etc. The French military authorities themselves,
enthusiastic as they had been over the development of the airplane,
had not anticipated such complete success. They were delighted
with the results of their efforts, and a strong aerial policy was
thereupon mapped out for France.
England at this date possessed one military airplane, and it was
late before she awakened to the importance of aviation as a branch
of warfare.
Germany, Italy, Russia, and America were looking on with keen
interest, but for a while France maintained supremacy over all in her
aerial projects. By the end of the following year she had over 200
military machines, with a competent staff of pilots and observers.
To follow the course of aviation achievement we must now go
back to England, where in July, 1911, another big Daily Mail contest
took place. This time the newspaper had put up a prize of £10,000
to be won by flying what was known as the “Circuit of Britain.” This
had been marked out to pass through many of the large cities of

England, Scotland and Ireland. There were seventeen entrants for
the contest, which was won by a lieutenant of the French navy,
named Conneau. Cross-country flights were growing longer and
longer, keeping pace with the rapid strides in the development of the
airplane. Still another contest during 1911 was the “Circuit of
Europe,” which lay through France, Belgium and England; while a
flight from Paris to Rome and one from Paris to Madrid served to
demonstrate the growing reliability of the aircraft.
Money had always flowed freely from French coffers for this
favorite of all hobbies. At the Rheims Meeting in October of 1911 the
Government offered approximately a quarter of a million dollars in
prizes for aerial feats and in orders for machines. Representatives
from many countries visited the meeting to witness the tests of war
airplanes.
In the two years since the first Rheims Meeting many vast
changes had taken place. Pilots no longer feared to fly in high winds;
machines were reliable, strong and swift. A number made non-stop
flights of close on to 200 miles, and showed as well remarkable
climbing abilities.
It was the Nieuport monoplane which led all others at this Rheims
Meeting. To-day the name of Nieuport is familiar to every one, for
the little scout machines carried some of the bravest pilots of France
and America to victory in the air battles of the Great War. Even in
1911 the Nieuport monoplane was breaking all records for speed.
Carrying both a pilot and a passenger it flew as fast as 70 miles an
hour at Rheims.
Another new machine that attracted attention was the Breguet
biplane, a heavy general service machine weighing 2420 pounds and

carrying a 140 h. p. Gnome motor. The Gnome had so far
outdistanced all competitors that it had virtually become the
universal motor for airplanes, and, many of those seen in 1911 were
equipped with it. Since then vast improvements have been made in
stationary engines but at that time they almost entirely failed to
meet the requirements of light weight, high power and reliability.
One development in the biplanes of 1911 cannot be passed over,
for it bears a very interesting relation to their efficiency as war
machines. Any one who has seen a photograph of one of the early
biplanes must have been struck by the curious kite-like appearance
it presented, due to the fact that it had no body or fuselage, but only
two large planes, connected by strong wooden supports, and usually
with a seat for the pilot in the center of the lower plane.
It was in the monoplane that a car or airplane body first made its
appearance, and to it the wing surfaces of the monoplane were
strongly braced with wires. Many of the biplanes of 1911 had
adopted the idea and in consequence began to take on a more
modern appearance. It was a thoroughly good idea, for by means of
its greater stability and strength, protection for the pilot and general
efficiency were obtained. Biplanes of this type now carried their
engines in the fuselage bow with the pilot's seat just behind it, while
instead of the front elevating plane of the earlier models, the
elevating surfaces were at the rear of the fixed tail plane. The
Breguet was one of these progressive type biplanes of 1911.
Constructed very largely of steel, it had a long, tapering body with
its controlling planes—rudder and elevators—at the rear. Instead of a
number of wooden supports between the planes the Breguet had
exactly four reliable struts.

Henry Farman developed a military biplane in 1911 which had one
particularly new feature. Instead of the upper main plane being
placed exactly above the lower it had been moved slightly forward or
“staggered”—giving it an overhang in front. The idea was that this
gave a greater climbing power and was helpful in making descents,
though the point has never been satisfactorily proved.
Until 1911 Germany had pinned her faith almost wholly to the
Zeppelin as the unit for the aerial fleet which she had hoped to build
up, and she had confidently expected it to prove its superiority to
the heavier-than-air machine in the event of war. No funds had been
spared to rush the work of designing and constructing these huge
air monsters. Carefully and quietly the perfecting and standardizing
of the Zeppelin under government supervision had moved forward,
and German engineers had not been behindhand in designing
engines particularly suitable to aircraft. While France was amusing
herself with the clever little monoplanes and biplanes of the pioneer
days—machines which could fly but a few yards at low altitude,
Germany, possibly with the dream of world conquest tucked away in
her mind, was sparing no expense to get ready her fleet of lighter-
than-air craft. Imagine her chagrin when the feeble winged birds of
1908 and 1909 became the soaring eaglets of 1911, swiftly circling
the sky, swooping, climbing and performing aerial tricks which made
the larger and clumsier Zeppelin appear as agile as a waddling duck.
Whatever the feelings of the German military authorities were on
the subject, they wasted no time in crying over spilt milk, but at
once began a policy of construction by which they hoped soon to
outstrip their brainier French neighbors. As in everything German,
method was the characterizing feature of the airplane program they
instituted. France had sought to encourage makers of all types of

