Important marginal concepts.

Marginality.

For issues of marginality, constraints are conceptualized as a "border" or "margin". The location of the margin for any individual corresponds to his or her "endowment", broadly conceived to include opportunities. This endowment is determined by many things including physical laws (which constrain how forms of energy and matter may be transformed), accidents of nature (which determine the presence of natural resources), and the outcomes of past decisions made both by others and by the individual.  A value that holds true given particular constraints is a "marginal" value. A change that would be affected as or by a specific loosening or tightening of those constraints is a "marginal" change.  Neoclassical economics usually assumes that marginal changes are infinitesimals or limits. Although this assumption makes the analysis less robust, it increases tractability. One is therefore often told that "marginal" is synonymous with "very small", though in more general analysis this may not be operationally true and would not in any case be literally true. Frequently, economic analysis concerns the marginal values associated with a change of one unit of a resource, because decisions are often made in terms of units; marginalism seeks to explain unit prices in terms of such marginal values.

Marginal use.

The marginal use of a good or service is the specific use to which an agent would put a given increase, or the specific use of the good or service that would be abandoned in response to a given decrease.  Marginalism assumes, for any given agent, economic rationality and an ordering of possible states-of-the-world, such that, for any given set of constraints, there is an attainable state which is best in the eyes of that agent. Descriptive marginalism asserts that choice amongst the specific means by which various anticipated specific states-of-the-world (outcomes) might be affected is governed only by the distinctions amongst those specific outcomes; prescriptive marginalism asserts that such choice "ought" to be so governed.  On such assumptions, each increase would be put to the specific, feasible, previously unrealized use of greatest priority, and each decrease would result in abandonment of the use of lowest priority amongst the uses to which the good or service had been put.

Marginal utility.

The marginal utility of a good or service is the utility of its marginal use. Under the assumption of economic rationality, it is the utility of its least urgent possible use "from" the best feasible combination of actions in which its use is included.  In 20th century mainstream economics, the term "utility" has come to be formally defined as a "quantification" capturing preferences by assigning greater quantities to states, goods, services, or applications that are of higher priority. But marginalism and the concept of marginal utility predate the establishment of this convention within economics. The more general conception of utility is that of "use" or "usefulness", and this conception is at the heart of marginalism; the term "marginal utility" arose from translation of the German "Grenznutzen", which literally means "border use", referring directly to the marginal use, and the more general formulations of marginal utility do not treat quantification as an "essential" feature. On the other hand, none of the early marginalists insisted that utility were "not" quantified, some indeed treated quantification as an essential feature, and those who did not still used an assumption of quantification for expository purposes. In this context, it is not surprising to find many presentations that fail to recognize a more general approach.

Quantified marginal utility.

Under the special case in which usefulness can be quantified, the change in utility of moving from state formula_1 to state formula_2 is Moreover, if formula_1 and formula_2 are distinguishable by values of just one variable formula_6 which is itself quantified, then it becomes possible to speak of the ratio of the marginal utility of the change in formula_6 to the size of that change: (where “c.p.” indicates that the "only" independent variable to change is formula_6).  Mainstream neoclassical economics will typically assume that is well defined, and use "marginal utility" to refer to a partial derivative

Law of diminishing marginal utility.

The law of diminishing marginal utility, also known as a Gossen's First Law, is that "ceteris paribus", as additional amounts of a good or service are added to available resources, their marginal utilities are decreasing. This law is sometimes treated as a tautology, sometimes as something proven by introspection, or sometimes as a mere instrumental assumption, adopted only for its perceived predictive efficacy. It is not quite any of these things, although it may have aspects of each. The law does not hold under all circumstances, so it is neither a tautology nor otherwise proveable; but it has a basis in prior observation.  An individual will typically be able to partially order the potential uses of a good or service. If there is scarcity, then a rational agent will satisfy wants of highest possible priority, so that no want is avoidably sacrificed to satisfy a want of "lower" priority. In the absence of complementarity across the uses, this will imply that the priority of use of any additional amount will be lower than the priority of the established uses, as in this famous example:  However, if there "is" a complementarity across uses, then an amount added can bring things past a desired tipping point, or an amount subtracted cause them to fall short. In such cases, the marginal utility of a good or service might actually be "increasing".  Without the presumption that utility is quantified, the "diminishing" of utility should not be taken to be itself an arithmetic subtraction. It is the movement from use of higher to lower priority, and may be no more than a purely ordinal change.  When quantification of utility is assumed, diminishing marginal utility corresponds to a utility function whose "slope" is continually or continuously decreasing. In the latter case, if the function is also smooth, then the law may be expressed as Neoclassical economics usually supplements or supplants discussion of marginal utility with indifference curves, which were originally derived as the level curves of utility functions, or can be produced without presumption of quantification, but are often simply treated as axiomatic. In the absence of complementarity of goods or services, diminishing marginal utility implies convexity of indifference curves, although such convexity would also follow from quasiconcavity of the utility function.

Marginal rate of substitution.

The "rate of substitution" is the "least favorable" rate at which an agent is willing to exchange units of one good or service for units of another. The "marginal" rate of substitution (MRS) is the rate of substitution at the margin; in other words, given some constraint.  When goods and services are discrete, the least favorable rate at which an agent would trade A for B will usually be different from that at which she would trade B for A:  When the goods and services are continuously divisible in the limiting case and the marginal rate of substitution is the slope of the indifference curve (multiplied by formula_15).  If, for example, Lisa will not trade a goat for anything less than two sheep, then her  If she will not trade a sheep for anything less than two goats, then her  However, if she would trade one gram of banana for one ounce of ice cream "and vice versa", then  When indifference curves (which are essentially graphs of instantaneous rates of substitution) and the convexity of those curves are not taken as given, the "law" of diminishing marginal utility is invoked to explain diminishing marginal rates of substitution – a willingness to accept fewer units of good or service formula_19 in substitution for formula_20 as one's holdings of formula_19 grow relative to those of formula_20. If an individual has a stock or flow of a good or service whose marginal utility is less than would be that of some other good or service for which he or she could trade, then it is in his or her interest to effect that trade. As one thing is traded-away and another is acquired, the respective marginal gains or losses from further trades are now changed. On the assumption that the marginal utility of one is diminishing, and the other is not increasing, all else being equal, an individual will demand an increasing ratio of that which is acquired to that which is sacrificed. One important way in which all else might not be equal is when the use of the one good or service complements that of the other. In such cases, exchange ratios might be constant. If any trader can better his or her own marginal position by offering an exchange more favorable to other traders with desired goods or services, then he or she will do so.

Marginal cost.

At the highest level of generality, a marginal cost is a marginal opportunity cost. In most contexts, marginal cost refers to marginal "pecuniary" cost, that is to say marginal cost measured by forgone money.  A thorough-going marginalism sees marginal cost as increasing under the law of diminishing marginal utility, because applying resources to one application reduces their availability to other applications. Neoclassical economics tends to disregard this argument, but to see marginal costs as increasing in consequence of diminishing returns.

Application to price theory.

Marginalism and neoclassical economics typically explain price formation broadly through the interaction of curves or schedules of supply and demand. In any case buyers are modelled as pursuing typically lower quantities, and sellers offering typically higher quantities, as price is increased, with each being willing to trade until the marginal value of what they would trade-away exceeds that of the thing for which they would trade.

Demand.

Demand curves are explained by marginalism in terms of marginal rates of substitution.  At any given price, a prospective buyer has some marginal rate of substitution of money for the good or service in question. Given the "law" of diminishing marginal utility, or otherwise given convex indifference curves, the rates are such that the willingness to forgo money for the good or service decreases as the buyer would have ever more of the good or service and ever less money. Hence, any given buyer has a demand schedule that generally decreases in response to price (at least until quantity demanded reaches zero). The aggregate quantity demanded by all buyers is, at any given price, just the sum of the quantities demanded by individual buyers, so it too decreases as price increases.

Supply.

Both neoclassical economics and thorough-going marginalism could be said to explain supply curves in terms of marginal cost; however, there are marked differences in conceptions of that cost.  Marginalists in the tradition of Marshall and neoclassical economists tend to represent the supply curve for any producer as a curve of marginal pecuniary costs objectively determined by physical processes, with an upward slope determined by diminishing returns.  A more thorough-going marginalism represents the supply curve as a "complementary demand curve" – where the demand is "for" money and the purchase is made "with" a good or service. The shape of that curve is then determined by marginal rates of substitution of money for that good or service.

Markets.

By confining themselves to limiting cases in which sellers or buyers are both "price takers" – so that demand functions ignore supply functions or "vice versa" – Marshallian marginalists and neoclassical economists produced tractable models of "pure" or "perfect" competition and of various forms of "imperfect" competition, which models are usually captured by relatively simple graphs. Other marginalists have sought to present what they thought of as more realistic explanations, but this work has been relatively uninfluential on the mainstream of economic thought.

Paradox of water and diamonds.

