HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Velocity Crash (Was: Impending Velocity factory visit)
Date: 24 Dec 1992 16:47:54 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: wiley.ts.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec22.181957.18546@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, bky@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (william.a.stafford) writes:
> In the Dec (current) issue of Sport Aviation there is a small piece about
> a fatal crash of a Velocity.  It would be interesting to know if the Velocity
> people know any more about this. 

US Aviator had a somewhat more detailed description of this accident, since
they had just had an article featuring the Velocity pilot.  According to 
them, the accident was caused by a near-miss with an airliner with both 
planes under positive control.  Just before the accident, the pilot radioed 
something about vortices and turbulence.  The implication is that ATC put
the Velocity directly into the wake of the jet.

According to USA, the FAA initially tried to cover up its error and blame
the accident on the homebuilt and/or pilot (an easy target, of course).  
Gradually the facts came out and they were forced to admit their fault.

Anyone else know more?
-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: jimharr@microsoft.com (Jim Harriger)
Subject: Re: Velocity factory visit report
Date: 04 Jan 93 01:03:19 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan1.193407.3775@walter.bellcore.com> venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh) writes:
>
>We visited the Velocity factory in Sebastian, FL this past Monday to take a 
>closer look at the factory, plane and the kit. Here is a report from what I
>learnt.
> [stuff omitted...]
>
>Currently, 200hp Lycoming IO-360 (fuel-injected versions) are used in the
>factory equipment. An 180hp engine can also be used but is likely to have
>severe penalties in its performance.
>
>A 235hp 6-cylinder inline Subaru engine conversion is ready and will be put 
>in the Big Orange for testing as soon as they receive the prop reduction unit
>from Ross. The only modifications are - the intake manifold has been turned
>180 degrees, the original alternator has been replaced with a smaller one,
>and an emergency ignition module including all the electronics required to
>run the engine in case of a failure of the main module has been added. A 
>monitor to read out the engine diagnostics will be made available with the 
>engine kit for permanent installation in the instrument panel. The exhaust 
>system will also include a muffler. The engine can be retrofitted on any of 
>the earlier velocities. There would be no mixture control.

	i don't think this is an inline engine. unless subaru has something up
their sleeves that i'm unaware of, this is the engine from the SVX sports car.
it is an OHC (DOHC?) opposed six cylinder, water cooled, fuel injected engine.

i'll be interested to hear how this works, i've always thought that this would
make a spectacular ~200hp engine.

thanks for the detailed report, venky.


					jim harriger
					future skystar speedster builder
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
jim harriger    -email: jimharr@microsoft.com      -ma bell: 206/ 936 5568
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: wpeloqui@medar.com (Willie Peloquin)
Subject: Sticker Prices
Organization: Medar, Inc.     Farmington Hills, MI
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:39:16 GMT

Hi,

    I am thinking about purchasing a kitplane in the near future. I have
a question about price dickering. Is it a common practice to dicker over
the cost, as you would when purchasing an automobile. I know that I would
never pay sticker price for a car. Does anyone have any stories to pass
on.

    Thanks in advance,

Willie
-- 
Willie Peloquin		PP-ASEL  |  I'm not a kid anymore, but this ain't no
wpeloqui@medar.com	         |  midlife crisis, because whiskey and women
wpeloqui@n8mdy.south-lyon.mi.us  |  have always been my vices!       Bocephus
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: aboyd@quantum.on.ca (Andrew Boyd)
Subject: Re: Wag Aero Sport Trainer
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 15:17:52 GMT
Organization: Quantum Software Systems

In article <BzMrsy.2I91@austin.ibm.com> collier@austin.vnet.ibm.com writes:
>Haven't actually built one but did get a look at the plans. They are of
>average quality. Not step by step but sufficient to build. Wag Aero used to
>advertise as the CUBy until Piper cried foul. There was an excellent example
>at Kerrville last year, won Plans Built category and it was beautiful. The
>builder and pilot raved about the plane.