planes, and thus obtain a diversity of machines of wide capabilities.
The plan did not appeal to Germany. From the very beginning she
aimed at reducing everything to a fixed standard and then turning
out airplanes in large numbers. When the War broke out it seemed
for a time that she had been right, but it was not long before she
looked with sorrow upon the sad lack of versatility of her fleet of
standardized biplanes. They were hopelessly outdistanced and
outmaneuvered by the small, fast fighting machines of the French,
while they were by no means so strong as the heavy service planes
the French could put into the air.
Italy, Austria, Russia, America and Japan began also to make
plans for the building of aerial fleets about 1911. The Italian
Government relied at first on machines secured from France, or on
those copied from French designs. Soon her own clever engineers
began to be heard from and she was responsible for developing
several of the powerful modern types. Russia would scarcely seem a
country where aerial progress might be expected, yet she has given
a good account of herself in aviation, and one of her machines, the
giant Sikorsky did splendid work on the several fronts during the
war.
I. I. Sikorsky, the inventor of the big Sikorsky machine was a little
while ago merely a clever student at the Kieff Polytechnic. Like many
other young men he dreamed of aerial conquest, but received little
encouragement in carrying out his projects. At twenty-four, however,
he became a student aviator, and almost immediately began work on
original airplane designs. He succeeded in building a small
monoplane which in some ways resembled the Blériot, except in its
habits of flight. In these it was quite balky, refusing to fly except in
short hops and jumps. Sikorsky's friends good-naturedly nicknamed

it The Hopper. But the young student was not one wit daunted. He
plugged along steadily at new designs, and in the autumn of 1910
he actually took to the air in a tractor biplane of his own
construction. Several other machines of somewhat the same type
followed, and his efforts finally won the attention of the great Russo-
Baltic Works. They offered him financial assistance to carry on his
study of the airplane problem. With this backing Sikorsky moved
forward to sure success. In the meantime he had secretly prepared
plans for an enormous airplane which at first he dared not divulge
for fear of ridicule and disappointment. Finally he took courage and
laid them before his friends at the Russo-Baltic Works. Whatever
they may have thought of his wild scheme of air supremacy they
consented to give it a tryout, and in the Spring of 1913 the first of
the giant “Sikorsky” machines stood awaiting a flight. It was viewed
with grave misgivings by a number of experts, but to their frank
surprise it took to the air with ease and flew well. The sight was a
strangely impressive one. In wing span the big machine measured
almost 92 feet, while the body or fuselage was over 62 feet long.
The weight of the amazing monster flying machine was 4 tons. In
the forward part of the fuselage cabins had been fitted, with a small
deck on the bow. The fuselage construction was of wood, with a
strong 8-wheeled landing chassis beneath it. Four 100 h. p. German
“Argus” engines, driving four tractor propellers sent it racing
triumphantly through the air. Its weight lifting ability was enormous,
and it made a world record for flight.
Prodigious as this first great master of the air had seemed it was
followed in 1913 by one still larger. The new machine was to the
fullest extent an aerial wonder. Its enormous body consisted of a
wooden framework covered with canvas, and in its interior a series
of cabins were provided. There were three decks: the main one in

the center of the fuselage, designed to carry heavy armament of
machine guns and a searchlight; a small deck at the stern; and one
set in the undercarriage, where additional heavy armament could be
placed. Only a few months before the storm of war broke over
Europe this Air Leviathan was born, and at the time no one
suspected it would so soon be called into active service. In the
Spring of 1914 it made flight after flight, scoring a succession of
triumphs by its record breaking performances, and winning for its
designer a decoration from the Emperor.
Sikorsky was a man of wealth but so recklessly did he lavish his
personal funds on his airplane ventures that on many occasions he
came very near to want as a result. It was no unusual thing to see
him during those years of reckless experiment, braving the bitter
winter weather of Russia in threadbare garments, shivering, but
grimly and sternly determined. Then came the War, and at the first
call his machines were ready to prove themselves in the battle
against the Hun.

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
testbankfan.com

Operations Management 12th Edition Stevenson Solutions Manual

More Related Content

Similar to Operations Management 12th Edition Stevenson Solutions Manual (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Operations Management 12th Edition Stevenson Solutions Manual