The law of diminishing marginal utility is said to explain the paradox of water and diamonds, most commonly associated with Adam Smith, although it was recognized by earlier thinkers. Human beings cannot even survive without water, whereas diamonds, in Smith's day, were ornamentation or engraving bits. Yet water had a very small price, and diamonds a very large price. Marginalists explained that it is the "marginal" usefulness of any given quantity that matters, rather than the usefulness of a "class" or of a "totality". For most people, water was sufficiently abundant that the loss or gain of a gallon would withdraw or add only some very minor use if any, whereas diamonds were in much more restricted supply, so that the loss or gain was much greater.  That is not to say that the price of any good or service is simply a function of the marginal utility that it has for any one individual nor for some ostensibly typical individual. Rather, individuals are willing to trade based upon the respective marginal utilities of the goods that they have or desire (with these marginal utilities being distinct for each potential trader), and prices thus develop constrained by these marginal utilities.

History.

Proto-marginalist approaches.

Perhaps the essence of a notion of diminishing marginal utility can be found in Aristotle's "Politics", wherein he writes  There has been marked disagreement about the development and role of marginal considerations in Aristotle's' value theory.  A great variety of economists concluded that there was "some" sort of inter-relationship between utility and rarity that effected economic decisions, and in turn informed the determination of prices.  Eighteenth-century Italian mercantilists, such as Antonio Genovesi, Giammaria Ortes, Pietro Verri, Cesare Beccaria, and Giovanni Rinaldo, held that value was explained in terms of the general utility and of scarcity, though they did not typically work-out a theory of how these interacted. In "Della Moneta" (1751), Abbé Ferdinando Galiani, a pupil of Genovesi, attempted to explain value as a ratio of two ratios, "utility" and "scarcity", with the latter component ratio being the ratio of quantity to use.  Anne Robert Jacques Turgot, in "Réflexions sur la formation et la distribution de richesse" (1769), held that value derived from the general utility of the class to which a good belonged, from comparison of present and future wants, and from anticipated difficulties in procurement.  Like the Italian mercantilists, Étienne Bonnot de Condillac saw value as determined by utility associated with the class to which the good belongs, and by estimated scarcity. In "De commerce et le gouvernement" (1776), Condillac emphasized that value is not based upon cost but that costs were paid because of value.  This last point was famously restated by the 19th century proto-marginalist Richard Whately, who wrote as follows in "Introductory Lectures on Political Economy" (1832):  Whately's student Nassau William Senior is noted below as an early marginalist.  Frédéric Bastiat in chapters V and XI of his "Economic Harmonies" (1850) also develops a theory of value as ratio between services that increment utility, rather than between total utility.

Marginalists before the Revolution.

The first unambiguous published statement of any sort of theory of marginal utility was by Daniel Bernoulli, in "Specimen theoriae novae de mensura sortis". This paper appeared in 1738, but a draft had been written in 1731 or in 1732. In 1728, Gabriel Cramer produced fundamentally the same theory in a private letter. Each had sought to resolve the St. Petersburg paradox, and had concluded that the marginal desirability of money decreased as it was accumulated, more specifically such that the desirability of a sum were the natural logarithm (Bernoulli) or square root (Cramer) thereof. However, the more general implications of this hypothesis were not explicated, and the work fell into obscurity.  In "A Lecture on the Notion of Value as Distinguished Not Only from Utility, but also from Value in Exchange", delivered in 1833 and included in "Lectures on Population, Value, Poor Laws and Rent" (1837), William Forster Lloyd explicitly offered a general marginal utility theory, but did not offer its derivation nor elaborate its implications. The importance of his statement seems to have been lost on everyone (including Lloyd) until the early 20th century, by which time others had independently developed and popularized the same insight.  In "An Outline of the Science of Political Economy" (1836), Nassau William Senior asserted that marginal utilities were the ultimate determinant of demand, yet apparently did not pursue implications, though some interpret his work as indeed doing just that.  In "De la mesure de l'utilité des travaux publics" (1844), Jules Dupuit applied a conception of marginal utility to the problem of determining bridge tolls.  In 1854, Hermann Heinrich Gossen published "Die Entwicklung der Gesetze des menschlichen Verkehrs und der daraus fließenden Regeln für menschliches Handeln", which presented a marginal utility theory and to a very large extent worked-out its implications for the behavior of a market economy. However, Gossen's work was not well received in the Germany of his time, most copies were destroyed unsold, and he was virtually forgotten until rediscovered after the so-called Marginal Revolution.

Marginal Revolution.

Marginalism as a formal theory can be attributed to the work of three economists, Jevons in England, Menger in Austria, and Walras in Switzerland. William Stanley Jevons first proposed the theory in articles in 1863 and 1871. Similarly, Carl Menger presented the theory in 1871. Menger explained why individuals use marginal utility to decide amongst trade-offs, but while his illustrative examples present utility as quantified, his essential assumptions do not. Léon Walras introduced the theory in "Éléments d'économie politique pure", the first part of which was published in 1874. The American John Bates Clark is also associated with the origins of Marginalism, but did little to advance the theory.

Second generation.

Although the Marginal Revolution flowed from the work of Jevons, Menger, and Walras, their work might have failed to enter the mainstream were it not for a second generation of economists. In England, the second generation were exemplified by Philip Wicksteed, by William Smart, and by Alfred Marshall; in Austria by Eugen Böhm von Bawerk and by Friedrich von Wieser; in Switzerland by Vilfredo Pareto; and in America by Herbert Joseph Davenport and by Frank A. Fetter.  There were significant, distinguishing features amongst the approaches of Jevons, Menger, and Walras, but the second generation did not maintain distinctions along national or linguistic lines. The work of von Wieser was heavily influenced by that of Walras. Wicksteed was heavily influenced by Menger. Fetter referred to himself and Davenport as part of "the American Psychological School", named in imitation of the Austrian "Psychological School". Clark's work from this period onward similarly shows heavy influence by Menger. William Smart began as a conveyor of Austrian School theory to English-language readers, though he fell increasingly under the influence of Marshall.  Böhm-Bawerk was perhaps the most able expositor of Menger's conception. He was further noted for producing a theory of interest and of profit in equilibrium based upon the interaction of diminishing marginal utility with diminishing marginal productivity of time and with time preference. (This theory was adopted in full and then further developed by Knut Wicksell and with modifications including formal disregard for time-preference by Wicksell's American rival Irving Fisher.)  Marshall was the second-generation marginalist whose work on marginal utility came most to inform the mainstream of neoclassical economics, especially by way of his "Principles of Economics", the first volume of which was published in 1890. Marshall constructed the demand curve with the aid of assumptions that utility was quantified, and that the marginal utility of money was constant, or nearly so. Like Jevons, Marshall did not see an explanation for supply in the theory of marginal utility, so he paired a marginal explanation of demand with a more classical explanation of supply, wherein costs were taken to be objectively determined. Marshall later actively mischaracterized the criticism that these costs were themselves ultimately determined by marginal utilities.

Marginal Revolution as a response to socialism.

The doctrines of marginalism and the Marginal Revolution are often interpreted as a response to the rise of the worker's movement, Marxian economics and the earlier (Ricardian) socialist theories of the exploitation of labour. The first volume of "Das Kapital" was not published until July 1867, when marginalism was already developing, but before the advent of Marxian economics, proto-marginalist ideas such as those of Gossen had largely fallen on deaf ears. It was only in the 1880s, when Marxism had come to the fore as the main economic theory of the workers' movement, that Gossen found (posthumous) recognition.  Aside from the rise of Marxism, E. Screpanti and S. Zamagni point to a different 'external' reason for marginalism's success, which is its successful response to the Long Depression and the resurgence of class conflict in all developed capitalist economies after the 1848–1870 period of social peace. Marginalism, Screpanti and Zamagni argue, offered a theory of the free market as perfect, as performing optimal allocation of resources, while it allowed economists to blame any adverse effects of laissez-faire economics on the interference of workers' coalitions in the proper functioning of the market.  Scholars have suggested that the success of the generation who followed the preceptors of the Revolution was their ability to formulate straightforward responses to Marxist economic theory. The most famous of these was that of Böhm-Bawerk, "Zum Abschluss des Marxschen Systems" (1896), but the first was Wicksteed's "The Marxian Theory of Value. "Das Kapital": a criticism" (1884, followed by "The Jevonian criticism of Marx: a rejoinder" in 1885). The most famous early Marxist responses were Rudolf Hilferding's "Böhm-Bawerks Marx-Kritik" (1904) and "The Economic Theory of the Leisure Class" (1914) by Nikolai Bukharin.

Eclipse.

In his 1881 work "Mathematical Psychics", Francis Ysidro Edgeworth presented the indifference curve, deriving its properties from marginalist theory which assumed utility to be a differentiable function of quantified goods and services. But it came to be seen that indifference curves could be considered as somehow "given", without bothering with notions of utility.  In 1915, Eugen Slutsky derived a theory of consumer choice solely from properties of indifference curves. Because of the World War, the Bolshevik Revolution, and his own subsequent loss of interest, Slutsky's work drew almost no notice, but similar work in 1934 by John Hicks and R. G. D. Allen derived much the same results and found a significant audience. Allen subsequently drew attention to Slutsky's earlier accomplishment.  Although some of the third generation of Austrian School economists had by 1911 rejected the quantification of utility while continuing to think in terms of marginal utility, most economists presumed that utility must be a sort of quantity. Indifference curve analysis seemed to represent a way of dispensing with presumptions of quantification, albeït that a seemingly arbitrary assumption (admitted by Hicks to be a "rabbit out of a hat") about decreasing marginal rates of substitution would then have to be introduced to have convexity of indifference curves.  For those who accepted that superseded marginal utility analysis had been superseded by indifference curve analysis, the former became at best somewhat analogous to the Bohr model of the atom—perhaps pedagogically useful, but "old fashioned" and ultimately incorrect.