A friend of mine built one of the wag-aero "super sport" cubs.  Really
a 150HP super cub.  He does excellent work, everybody drools over his
plane.  Even has a "T" IFR panel/comm/vor/loran/xpndr.  He's flown it
to oshkosh at least once.  With the 150HP and all that wing, the STOL
performance is quite remarkable: 1800 FPM ain't bad.

He likes the wag-aero stuff so much he is building another "super sport"
cub, this one a floatplane.  You should see the floats he built ...

They're an ok a/c to fly if you're not in a hurry.  Lotsa wingspan, very
nice slow speed characteristics.  I hate control columns, and love sticks,
but I didn't much like the slow roll response.  I guess you pay for that 
wingspan.  Also, if all you've ever flown is cessnas & pipers before,   
the amount of adverse yaw will be an eye-opener - gotta learn to use
the rudder.

----
#include <std.disclaimer>
From: ch491@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pj Pisczak)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: SeaPlanes
Date: 31 Dec 1992 17:15:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


In my eternal search for an ideal amphibious aircraft I came
across a rather nice picture in the 1993 EAA calendar of the
Spencer Air Car.  It seems to have a lot of what I am looking for
- that is a decent useful load, reasonable cruise speed, and low
stall.  The only downside I detect is it uses a 300 hp engine, 
probably necessary for the load and speed...gulp, gulp gulp that
gas!  (Price one pays for flying a boat!).

My question is about whether anyone has heard anything about this
unique design, one based on the SeaBee.  They have been around for
20 yrs+, but I just haven't heard much about them.  All responses
gratefully appreciated.                    Keep the Faith, PJ
-- 
Sealy R & D - A laid back job with its ups & downs, but we always
manage to spring back.  All opinions are regretfully my very own.
17500 Engle Lake Drive			     Phone (216)-891-8200
Middleburg Hts., Ohio 44130-8399               Fax (216)-891-9116
From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Impending Velocity factory visit
Date: 21 Dec 1992 18:35:20 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: wiley.ts.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec19.014719.9943@news.arc.nasa.gov>, doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay) writes:
...about the end result of staying with an airplane in deep-stall all the way
to the ground.

> Whether or not it was a problem has been hashed over on the net a little in the
> past. Sinking at about 15 mph is not all that bad, the trouble is that there
> was no way other than the ground to stop the decent. Comming straight down at
> 15 or so mph seems far better than spinning in at over 200 mph, which is 
> something many planes can do. Seems that way to me, anyway.  

The deep-stall descents which have occurred in the Velocity have, fortunately,
been benign and completely surviveable.  As people have already mentioned on
the net, the test pilot (Carl Pascarell?) chose to ride out the descent instead
of bail out, because of two factors: first, the descent rate was quite low.  Second,
the configuration seemed quite stable.  That is, everything he tried (including 
standing on the canard) failed to affect the deep stall condition.

I have no problem with the slow descent rate.  What surprises me, though, is that
the pilot the pilot chose to stay with the airplane given that:
	1.  the plane was not in his control, and he did not expect to regain control
	2.  this phenomenon wasn't really fully understood, so he really didn't *know*
		what the plane might do during the descent.  Sure there was some
		evidence to show the stall mode would remain stable all the way to 
		the ground, but my imperfect memory of the articles I read is that
		he wasn't *really sure*.
	3.  he knew that the descent would result in a [crash] landing, again beyond
		his control.
	4.  he had another way out, namely a parachute, and was apprarently 
		prepared to use it if necessary.  I believe he had sufficient 
		altitude to use it safely.