Revival.

When Cramer and Bernoulli introduced the notion of diminishing marginal utility, it had been to address a paradox of gambling, rather than the paradox of value. The marginalists of the revolution, however, had been formally concerned with problems in which there was neither risk nor uncertainty. So too with the indifference curve analysis of Slutsky, Hicks, and Allen.  The expected utility hypothesis of Bernoulli "et alii" was revived by various 20th century thinkers, including Frank Ramsey (1926), John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern (1944), and Leonard Savage (1954). Although this hypothesis remains controversial, it brings not merely utility but a quantified conception thereof back into the mainstream of economic thought, and would dispatch the Ockhamistic argument. It should perhaps be noted that in expected utility analysis the law of diminishing marginal utility corresponds to what is called risk aversion.

Criticism.

Marxist criticism of marginalism.

Karl Marx died before marginalism became the interpretation of economic value accepted by mainstream economics. His theory was based on the labor theory of value, which distinguishes between exchange value and use value. In his "Capital", he rejected the explanation of long-term market values by supply and demand:  In his early response to marginalism, Nikolai Bukharin argued that "the subjective evaluation from which price is to be derived really starts from this price", concluding:  Similarly a later Marxist critic, Ernest Mandel, argued that marginalism was "divorced from reality", ignored the role of production, further arguing:  Maurice Dobb argued that prices derived through marginalism depend on the distribution of income. The ability of consumers to express their preferences is dependent on their spending power. As the theory asserts that prices arise in the act of exchange, Dobb argues that it cannot explain how the distribution of income affects prices and consequently cannot explain prices.  Dobb also criticized the "motives" behind marginal utility theory. Jevons wrote, for example, "so far as is consistent with the inequality of wealth in every community, all commodities are distributed by exchange so as to produce the maximum social benefit." (See Fundamental theorems of welfare economics.) Dobb contended that this statement indicated that marginalism is intended to insulate market economics from criticism by making prices the natural result of the given income distribution.

Marxist adaptations to marginalism.

Some economists strongly influenced by the Marxian tradition such as Oskar Lange, Włodzimierz Brus, and Michał Kalecki have attempted to integrate the insights of classical political economy, marginalism, and neoclassical economics. They believed that Marx lacked a sophisticated theory of prices, and neoclassical economics lacked a theory of the social frameworks of economic activity. Some other Marxists have also argued that on one level there is no conflict between marginalism and Marxism as one could employ a marginalist theory of supply and demand within the context of a big picture understanding of the Marxist notion that capitalists exploit surplus labor.

Marginalism is a theory of economics that attempts to explain the discrepancy in the value of goods and services by reference to their secondary, or marginal, utility. The reason why the price of diamonds is higher than that of water, for example, owes to the greater additional satisfaction of the diamonds over the water. Thus, while the water has greater total utility, the diamond has greater marginal utility.

边际主义在经济学中指由边际效用和边际成本(参看:边际)发展而来的经济学理论。边际效用理论是在1870年左右,是由英格兰的威廉姆·斯坦利·杰文斯、奥地利的卡尔·门格尔和瑞士的利昂·瓦尔拉斯各自独立发展起来的,他们最终使边际主义广泛流传,但是赫尔曼·海因里希·戈森(HH Gossen)早就指出了交换价值和边际效用之间的关系。经济学思想的这次变革被称作新古典主义革命或边际革命。


Biography.

Political factions.

There were two political factions at the time Myeongjong came to power; Greater Yun, headed by Yun Im, Injong's maternal uncle, and Lesser Yun, headed by Myeongjong's maternal uncles, Yun Won-hyeong and Yun Wonro. (Yun Im and Yun Brothers were close relatives by that period's standards - Yun Im was a third cousin once removed of Yun Brothers.) Greater Yun took power in 1544, when Injong succeeded Jungjong; but they failed to wipe out their opposition, since Queen Munjeong protected the Lesser Yun faction and other opposition officials.  After the death of Injong in 1545, Lesser Yun replaced Greater Yun as the majority in the royal court and brutally ousted their adversaries in the Fourth Literati Purge of 1545. Yun Im was executed, as were many of his followers.

Rise of Yun Won-hyeong.

The Lesser Yun faction continued to attack their opposition. In 1546, Yun Won-hyeong impeached his older brother, Yun Won-ro, who was executed a few days later along with his followers. Facing no opposition from the government, Yun Won-hyeong became Minister of Personnel 이조판서 in 1548, Left State Councilor in 1551 and ultimately Chief State Councilor 영의정 in 1563.  Despite Yun Won-hyeong's violent rule, Queen Munjeong was an effective administrator, distributing to the common people land formerly owned by the nobility. However, she held on to rule even after the king reached his majority at the age of 20.

Death of Queen Munjeong.

After the death of Queen Munjeong in 1565, the king decided to rule the kingdom by himself and had his uncle Yun Won-hyeong put to death, along with his second wife Jeong Nan-jeong, who also rose to power due to her close friendship and being second sister-in-law to Queen Munjeong. Yun Won-hyeong allowed corruption to flourish in the government; while the kingdom was unstable, Jurchens, Japanese, and rebellious troops rampaged at will and threatened the government itself. Rebel leader Im Kkeok-jeong was arrested and executed in 1552, but outside invasion continued; the Joseon Dynasty had to re-mobilize its army and navy along to protect its borders.

Death and succession.

Myeongjong tried to reform the government after taking power into his own hands by recalling and reinstating Sarim scholars who were exiled in the purge, but died only two years later without any male issue. King Seonjo, his half-nephew, succeeded to the throne in 1567.

Myeongjong of Joseon (3 July 1534 – 3 August 1567, r. 1545–1567) was the 13th king of the Joseon Dynasty of Korea. He was the second son of Jungjong, and his mother was Queen Munjeong, who was Jungjong's third queen.

朝鲜明宗(;1534年-1567年),是朝鲜王朝的第13代君主,1545年至1567年在位。讳李峘(),字对阳,庙号明宗,谥号恭宪献毅昭文光肃敬孝大王(明朝赐谥恭宪),葬于杨州康陵。


History.

In 1935 during the era of Japanese rule, Tainan Airport was proposed by the Tainan Prefecture government due to the need for civil transportation in southern Taiwan. The airport was opened on June 26, 1937 with regular flights to Matsuyama Airport (modern-day Taipei Songshan Airport) operated by Japan Air Transport. After World War II broke out, this airport was converted to a base for the Tainan Air Group. During the war this airport was named "Eineisho Airport" by the United States Armed Forces, to distinguish it from other two smaller airports located in now Yongkang and Gueiren District.  After the Republic of China government took over Taiwan this airport was handed over to Republic of China Air Force while still maintaining civil flights. Between 1957 and 1979 this airport was stationed by the United States Air Force, once equipped with tactical nuclear weapons on F-4 aircraft from Clark AB with pilots from Clark's 405th Tactical Fighter Wing on alert.. The 868th Tactical Missile Squadron stationed here from 1958 to 1962, which operated MGM-1 Matadors, probably under the ultimate control of the United States Taiwan Defense Command. Air Asia Corporation, headquartered in this airport, prospered during Vietnam War due to the need for aircraft maintenance by the United States Armed Forces.  It was the third busiest domestic airport after Taipei Songshan Airport and Kaohsiung Airport until the Taiwan High Speed Rail was inaugurated. With passenger numbers dropping significantly, Far Eastern Air Transport suspended its service between Tainan Airport and Taipei Songshan Airport on 1 March 2008, ending the carrier's 50-year service history at Tainan Airport. Its competitor, TransAsia Airways, also had to downgrade the aircraft it used from a jet (Airbus A320) to a turboprop (ATR 72) to maintain revenue, and finally decided to service through the airport as of 1 August 2008.  Because of the shared use with the Air Force, the airport terminal was built quite a distance away from the airfield. Passengers disembark at the apron and board shuttle buses to the terminal. The shared use with the Air Force also means some flights have to be cancelled when the Air Force conducts exercises.  In January 2011, the Civil Aeronautics Administration approved the airport to handle international flights. First scheduled International flights began on 18 July 2013 to Hong Kong, with a 3 times weekly service by China Airlines using Boeing 737-800s. Since March 2014 this flight's frequency increases daily but aircraft is downgraded to smaller Embraer E-190, operated by China Airlines' subsidiary Mandarin Airlines.

Accidents and incidents.

On 24 February 1969, Far Eastern Air Transport Flight 104, a Handley Page Dart Herald with 36 passengers and crew board, crashed while attempting an emergency landing at Tainan. Everyone on board was killed.  On 16 April 1977, a FEAT Douglas C-47A B-247 was damaged beyond economic repair in a landing accident.  On 21 March 2003, TransAsia Airways flight 543 (Airbus A321 registration B-22603) on a flight from Taipei Songshan Airport to Tainan Airport, collided with a truck that was on runway 36R. None of the 175 passengers and crew were killed or injured but the two occupants in the truck were injured and the aircraft was written off.

Tainan Airport (; formally "") is a commercial airport located in South District, Tainan, Taiwan. It is shared with Republic of China Air Force Tainan AFB. In January 2011, the Civil Aeronautics Administration approved the airport to handle international flights.

台南航空站()或称为台南机场、台南空军基地,位于中华民国(台湾)台南市,是云嘉南地区最大的机场,不仅是台南市主要的联外机场,也是云嘉南地区第一座拥有国际航线的国内机场。场站目前由军方管理,包含了军用的中华民国空军台南基地和民用的交通部民用航空局台南航空站(Tainan Airport),同时也是航空器维修商亚洲航空总部与维修基地,面积约5.57平方公里(557公顷),越南战争期间是美国空军军机的重要维修基地之一,也曾是驻台美军的军用机场。航空场站区域主要位于台南市的南区的东南部以及仁德区西北部的交界地带。


Tandem and side by side.

The two seating configurations for trainer aircraft are: pilot and instructor side by side, or in tandem, usually with the pilot in front and the instructor behind. The side-by-side seating configuration has the advantage that pilot and instructor can see each other's actions, allowing the pilot to learn from the instructor and the instructor to correct the student pilot. The tandem configuration has the advantage of being closer to the normal working environment that a fast jet pilot is likely to encounter.  It is now the norm for pilots to begin their flight training in an aircraft with side by side seating and to progress to aircraft with tandem seating. This, however, has not always been the case. For example, it was usual to find tandem seating in biplane basic trainers such as the Tiger Moth and the Jungmann, and the British used side by side seating in the operational conversion of some of its fast jets such as the English Electric Lightning.

Phases.

Given the expense of military pilot training, air forces typically conduct training in phases to eliminate unsuitable candidates. The cost to those air forces that do not follow a graduated training regimen is not just monetary but also in lives. For example, for many years the Indian Air Force operated without a suitable advanced training aircraft, leading to a high casualty rate as pilots moved to high performance MiG-21 aircraft without suitable assessment of their aptitude for supersonic flight.  There are two main areas for instruction, flight training and operational training. In flight training a candidate seeks to develop their flying skills. In operational training the candidate learns to use his or her flying skills through simulated combat, attack and fighter techniques.

Ab initio.

Typically, contemporary military pilots learn initial flying skills in a light aircraft not too dissimilar from civilian training aircraft. In this phase pilot candidates are screened for mental and physical attributes. Aircraft used for this purpose include the Slingsby Firefly, as at one time used by the United States Air Force Academy, and the Scottish Aviation Bulldogs of the RAF. The U.S. replaced the Firefly and the Enhanced Flight Screen Program (EFSP) with the Diamond DA20 and the Initial Flight Training (IFT) program. At the end of this stage, pilot trainees are assessed and those who pass advance to the full pilot training program. Those who are judged unsuitable for a pilot commission, but show other attributes, may be offered the chance to qualify as navigators and weapons officers. Smaller and more financially restricted air forces may use ultra-light aircraft, gliders and motor gliders for this role.

Basic training.

After the ab-initio phase a candidate may progress to basic, or primary, trainers. These are usually turboprop trainers, like the Pilatus PC-9 and Embraer Tucano. Modern turbo-prop trainers can replicate the handling characteristics of jet aircraft as well as having sufficient performance to assess a candidate's technical ability at an aircraft's controls, reaction speed and the ability to anticipate events. Prior to the availability of high performance turboprops, basic training was conducted with jet aircraft such as the BAC Jet Provost, T-37 Tweet, and Fouga Magister. Those candidates who are not suitable to continue training as fast jet pilots may be offered flying commissions and be trained to fly multi-engined aircraft. Today, the USAF Academy uses light piston-powered aircraft such as the Cirrus SR20 (designated T-53A) for basic cadet flight training.

Advanced training.

Those that progress to training for fast jet flying will then progress to an advanced trainer, typically capable of high subsonic speeds, high-energy manoeuvers, and equipped with systems that simulate modern weapons and surveillance. Examples of such jet trainer aircraft include the supersonic Northrop T-38 Talon, the BAE Hawk, the Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet, the Aero L-39 and the Yakovlev Yak-130.  Effective combat aircraft are a function now of electronics as much as, if not more so than, the aerobatic ability or speed of an aircraft. It is at this stage that a pilot begins to learn to operate radar systems and electronics. Modern advanced trainers feature programmable multi-function displays which can be programmed to simulate different electronic systems and scenarios. Most advanced trainers do not have radar systems of their own, but onboard systems can be programmed to simulate radar contacts. With datalinks and GPS, virtual radar systems can be created with similarly equipped aircraft relaying to each other their positions in real time and onboard computers creating a "radar display" based on this information. The aim of programmable displays is to speed pilot training by replicating as far as possible the systems a pilot will find in an operational aircraft.

Lead-in fighter training.

Lead-in fighter training (LIFT) utilises advanced jet trainer aircraft with avionics and stores-management capability that emulate operational fighter planes, to provide efficient training in combat scenarios with reduced training costs compared to moving straight to operational conversion. The on-board avionics system may be linked to ground-based systems, and together they can simulate situations such as infrared or radar guided missile, interceptors, air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles, anti-aircraft batteries, radars, chaff and flare countermeasures and collision warnings, in low or dense electronic warfare environments. Systems may also be able to re-enact true-to-life combat situations.

Operational conversion.

Most military ground-attack and interceptor aircraft have two-seat trainer versions. These are combat capable operational conversion aircraft types to provide on the job training to pilots who have graduated to this level, and are usually available with little conversion in times of emergency to a reconnaissance or combat role. Most operational conversion aircraft retain the full functionality of the operational version with slight degradations to performance due to increased weight and drag, and possibly reduced range due to a reduced internal fuel load.  In some two-seat fighter aircraft such as the Tornado, the operational conversion unit (OCU) aircraft can be created by duplicating flight controls in the rear cockpit. In a normally single-seat aircraft, a second cockpit can be built behind the original cockpit (e.g. the TA-4S variant of the A-4SU Super Skyhawk) or the cockpit can be extended to place the instructor in a second seat behind the pilot. Once they are qualified to fly a specific type of aircraft, pilots will continue with regular training exercises to maintain qualifications on that aircraft and to improve their skills, for example the USAF's "Red Flag" exercises. Deployments of small flights of aircraft together with support staff and equipment to exercises conducted by other nations can be used to develop fighting skills and interservice and inter unit competitions in bombing and gunnery between units can also be used to develop those skills.  The two-seat aircraft may itself become the basis of an operational aircraft, the second seat being used to create a weapons officer or navigators station in aircraft with originally only a pilot, for example the F-15E Strike Eagle is a development of the F-15D which is a two-seat training version of the F-15 Eagle.  In some air forces that have a mix of high- and low-performance aircraft, pilots can be first be assigned to aircraft with a lower level of performance before moving on to the most demanding aircraft. For example, in the Italian Air Force a pilot may begin his service career on the AMX attack aircraft, and as their experience grows, progress to more capable aircraft such as the Tornado IDS. Other air forces, such as Canada, do not do this, and assign first-tour pilots to aircraft such as the CF-18 Hornet.

Multi-engine trainers.

Those pilots who train to fly transports, tankers and other multi-engine aircraft begin with small multi-engine aircraft such as the T-44A Pegasus variant of the Beechcraft King Air. Once they have mastered this, they may begin to fly in the right-hand seat of an operational type. Some airforces will seek to use a restricted number of multi-engined aircraft, with the derivatives of a basic aircraft filling different roles so that a pilot qualified on one of its types can easily convert to others in the same family. For example, the Boeing 707 was a popular airliner for conversion to tanker, transport and ELINT variants by numerous air forces.

Navigation trainers.

A minority of military training aircraft, such as the Beechcraft 18. Vickers Varsity, Hawker Siddeley Dominie and Boeing T-43 were developed from transport designs to train navigators and other rear crews operators. As these navigational trainees are normally learning how to navigate using instruments, they can be seated at consoles within the aircraft cabin and do not require a direct view of the landscape over which the aircraft is flying. The operators of airborne weapons or radar-related systems can be similarly trained, either in training aircraft or in an operational aircraft during training flights.

Aerobatic display teams.

Some jet trainers, such as the Aermacchi MB-326, Casa C-101, Folland Gnat, Fouga Magister and British Aerospace Hawk, are used by national formation aerobatic teams. Early jet aerobatic teams tended to use combat types such as the Hawker Hunter, English Electric Lightning, and North American F-100 Super Sabre. As air forces' combat fleets were scaled-down, it made sense for most national display teams to change to lighter training types. A few modifications may be needed to enable coloured smoke to be emitted during displays, but essentially these airframes can still perform their pilot training function.

Combat use of trainers.