I am far from a test pilot, but given these four factors, expecially #2, there's no 
way I would have stayed with that airplane.  The thought of that airplane somehow
coming out of the stall or otherwise increasing its descent rate below a recoverable
altitude would have scared the hell out of me.  Besides, airplanes are expendible
and he wasn't controlling it (well, maybe marginally, I don't remember) anyway.  Do 
people disagree?  Why?  Was the deep-stall really better understood than I think it 
was?
-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
From: cul8er@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (* JOHNNY CHIU * KB5SJN *)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: A/C Drawing
Date: 23 Dec 92 22:04:08 GMT
Reply-To: cul8er@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (* JOHNNY CHIU * KB5SJN *)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Originator: cul8er@sleepy.cc.utexas.edu


              |
              |
             /0\          
   \_______[|(.)|]_______/
     O   **  -o-  **   O 
     
       Phantom forever
           _______
              |
              |
             /O\
    -------<((o))>-------
             O O
            F-101
        One-O-Wonder
     


           _______
              |
              |
             /0\
      O-----((.))-----O
             * *      
            F-104
         Star Fighter
      


             \       /
              \     /
      _________\/O\/_________
      *       (|(.)|)       *          

               F-18
              Hornet

                 |
                 |
                /0\
       _______(|(.)|)________
      *                      * 
                F-5E
              Tiger II


Merry X'mas & Happy New Year.
 


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: barnett@convex.com (Paul Barnett)
Subject: Re: GPS and IFR Approaches
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 03:06:34 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Dec31.011252.1593@oakhill.sps.mot.com> mpaton@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Michael J Paton) writes:

>In article <1992Dec30.124200.4248@linus.mitre.org> Bob Noel writes:
>>
>>it turns out that the really important DOP is the VDOP (the _Vertical_
>>DOP).  A VDOP supporting vertical accuracy almost as good as ILS Cat I
>>is available only 99%. (that number is for a full constellation and DGPS)
>>
>Could you clarify this a bit please. I believe that I understand that 
>you are saying that the best GPS VDOP results in vertical accuracy
>almost as good as the Cat 1 glideslope. Is it not however true that
>if one assumes that the glideslope were perfectly accurate, and one 
>could track it perfectly, then the main problem in avoiding the ground
>is the use of a Decision Height determined in the Cat 1 ILS by a 
>barometric altimeter which may be off by + or - 75 feet. If one assesses
>the accuracy of the ground installation combined with the airborne
>equipment, does the DGPS and full constellation not then come out ahead?

I also have an additional question, which may or may not relate to the
answer to this one: As I understand the implementation of the
localizer/glideslope in ILS, the sensitivity increases as you approach
the decision height.  In other words, a deviation of a given distance
from the "centerline" of the desired course and descent path will
result in a larger deflection of the indicators as the aircraft draws
closer to the runway (and the ILS antennas).  As I said before, I know
nothing about MLS, so I'm not sure the same phenomena occurs.

If this is indeed true, then I presume the comparison of ILS Cat I to
whatever is at the minimum decision height of 200 feet.  How much do
the "numbers" change if one backs up/off to 300, or even 400 feet?


--
Paul Barnett
MPP OS Development     (214)-497-4846
Convex Computer Corp.  Richardson, TX
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: GPS and IFR Approache
Date: 27 Dec 92 00:45:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

O> .4 birds in view is *not*, repeat *not*, a sufficient condition for a
 > .GPS geometry with a low enough VDOP to support Cat I (or better) approaches
 > .The number of satellites is not really the issue, the important thing
 > .is the precision offered by the satellite geometry (which, of course, is
 > .strongly influenced by the number birds in view).  You can have situations
 > .where 5 birds in view is inferior to other times with only 4 birds in view.

I don't think anyone is seriously considering precision approaches
without DGPS.  There is some work being done on techniques that provide
better than Cat-III accuracy.  (Accurate to small numbers of cm.)
That's a bit premature yet, though.

O> .For GPS to provide precision approaches, it appears that there must be
 > .a ground station.  Thus, both systems will be vulnerable to unintentional
 > .threats.