In smaller air forces basic trainers, in addition to being used for training, are used to provide air support in the counter-insurgency and airborne forward air control role.  Most advanced trainers are capable of carrying and delivering war loads. However, most of these aircraft do not have the counter measures and sensors required to survive alone in a modern high intensity war fighting scenario, for example being vulnerable to MANPADs. However, they may still have a war fighting role in low intensity theatres if operated in conjunction with more capable aircraft.  Historically many jet trainers were marketed with specialised attack variants e.g. the BAC Jet Provost/BAC Strikemaster and the Cessna T-37 Tweet/A-37 Dragonfly. Especially against opponents operating without a fighter screen or an effective anti-aircraft capability, such trainer derived attack aircraft could perform adequately. For example, Impala aircraft derived from the Aermacchi MB-326 trainer formed the main strike strength of the South African Air Force in its Bush war, and aircraft such as the Hongdu JL-8 are being acquired for the attack role in low intensity theatres.  Despite their vulnerability, even small numbers of weapons-carrying trainer aircraft may achieve a disproportionate effect due to the element of surprise, especially when the attacked side believes to hold air supremacy. Forces that have used light trainer aircraft to great effect include the Biafran use of MFI-9s and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam use of covertly acquired light aircraft.  In high-intensity conflicts, advanced trainer type aircraft can have a military utility if they operate under an umbrella of other aerial assets. For example, the Franco-German Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet had an anti-shipping and light strike role when operating under an air umbrella provided by fighter aircraft, while the RAF planned to use pairs of gun- and AIM-9 Sidewinder-armed Hawk trainers in the point defence role. Each pair of Hawks was to be teamed with a Phantom FGR.2, in effect using the Phantoms as an Airborne Early Warning and Control system. Although never tested it was believed that the Hawk, combined with AIM-9L and flown by some of the best pilots in the RAF including those from the Red Arrows, would have made a viable air defence fighter.

The future.

As the capabilities of front-line aircraft have increased, this has been reflected in increasingly sophisticated advanced trainers. As the costs of developing new aircraft have risen in real terms, it has become more likely that fewer aircraft will be designed specifically for the training role. The advanced trainer was often seen as a stepping stone by most nations in developing a fast jet design and manufacturing capability. With increasing costs, even major air forces will have difficulty reaching the economies of scale to justify development of new advanced trainers. Nations will be required to continue to push the modernisation of existing aircraft (some such as the Hawk dating from the 1970s) or co-operate in the development and procurement of advanced training aircraft. Furthermore, they must better utilise funding available by developing aircraft with an enhanced combat capability by producing operational single-seat variants, and better utilise aircraft on inventory incorporating operational systems either within the aircraft or as external pods.  The trend of programmable electronic systems and datalinks is likely to continue with the possibility that ground-based radar systems and processing systems will allow advanced training aircraft to function as if they truly had onboard radar systems, with the cockpit closely replicating the look and feel of an air force's more capable aircraft for maximum familiarity. Programmable engine management and fly-by-wire flight control systems will allow an aircraft to mimic the flight characteristics of frontline aircraft with actual performance being restricted to a pilot's level of ability, with more power and greater agility becoming available as a pilot's skill improves.  Training is now also carried out on ground-based simulators.

Historical.

Early trainers were often sport aircraft or obsolete combat aircraft. The French used a graduated system in which a pilot learned in progressively more capable aircraft, starting with aircraft that had been modified to prevent them from flying – called "rouleurs" or penguins. Pilots who had mastered ground handling would then graduate to lower powered two seaters, before finishing on obsolete fighters. The supply of obsolete aircraft proved inadequate and production of Caudron G.III, Nieuport 83 and other types specifically for training was undertaken. In the United Kingdom, a different training system was used, although it too started out with obsolete aircraft before the Avro 504 and Airco DH.6 became the primary trainers, supplemented until the end of the First World War with obsolete combat aircraft for advanced training. To train the many potential aviators coming from Canada and the US, the Royal Flying Corps Canada was set up, operating Curtiss JN-4 (Can) trainers until the United States began its own training program, using Curtiss JN-4s and Standard J-1s. In Germany, various obsolete two seaters were produced for training purposes, the most numerous being the Albatros C.III.  Between the World Wars, purpose built trainers covering a variety of specialties largely replaced obsolete types in the Western armed forces, including aircraft specifically for bombing and gunnery and navigational training. When Germany began rearming in the 1930s, many of the initial aircraft were designed with a dual role, so that when they were obsolete in their combat role they would be used as trainers. By WW2 however their needs exceeded what could be spared from production and although using a number of purpose built designs such as the Bücker Bü 131, relied largely on captured aircraft and obsolete combat types. The United States armed forces standardized on three types – a Primary trainer, of which the Stearman PT-13/PT-17 is the best known, a Basic trainer such as the Vultee BT-13, and an advanced trainer such as the well known North American AT-6 Texan, which would also be widely exported to the Commonwealth countries as the Harvard. In addition, production of various combat types was diverted to training although considerable effort was made to cover all possible types of training with purpose built types. The British organized the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, which moved the bulk of aircrew training away from active war zones to Canada and elsewhere, where pilots started on the De Havilland Tiger Moth or Fleet Finch basic trainers before continuing on North American Harvards for advanced training, Avro Ansons, Airspeed Oxfords and Bristol Bolingbrokes for multi-engine as well as bombing training. Obsolete types such as the Fairey Battle and Westland Lysander were used for target towing, while other types such as the North American Yale were used for wireless operator (radio) training.  Postwar, the United States operated the Beechcraft T-34 Mentor for basic flight training, while the United Kingdom operated the De Havilland Chipmunk. The North American T-28 Trojan was replaced the T-6 in US service, while the Percival Provost filled a similar role with the RAF.

A trainer is a class of aircraft designed specifically to facilitate flight training of pilots and aircrews. The use of a dedicated trainer aircraft with additional safety features—such as tandem flight controls, forgiving flight characteristics and a simplified cockpit arrangement—allows pilots-in-training to safely advance their real-time piloting, navigation and warfighting skills without the danger of overextending their abilities alone in a fully featured aircraft.

教练机是训练飞行员从最初级的飞行技术到能够单独飞行与完成指定工作的特殊机种。无论是操作民用或者是军用飞机的飞行员都需要经过一些相同的训练程序,使用类似的教练机完成基础飞行课程。


History.

Initial development.

In 1983, Research Armament Industries (RAI) in the United States began development of a new, long-range sniper cartridge capable of firing a, diameter bullet at that could lethally penetrate five layers of military body armour at. After preliminary experiments, a.416 Rigby case necked down to take a bullet was selected, since this diameter presents an optimum of sectional density and penetrating capability for practical spin-stabilized rifle bullets (bullets up to about 5 to 5.5 calibers in length).  The.416 Rigby is an English big game cartridge that was designed in 1911 to accommodate 325 MPa (47,137 psi) pressures. One of the disadvantages of these old cartridge cases, which were intended for firing cordite charges instead of modern smokeless powder, is the thickness of the sidewall just forward of the web. During ignition, the cartridge's base, just forward of the bolt face, is not supported.  During the process RAI employed Jim Bell and Brass Extrusion Labs Ltd. (B.E.L.L.) of Bensenville, Illinois, to make the.338/416 or 8.58×71mm cartridge cases, Hornady produced bullets, and RAI built a sniper rifle under contract for the U.S. Navy. RAI found that the BELL cases did not fulfill the requirements, since they were modified low pressure.416 Rigby cases. Pressed by military deadlines RAI looked for another case producer and contacted Lapua of Finland in 1984. RAI was forced to drop out of the program due to financial difficulties. Subsequently, Lapua of Finland put this cartridge into limited production. The.338/416 rifle program was later canceled when the contractors were unable to make the cartridge meet the project's velocity target of for a bullet, due to excessive pressures rupturing cartridge cases.

Final development.

The current.338 Lapua Magnum cartridge was developed as a joint venture between the Finnish rifle manufacturer SAKO and the British rifle manufacturer Accuracy International along with the Finnish ammunition manufacturer Lapua, or more officially Nammo Lapua Oy, which since 1998 is part of the Nordic Ammunition Group (Nammo).  Lapua opted to redesign the.338/416 cartridge. In the new case design, particular attention was directed toward thickening and metallurgically strengthening the case's web and sidewall immediately forward of the web. In modern solid head cases, the hardness of the brass is the major factor that determines a case's pressure limit before undergoing plastic deformation. Lapua tackled this problem by creating a hardness distribution ranging from the head and web (hard) to the mouth (soft) as well as a strengthened (thicker) case web and sidewall immediately forward of the web. This resulted in a very pressure resistant case, allowing it to operate at high pressure and come within 15 m/s (50 ft/s) of the original velocity goal. Lapua also designed a.338 calibre Lock Base B408 full metal jacket bullet, modeled after its.30 calibre Lock Base bullet configuration. The result was the.338 Lapua Magnum cartridge which was registered with C.I.P. (Commission Internationale Permanente pour l'Epreuve des Armes à Feu Portatives) in 1989. With the procurement by the Dutch Army, the cartridge became NATO codified.  The.338 Lapua Magnum fills the gap between weapons chambered for standard military rounds such as the 7.62×51mm NATO and large, heavy rifles firing the.50 BMG cartridge. It also offers an acceptable amount of barrel wear, which is important to military snipers who tend to fire thousands of rounds a year in practice. This was achieved by coupling a sensible case volume (7.40 ml) to bore area (56.86 mm/0.5686 cm) ratio (13.01 O) with ample space for loading relatively long slender projectiles that can provide good aerodynamic efficiency and external ballistic performance for the projectile diameter. Like every other comparable large magnum rifle cartridge, the.338 Lapua Magnum presents a stout recoil. An appropriate fitting stock and an effective muzzle brake helps to reduce recoil-induced problems, enabling the operator to fire more rounds before getting too uncomfortable to shoot accurately. Good factory loads, multiple projectile weights and factory special application ammunition are all available.  Due to its growing civilian popularity, several high quality tactical and match (semi) custom bolt actions designed for the.338 Lapua Magnum are becoming available. These (semi) custom bolt actions are used with other high grade rifle and sighting components to build custom sporting and target rifles.

Law enforcement and military users.

The.338 Lapua Magnum cartridge is in law enforcement or military use with:  The.338 Lapua Magnum has been designated a "cartridge of interest" by the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA). It is being groomed to replace the.300 Winchester Magnum and the.50 BMG for anti-personnel long-range service in the U.S. military. On June 17, 2008, the U.S. government issued a market survey to support a requirement for a Precision Sniper Rifle (PRS) to possibly replace the currently fielded Bolt Action SOF Sniper Systems MK 13 (.300 Winchester Magnum) and the M40 and M24 (7.62×51mm NATO) chambered to safely fire factory produced "non-wildcat".338 caliber ammunition. On 7 March 2013, the Remington MSR was declared the winner of the Precision Sniper Rifle competition. Remington announced that the MSR had won on March 8, and it was publicly confirmed on March 9. This was followed by a $79.7 million contract for 5,150 rifles with suppressors, along with 4,696,800 rounds of ammunition to be supplied over the next ten years. The contract was awarded on 12 September 2013. Remington Defense produces the sniper rifles and utilizes two other companies for other system components, with Barnes Bullets for ammunition and Advanced Armament Corporation for muzzle brakes and suppressors; all three companies are subsidiaries of Remington Outdoor Company.

Cartridge dimensions.

Extremely thick-walled brass results in a 7.40 ml (114 grains HO) cartridge case capacity for the.338 Lapua Magnum. The exterior shape of the case was designed to promote reliable feeding and extraction in bolt action, semi-automatic, and automatic firearms alike, under extreme conditions. .338 Lapua Magnum maximum C.I.P. cartridge dimensions. All sizes in millimeters (mm).  Americans would define the shoulder angle at alpha/2 ≈ 20 degrees. The common rifling twist rate for this cartridge is 254 mm (1 in 10 in), 6 grooves, Ø lands = 8.38 mm, Ø grooves = 8.58 mm, land width = 2.79 mm and the primer type is large rifle magnum.  According to the official C.I.P. (Commission Internationale Permanente pour l'Epreuve des Armes à Feu Portatives) decisions and tables edition 2007 the.338 Lapua Magnum case can handle up to P piezo pressure. This now prevails over the C.I.P. decisions and tables edition 2003, that rated the.338 Lapua Magnum at P maximum piezo pressure. The P maximum piezo pressure C.I.P. ruling for the.300 Lapua Magnum cartridge, which is based on the same case, was not accordingly changed. In C.I.P. regulated countries every rifle cartridge combo has to be proofed at 125% of the prevailing maximum C.I.P. pressure to certify for sale to consumers. This means that.338 Lapua Magnum chambered arms in C.I.P. regulated countries are currently (2013) proof tested at PE piezo pressure.  Lapua has been ambivalent on the maximum piezo pressure of this cartridge. In the article 'From an American dream to a Finnish success story' by Janne Pohjoispää Lapua propagates the C.I.P. 2007 ruling of maximum piezo pressure. To further complicate matters the mentioned 56,000 CUP C.I.P. copper crusher pressure in this article would translate in ≈ C.I.P. piezo pressure according to a study on the conversion from CUP to PSI for rifle cartridges by Denton Bramwell. The C.I.P. 2003 ruling of piezo pressure is corroborated by Lapua Australia in the 'History and development of the.338 Lapua Magnum' article by Alan C. Paulson. A reverse engineering simulation with QuickLOAD internal ballistic software predicted that Lapua load their factory.338 Lapua Magnum ammunition at ≈ piezo pressure as Alan C. Paulson asserts in his article.  The large boltface combined with the maximum pressure means that the.338 Lapua Magnum should only be chambered in rifles that are capable of handling such large high pressure cartridges and thus high bolt thrust safely. Chambering such powerful super magnum cartridges in rifles intended for normal magnum rifle cartridges and using high pressure loads can cause serious or fatal injury to the shooter and bystanders.  The American.338-378 Weatherby Magnum cartridge introduced in 1998 and the American.338 Remington Ultra Magnum (.338 RUM) cartridge introduced in 2000 are probably the closest ballistic twins of the.338 Lapua Magnum commercially available. The.338-378 Weatherby Magnum is however a belted cartridge and the.338 Remington Ultra Magnum is a rebated rim cartridge.  The American SAAMI (Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute) has no normal voluntary guidelines for the.338 Lapua Magnum. On 14 January 2013 it opted to use the metric C.I.P. rulings and add some dimensions that have no C.I.P. analog.

Supersonic range performance of the.338 Lapua Magnum.

Performance with C.I.P. conforming cartridges.

For a typical.338 Lapua Magnum high end factory military sniper rifle like the Sako TRG-42 with a long 305 mm (1 in 12 inch) rifling twist rate barrel at sea level, is considered to be the maximum shooting distance for man sized targets. When using standard Lapua military 16.2 g (250 gr) loads it has a supersonic range of under warm summer conditions at a muzzle velocity of. However, to be able to maintain 80 to 90% hit probability on non-moving reactive army targets, this maximum shooting distance has to be reduced to at freezing point conditions or in Arctic winter conditions, when the muzzle velocity may drop to —i.e. only during optimal warm summer conditions the maximum shooting distance is realistically achievable.  Loaded with more aerodynamic very-low-drag bullets such as the traditionally lead cored 19.44 g (300.0 gr) Lapua Scenar GB528 VLD bullet (G1 BC = 0.736) or the Lost River Ballistics J40.338 17.5 gram (270 gr) CNC manufactured mono-metal bullet (G1 BC = 0.871) the long-range performance and supersonic range of.338 Lapua Magnum rifles can be improved. These longer very-low-drag bullets require a 254 mm (1 in 10 inch) twist rate to stabilize them. Due to the lower practically possible muzzle velocities for a relative heavy bullet like the 19.44 g (300 gr) Lapua Scenar GB528 VLD bullet it gains about extra supersonic range under International Standard Atmosphere sea level conditions (air density ρ = 1.225 kg/m) at a muzzle velocity of 837 m/s (2750 ft/s) when compared to the standard 16.2 g (250 gr) Lapua Scenar GB488 VLD at a muzzle velocity of 915 m/s (3002 ft/s). For significant supersonic range improvement the aerodynamic efficiency of the employed bullets has to be significantly improved without sacrificing a lot of practically achievable muzzle velocity - meaning that besides the coefficient of drag of the projectile weight is also an important parameter for its actual downrange flight behavior. The.338 17.5 gram (270 gr) Lost River Ballistic Technologies J40 match bullet made out of a copper-nickel alloy is one of the most aerodynamic.338 calibre bullets available. It has an supersonic range under optimal warm summer conditions at a muzzle velocity of. This makes engaging static targets up to feasible.

Performance improvement experiments with non-C.I.P.-conforming cartridges.