The DGPS ground equipment wouldn't be located in anywhere near as
vulnerable an area as current ILS equipment.  And it wouldn't be
susceptible to weather, or vehicle intrusion, as current ILS equipment.
It's also far simpler, and cheap enough that redundancy is a distinct
possibility.  Especially with wide-area DGPS.

O> .and as usual, nobody seems to worry about the integrity of GPS or DGPS.

No, the FCC is very worried about integrity.  That's one of the reasons
why they have not approved GPS for _any_ usage yet.  But there's good
evidence that GPS will have higher availability than the current nav.
systems.  (No single point of failure, for the most part...)

        D/
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-3345 . Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                         
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: geo@netcom.com (George Pontis)
Subject: IFR icing strategies
Keywords: ice ifr
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 21:03:07 GMT

Not that I'm a very experienced IFR pilot, but I have encountered significant
icing in several flights recently. As a result of this, I want to add a few
comments to the others posted here recently.

First and foremost, it should be said that as soon as one realizes that
they are accumulating any significant ice, to do something about it
*immediately*. My experience is that ATC will be most helpful in clearing
one for a climb, descent, or change in route as needed to get a small
plane out of icing conditions. A good article in a recent IFR magazine
offered the comment that it's often too late to do something if the pilot
waits until noticing an effect on the airspeed or climb performance.

Second, it can be very helpful to be well below max gross weight, so that 
you have margin on the plane's climb performance.

That said, I can report that after accumulating about .25" clear ice on a
R-182 loaded about 350lbs below max gross, the performance was not greatly
affected. The ice had built up very smoothly over about 10 minutes, and I
didn't realize how much there was until I inspected the plane on the ground.
All the leading edges were evenly coated, as well as the rim of the intake
holes in the cowling. The prop spinner had a .5" diameter disk of ice on the
very tip. The prop didn't have any ice at all. This occurred while flying 
over the Sierras into Reno at about 11000, 20 F.
cowling. 
how much there was until landing.
-- 
George Pontis ( geo@netcom.COM )
From: stephens@access.digex.com (John Stephens)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: GPS and IFR Approache
Date: 28 Dec 1992 17:20:32 GMT
Organization: Severn Companies, Inc., Lanham, MD 20706
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

Many people have contributed to this thread, and the arguments
seem quite polarized. ( :-) )

I too believe that MLS will never become the "standard" precision
approach system in this country, at least for GA.  GPS/DGPS
certainly should not be dismissed -- for some time in the future.

My biggest concern with a GPS-based approach system is that it is
NOT localized at destination airports, and is truly a GLOBAL
system.  This is both good and bad. The BAD part, to my mind, is
that an outage of the SYSTEM is also not necessarily localized,
the way an OTS ILS is localized.  If an ILS is out, there may be
other VOR/NDB based approached at the same airport.  Certainly, an
alternate airport will be unaffected by a local outage.

Consider the situation where the GPS system gets screwed up
somehow -- you not only lose the approach you are on, but in all
likelihood, all alternate approaches within a fairly wide area.
The chance of this happening MUST be minute, because it would be
fatal to many aircraft!

I would prefer any GLOBAL system to be so fully redundant that
outages are "virtually impossible", and or localized to a small
area for a short time.  Even then, the provision of independent,
ground-based backup systems would make me feel a lot more
comfortable.  Four, or five, or even six "visible" satellites does
not provide this level of redundancy, and don't forget the
instances of "unrealistic speed readouts" that have occurred in
the past.

Despite the above, I believe in GPS. I would support GPS
non-precision approached today, and precision approaches in the
near future (preferably DGPS), but would still want ILS's and the
VOR system to remain as a backup for a long, long time.  And maybe
a goodly number of NDBs as well.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: barnett@convex.com (Paul Barnett)
Subject: Re: GPS and IFR Approaches
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:56:18 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Dec30.124200.4248@linus.mitre.org> Bob Noel writes:

>My insistence (for what it's worth, which aint much) is that we don't
>go backwards in terms of safety.  I don't care how it's used, but GPS
>must be as safe as MLS or I don't want any part of it.  This safety is,
>in part, provided by system accuracy (which I still question) and 
>the ability to monitor itself (and here I'm _not_ referring to the receivers).
>All in all, there are still a number of things that must be
>addressed before GPS can be shown to be better than MLS for
>precision approaches.  