Improvement beyond this standard while still using standard.338 Lapua Magnum brass is possible, but the bullets have to be very long (over 5.5 calibers in length) and the normal cartridge overall length of 93.5 mm has to be exceeded making such cartridges wildcats. The common 254 mm (1:10 inch) rifling twist rate also has to be tightened to stabilize very long projectiles. Such commercially non-existent cartridges are termed "wildcats". The use of a wildcat.338 Lapua Magnum based cartridge demands the use of a custom or customized rifle with an appropriately cut chamber and fast-twist bore. The firearm action and if a repeating arm is required the magazine(s) must also be able to cope with dimensional increases.  An example of such a special.338 calibre extreme range bullet is the German CNC manufactured mono-metal 18.92 gram (292 gr) LM-105 (C = 0.2487 at Mach 2.216 – this drag coefficient and the corresponding G1, G7 and G8 ballistic coefficients are established by Doppler radar measurements). The LM-105 has a supersonic range of ≈ at a muzzle velocity of under International Standard Atmosphere sea level conditions (air density ρ = 1.225 kg/m). The 2010 version of the LM-105 bullet has an overall length of or 6.33 calibers and derives its exceptional low drag from a radical LD Haack or Sears-Haack profile in the bullet's nose area. Rifles chambered for this wildcat cartridge, with a cartridge overall length of, and equipped with custom made 178 mm (1:7 inch) progressive twist rate long barrels with a 2° cone-angle (the standard C.I.P. cone-angle for the.338 Lapua Magnum is 6°) cone area finished first and second at several long range competitions. Its most recent win (2007) was in an international Special Forces and police sniper competition in Switzerland against rifles chambered for 7.62×51mm NATO up to.50 BMG at ranges from 100 m – 1,500 m (109 yd – 1,640 yd). The LM-105 bullet exhibited its very low wind drift susceptibility notably at ranges beyond. A real world average G1 BC of ≈ 0.83 or a G7 BC of ≈ 0.42 is commonly adopted by the users of this bullet, for making long range trajectory predictions using ballistics calculators. In contrast the LM-105 designer Lutz Möller originally calculated an optimistic G1 BC of ≈ 0.93 and a supersonic range of ≈ at a muzzle velocity of under International Standard Atmosphere sea level conditions (air density ρ = 1.225 kg/m).  The.343 Lapua Magnum LM-107 was a wildcat cartridge under development based on the standard.338 Lapua Magnum cartridge case. The LM-107 was hoped to boost the ballistic performance of the LM-105 by achieving an increase in supersonic range. The 19.3 g (298 gr) LM-107 projectile design is long and has a Haack profiled nose and an Adams profiled tail. The rifling twist rate for the.343 Lapua Magnum LM-107 wildcat cartridge was chosen at 180 mm (1:7 inch), Ø lands = 8.72 mm, Ø grooves = 8.45 mm and loaded with the LM-107 projectile has a cartridge overall length of. The length of the neck is increased from 8,31 to 8,50 mm to support the bigger LM-107 bullet. Several other dimensions of the.338 Lapua Magnum parental cartridge are also changed. The shoulder angle gets steepened from 40° to 60° and the body taper is set at 1°. The throat area is set at a 2° cone-angle. All this modifications make the.343 Lapua Magnum a fairly comprehensively revised wildcat cartridge. Out of a long progressive twist barrel Mr. Möller expected to achieve muzzle velocity. If Möller's design assumptions are correct the LM-107 projectile with a calculated G1 BC of 1.02 will offer a supersonic range of ≈ at a muzzle velocity of under International Standard Atmosphere sea level conditions (air density ρ = 1.225 kg/m).

.338 Lapua Magnum as a parent case.

The.300 Lapua Magnum.

The commercially successful.338 Lapua Magnum cartridge has functioned as the parent case for the.300 Lapua Magnum, which is essentially a necked-down version of the.338 Lapua Magnum. The.338 cartridge case was used for this since it has the capability to operate with high chamber pressures which, combined with smaller and hence lighter bullets result in very high muzzle velocities.  The Finnish ammunition manufacturer Lapua got the.300 Lapua Magnum C.I.P. certified, so it became an officially registered and sanctioned member of the Finnish "family" of super magnum rifle cartridges. The.300 Lapua Magnum is not commercially available and currently exists only as a C.I.P. datasheet. It is however still used by a few shooters who produce the cases from.338 Lapua Magnum brass by reshaping the shoulder and neck, and handloading it with.30 calibre bullets.  The.300 Lapua Magnum has a 7.33 ml (113 grains HO) cartridge case capacity. .300 Lapua Magnum maximum C.I.P. cartridge dimensions. All sizes in millimeters (mm).  Americans would define the shoulder angle at alpha/2 ≈ 25 degrees. The common rifling twist rate for this cartridge is 240 mm (1 in 9.45 in), 4 grooves, Ø lands = 7.62 mm, Ø grooves = 7.82 mm, land width = 4.47 mm and the primer type is large rifle magnum.  According to the official C.I.P. (Commission Internationale Permanente pour l'Epreuve des Armes à Feu Portatives) rulings the.300 Lapua Magnum can handle up to P piezo pressure. This now prevails over the C.I.P. decisions and tables edition 2007, that rated the.300 Lapua Magnum at P piezo pressure. In C.I.P. regulated countries every rifle cartridge combo has to be proofed at 125% of this maximum C.I.P. pressure to certify for sale to consumers. This means that.300 Lapua Magnum chambered arms in C.I.P. regulated countries are currently (2013) proof tested at PE piezo pressure.  This for rifles very high maximum allowed chamber pressure level indicates that the cases of the.300 and.338 Lapua Magnum are built extremely sturdy to cope with this for rifles very high operating pressure. The large boltface combined with the high 470 MPa (68,000 PSI) maximum pressure makes that the.300 Lapua Magnum should only be chambered in rifles that are capable of handling such large and fierce cartridges and thus high bolt thrust safely. Chambering such powerful super magnum cartridges in rifles intended for normal magnum rifle cartridges and using 470 MPa (68,000 PSI) loads can cause serious or fatal injury to the shooter and bystanders.

The 7.62 UKM.

The.338 Lapua Magnum cartridge is also used as the parent case for the German designed 7.62 UKM, which is essentially a necked-down shortened version of the.338 Lapua Magnum. The use of the.338 cartridge case with its capability to operate at high chamber pressures resulted in magnum case capable of producing high muzzle velocities.  The 7.62 UKM was developed by Michael Uekötter and was C.I.P.-certified in 2002, making it an officially registered and sanctioned member of the Finnish "family" of super magnum rifle cartridges. The 7.62 UKM is not commercially available and currently exists only as a C.I.P. datasheet. It is however still used by a few shooters who produce the cases from.338 Lapua Magnum brass by reshaping the shoulder and neck, and handloading it with.30 calibre bullets.  The 7.62 UKM has a 5.84 ml (90 grains HO) cartridge case capacity.  7.62 UKM maximum C.I.P. cartridge dimensions. All sizes in millimeters (mm).  Americans would define the shoulder angle at alpha/2 ≈ 20 degrees. The common rifling twist rate for this cartridge is 254 mm (1 in 10 in), 6 grooves, Ø lands = 7.62 mm, Ø grooves = 7.82 mm, land width = 2.79 mm and the primer type is large rifle magnum.  According to the official C.I.P. (Commission Internationale Permanente pour l'Epreuve des Armes à Feu Portatives) rulings the 7.62 UKM Magnum can handle up to P piezo pressure. This now prevails over the C.I.P. decisions and tables edition 2007, that rated the 7.62 UKM at P piezo pressure. In C.I.P. regulated countries every rifle cartridge combo has to be proofed at 125% of this maximum C.I.P. pressure to certify for sale to consumers. This means that 7.62 UKM chambered arms in C.I.P. regulated countries are currently (2013) proof tested at PE piezo pressure.

Wildcats.

The.338 Lapua Magnum case is also used as the parent case for a host of modified variants that are not officially registered with or sanctioned by C.I.P. or its American equivalent, SAAMI. Such cartridges which use commercial factory cases are generally known as wildcats. By changing the shape of standard factory cases (decreasing case taper and/or changing the shoulder geometry) the wildcatter generally increases the case capacity of the factory parent cartridge case, allowing more propellant to be used to generate higher velocities. Besides changing the shape and internal volume of the parent cartridge case, wildcatters also can change the original calibre. A reason to change the original calibre can be to comply with a minimal permitted calibre or bullet weight for the legal hunting of certain species of game. Because the.338 Lapua offers a large and exceptionally sturdy, pressure resistant cartridge case that can be relatively easily reloaded and hence be reused several times, it has become quite popular amongst wildcatters. With the.338 Lapua Magnum as the parent case wildcatters have created 7 mm (7 mm Allen Magnum, 7 mm Katzmeier, 7 mm Fatso),.30 (.30-338 Lapua (Triebel),.30 Wolf, 300 Allen Express), 8 mm (8 mm-338 Lapua (Triebel), LM-101),.338 (.338 Yogi, LM-105),.343 (.343 Lapua Magnum LM-107), 9.3 mm (9,3-338 Lapua Magnum (Triebel)),.375 (9.5×70 ELR) and.50 calibre (.510 Whisper) variants. Tom Sarver used a.300 Hulk wildcat cartridge, which is basically a necked-down, blown out, shortened.338 Lapua Magnum variant, to achieve a diameter benchrest 5-shot group on 7 July 2007, establishing a world record.

The.338 Lapua Magnum (8.6×70mm or 8.58×70mm) is a rimless, bottlenecked, centerfire rifle cartridge. It was developed during the 1980s as a high-powered, long-range cartridge for military snipers. It was used in the War in Afghanistan and the Iraq War. As a result of this, it became more widely available. The loaded cartridge is in diameter (rim) and long. It can penetrate better-than-standard military body armor at ranges up to and has a maximum effective range of about with C.I.P. conform ammunition at sea level conditions. Muzzle velocity is dependent on barrel length, seating depth, and powder charge, and varies from for commercial loads with bullets, which corresponds to about of muzzle energy.

.338拉普麦格农Lapua Magnum(8.58×70mm)是一种用于远距离军用狙击步枪的中央式底火式子弹,威力介乎于传统的通用机枪子弹和重机枪子弹中间,因为可以用传统狙击步枪改良型来发射,而不致过分依赖笨重的传统发射重机枪子弹的反器材步枪而受到欢迎。


弗拉基米尔·瓦西里耶维奇·谢尔比茨基

Biography.

An influential figure in the Soviet Union, a member of Soviet politburo since 1971, he was a close ally to Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev. His rule of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was characterized by the expanded policies of re-centralisation and suppression of dissent. While supporting Russification policies, he still allowed the Ukrainian language to keep circulating side-by-side with Russian in this traditionally bilingual republic. Scherbytsky's power base was arguably one of the most corrupt and conservative among the Soviet republics.  On 20 September 1989, Shcherbytsky lost his membership of the politburo in a purge of conservative members pushed through by Mikhail Gorbachev. Eight days later he was removed from leadership of the Communist Party of Ukraine at a plenum in Kiev personally presided over by Gorbachev.  Shcherbytsky died on 16 February 1990 after a long illness.

Awards.

Volodymyr Shcherbytsky was twice awarded the Hero of Socialist Labour — in 1974 and 1977. During his public service he also received numerous other civil and state awards and recognitions, including the Order of Lenin (in 1958, 1968, 1971, 1973, 1977, 1983 and 1988), the Order of October Revolution (in 1978 and 1982), the Order of the Patriotic War, I class (in 1985) and various medals.

Economic Growth in the Ukrainian SSR.

Taking office in 1972, Volodymyr Shcherbytsky greatly expanded the economy despite the challenges of Acceleration and Gorbachev. In his 17 years as First Secretary of the Ukrainian SSR the economic potential increased nearly fourfold. This was a massive increase in comparison to previous decades. In addition, the raw volume of industrial production increased over five times what it was in 1972. It was not only heavy and light industry that expanded at this time. Agriculture also expanded as well. Agriculture production doubled while he was in charge and by 1989 the Ukrainian SSR was making more than 51 million tons of grain. This was more than a ton of grain produced per person at that time.

Quotes.

In 1985 Leonid Kravchuk who was a secretary of Communist Party of Ukraine about ideological matters was preparing a report for Shcherbytsky for the next party committee gatherings following a plenum of the Central Committee of Communist Party of the Soviet Union. In his report Kravchuk mentioned a word "perestroika". As soon as Shcherbytsky had heard the word, he stopped Kravchuk and asked.

Volodymyr Vasylyovych Shcherbytsky ( IPA: [vɔlɔˈdɪmɪr vɐˈsɪljɔvɪt͡ʃ ʃt͡ʃerˈbɪt͡sjkɪj], ; 17 February 1918 — 16 February 1990) was a Ukrainian and Soviet politician. He was a leader of the Communist Party of Ukraine from 1972 to 1989.

弗拉基米尔·瓦西里耶维奇·谢尔比茨基(,1918年-2月17日-1990年-2月16日)乌克兰人,苏联党和国家领导人,乌克兰党中央第一书记。


History.

Riehen is first mentioned in 1157 as "Rieheim".

Geography.

Riehen has an area,, of. Of this area, or 25.6% is used for agricultural purposes, while or 25.2% is forested. Of the rest of the land, or 47.8% is settled (buildings or roads), or 2.1% is either rivers or lakes.  Of the built up area, housing and buildings made up 28.0% and transportation infrastructure made up 7.7%. while parks, green belts and sports fields made up 11.3%. Out of the forested land, 23.8% of the total land area is heavily forested and 1.4% is covered with orchards or small clusters of trees. Of the agricultural land, 14.2% is used for growing crops and 7.3% is pastures, while 4.1% is used for orchards or vine crops. Of the water in the municipality, 0.2% is in lakes and 1.9% is in rivers and streams.  The municipality is located on the right bank of the Rhine on the Swiss-German border between Wiese and the Chrischonahügel.

Coat of arms.

The blazon of the municipal coat of arms is "Azure, six Bricks Argent one, two and three."

Demographics.

Riehen has a population () of., 18.3% of the population are resident foreign nationals. Over the last 10 years (1999–2009 ) the population has changed at a rate of -0.2%. It has changed at a rate of 4.9% due to migration and at a rate of -4.9% due to births and deaths.  Most of the population () speaks German (18,509 or 90.9%), with French being second most common (365 or 1.8%) and Italian being third (355 or 1.7%). There are 29 people who speak Romansh.  Of the population in the municipality 4,549 or about 22.3% were born in Riehen and lived there in 2000. There were 4,939 or 24.2% who were born in the same canton, while 5,700 or 28.0% were born somewhere else in Switzerland, and 4,420 or 21.7% were born outside of Switzerland.  In there were 94 live births to Swiss citizens and 33 births to non-Swiss citizens, and in same time span there were 226 deaths of Swiss citizens and 5 non-Swiss citizen deaths. Ignoring immigration and emigration, the population of Swiss citizens decreased by 132 while the foreign population increased by 28. There were 4 Swiss men who emigrated from Switzerland and 22 Swiss women who immigrated back to Switzerland. At the same time, there were 73 non-Swiss men and 41 non-Swiss women who immigrated from another country to Switzerland. The total Swiss population change in 2008 (from all sources, including moves across municipal borders) was a decrease of 95 and the non-Swiss population increased by 117 people. This represents a population growth rate of 0.1%. , there were 7,169 people who were single and never married in the municipality. There were 10,466 married individuals, 1,621 widows or widowers and 1,114 individuals who are divorced. , there were 9,201 private households in the municipality, and an average of 2.1 persons per household. There were 3,248 households that consist of only one person and 409 households with five or more people. Out of a total of 9,315 households that answered this question, 34.9% were households made up of just one person and there were 82 adults who lived with their parents. Of the rest of the households, there are 3,073 married couples without children, 2,232 married couples with children There were 468 single parents with a child or children. There were 98 households that were made up of unrelated people and 114 households that were made up of some sort of institution or another collective housing.  The historical population is given in the following chart:

Heritage sites of national significance.

The Beyeler Foundation, the Cemetery "am Hörnli" with crematorium, the New and Old "Wenkenhof" with Park, the Reformed Village Church of St Martin with Meierhof and ring wall, the Wettsteinhäuser (Toy Museum and Village Museum), the Colnaghi House, Huber House and Schaeffer-von Déchend House are listed as Swiss heritage site of national significance. The entire town of Riehen is part of the Inventory of Swiss Heritage Sites

Politics.

In the 2007 federal election the most popular party was the SP which received 24.29% of the vote. The next three most popular parties were the SVP (21.11%), the LPS Party (14.32%) and the FDP (13.19%). In the federal election, a total of 8,209 votes were cast, and the voter turnout was 58.6%.

Economy.

, Riehen had an unemployment rate of 2.1%., there were 33 people employed in the primary economic sector and about 11 businesses involved in this sector. 552 people were employed in the secondary sector and there were 88 businesses in this sector. 3,392 people were employed in the tertiary sector, with 506 businesses in this sector. There were 8,930 residents of the municipality who were employed in some capacity, of which females made up 45.2% of the workforce. , there were 3,207 workers who commuted into the municipality and 6,673 workers who commuted away. The municipality is a net exporter of workers, with about 2.1 workers leaving the municipality for every one entering. About 21.0% of the workforce coming into Riehen are coming from outside Switzerland, while 1.1% of the locals commute out of Switzerland for work. Of the working population, 41.7% used public transportation to get to work, and 31.4% used a private car.

Religion.

From the, 4,683 or 23.0% were Roman Catholic, while 7,464 or 36.6% belonged to the Swiss Reformed Church. Of the rest of the population, there were 213 members of an Orthodox church (or about 1.05% of the population), there were 56 individuals (or about 0.27% of the population) who belonged to the Christian Catholic Church, and there were 1,030 individuals (or about 5.06% of the population) who belonged to another Christian church. There were 95 individuals (or about 0.47% of the population) who were Jewish, and 272 (or about 1.34% of the population) who were Islamic. There were 53 individuals who were Buddhist, 48 individuals who were Hindu and 36 individuals who belonged to another church. 5,731 (or about 28.13% of the population) belonged to no church, are agnostic or atheist, and 689 individuals (or about 3.38% of the population) did not answer the question.

Climate.

Riehen has an average of 123.3 days of rain or snow per year and on average receives of precipitation. The wettest month is June during which time Riehen receives an average of of rain or snow. During this month there is precipitation for an average of 11.6 days. The month with the most days of precipitation is May, with an average of 12.7, but with only of rain or snow. The driest month of the year is March with an average of of precipitation over 10.7 days.

Education.

In Riehen about 8,191 or (40.2%) of the population have completed non-mandatory upper secondary education, and 4,205 or (20.6%) have completed additional higher education (either university or a "Fachhochschule"). Of the 4,205 who completed tertiary schooling, 53.5% were Swiss men, 29.0% were Swiss women, 10.2% were non-Swiss men and 7.3% were non-Swiss women. , there were 310 students in Riehen who came from another municipality, while 1,280 residents attended schools outside the municipality.  Riehen is home to the "Gemeindebibliothek Riehen" (municipal library of Riehen). The library has () 37,413 books or other media, and loaned out 149,733 items in the same year. It was open a total of 310 days with average of 24 hours per week during that year.

Riehen (Swiss German: "Rieche") is a municipality in the canton of Basel-Stadt in Switzerland. Together with the city of Basel and Bettingen, Riehen is one of three municipalities in the canton.

左翼-绿色运动(,缩写为VG)是冰岛的一个左翼政党。该党成立于1999年2月6日,由人民联盟中一些反对与社会民主党等党派结盟的成员组建。