I think I see the disconnection now, and why the "MLS factor" keeps
popping up in this discussion.

I personally do not know anything about MLS, beyond what the "M"
stands for.  I vaguely remember that it is a point of contention
between the FAA, the AOPA, and the prime supplier, and implementation
is behind schedule and over budget.  If there are any additional
safety, operational, and especially cost advantages, I would be
interested in hearing about them.

My enthusiam for GPS, and for GPS approaches in particular, is based
on my experience as a weekend IFR pilot, formerly based at an airport
ill-served by a weak NDB beacon 8.3 miles from the field.  I try to
stay away from the airports that are most likely to (eventually) be
served by MLS, so comparisons to it wouldn't apply to me, even if my
plane was equipped with the appropriate avionics.

Implementation of "semi" precision GPS approaches (note my previous
comments about higher DH's in an earlier post) at general aviation
airports would eliminate the need for circle-to-land, NDB, and even
timed approaches.  These factors are currently a detriment to the
safety of IFR flight, and I think that their elimination, or at least
minimization would be a substantial contribution to general aviation.
The addition of altitude guidance, even at a high VDOP (thanks for the
correction in my terms), would be a real win.

Maybe GPS isn't a proper "replacement" for MLS, or even a full-blown
ILS, but I'm not advocating that.  After lobbying (unsuccessfully) for
3 years to put an NDB on my former home base, I'm just looking for a
better alternative.
--
Paul Barnett
MPP OS Development     (214)-497-4846
Convex Computer Corp.  Richardson, TX
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: phil@pex.eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre)
Subject: Getting into a TCA without the magic words
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:36:16 GMT

I couldn't resist....

I legally flew in the Chicago TCA yesterday without hearing the magic
words "cleared in to the TCA".  Of course, being on an IFR flight plan
helped....  My instructor surprised me over the weekend and said "next
time we file".  So I flew on an IFR flight plan for the first time
yesterday, with my instructor as PIC.  What a blast!

"Cessna 73502, climb and maintain 4000".  TCA (whose floor is 3000 to
3600 around here)?  We don't care 'bout no stinkin' TCA!  :-)

And the training goes on.....

		William LeFebvre
		<phil@eecs.nwu.edu>
From: ewv@craycos.com (Eric Varsanyi)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: GPS and IFR Approache
Date: 23 Dec 92 01:40:01 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <1992Dec21.130537.19415@linus.mitre.org> Bob Noel writes:
>
>Will the availability of the veritical accuracy of GPS (I believe the term
>is VDOP) be sufficient for Cat II or III requirements?  btw, an 
>availability of "most of the time" isn't good enough.

Well, I would argue that 'most' of the time for GPS is much better than
'most' of the time for any ground based system like ILS or MLS.  When
the 24 Sats are up (mid 93) there are 4 small locations (about 1 degree
square it appears) on earth that will have a regular outage (defined as less
that 4 sats in view). The outage will last less than 30 seconds at each
location. 2 of the locations are in the Antarctic, over water (or ice I
suppose) and the other 2 are in a corresponding location in the Northern
hemisphere (there is one East of Alaska, way up north and one in
Greenland).

I think all the other factors you could list that would affect availability
(weather/icing, jamming, electrical failure, equipment breakage) would
equally affect GPS and MLS, perhaps it would even be worse for MLS since
they are on the ground and vulnerable to bad drivers.

>If, repeat IF, GPS can provide the integrity required for Cat I,II or III
>approaches (and veritical accuracy), it won't be much of a contest.  

Yes, I can easily see how you can compare an NDB or VOR approach with a 
Cat III ILS approach. Not.

-Eric Varsanyi