HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brecher@pyramid.unr.edu (Steve Brecher)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Reno Fly-In/Lunch Sat. 4/18
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:49:36 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: still disorganized in Reno, NV, USA=

Announcing the First Annual TANSTAAFLETO (There Ain't No Such Thing As A
Free Lunch Except This One) Reno Fly-In!

 Date:                Saturday, April 18, 1992
 Where/Airport:       Reno Cannon International (RNO)
 Where/Meet & Eat:    Bally's Hotel (private room to be announced)
 Agenda:              noon:  meet/mingle at Bally's, quaff Diet Cokes, etc.
                      12:30: lunch
                      (no charge for beverages and lunch)
 Who:                 Pilot participants in
                         CompuServe/AVSIG
                         internet/rec.aviation
                      and their passengers


Sierra Air Center on the east side of the field (north of MillionAir) is
offering a $0.20/gal 100LL fuel discount to fly-in participants.  Note
that the non-discounted price as of 3/26/92 is $2.42, so the discount is
NOT a reason to come just for the gas!  They will also provide rides to
Bally's, which is a couple of miles away.  (Other FBOs, should you prefer
one of them, will probably also provide rides.)

The lunch bill is courtesy of Bally's (don't ask! -- well, you can ask at
the lunch, if you want).

If you're joining us, please email me with your name, email address,
aircraft type, N-number, home base, names of passengers, and meal
preferences among roast beef, fish, or vegetarian.

As time draws short, the roster is likewise:

 Sean Foderaro         Tiger 28358    jkf@franz.com
  & Kevin Layer                       layer@franz.com
  & Chris Richardson                  cer@franz.com
 Ted Sarbin            BMW325ic       ted@cs.unr.edu

 ...so plan to join us -- with a sceninc trip over Lake Tahoe (for you
Californians) before and after -- and let me know that you're coming ASAP!

--
brecher@pyramid.cs.unr.edu (Steve Brecher)
From: hurvitz@oscar.UUCP (Dennis Hurvitz)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Hartzell Prop AD Modified
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:51:17 GMT


i watched scotty overhaul the cutlass prop during the xmas break last
december. the prop had almost 4000 hours on it, and, as far as the log
books, was the original prop. it was not overhauled at the previous
engine major.  i was worried about it, so i had it done.

turns out a few of the ball bearings were missing from the races.. some
were wedged in the grease, others were never to be found. i think the
number of displaced bearings was close to 12. couldn't believe it.
neither could scotty.

anyway, i found that watching them work on a prop to be an extremely
beneficial learning experience. i always wondered how that constant
speed thang worked, now i know. :)

i also learned that the best way to preflight a prop, in addition to
checking for obvious nicks and dings, is to look on the *back side* of
the blades, near the hub, for grease. if you see grease then you may
want to ask questions.
this pulling on the blade tips for play is basically meaningless, for
the prop may slide into place due to centrifigal force. only in
extremely worn and unairworthy situations would pulling on the prop tip
yield any meaningful results. with the exception of a 310 with a broken
hub, no one has seen this around these parts. that 310 still flew by the
way. to the shop.


dennis hurvitz
cutlass 5271u
duchess 6009k
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: aboyd@quantum.on.ca (Andrew Boyd)
Subject: Re: Spinning a 172
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 92 16:40:14 GMT
Organization: Quantum Software Systems, Ltd.
Distribution: na

In article <1992Apr2.121153.9611@clpd.kodak.com> ermer@prot.serum.kodak.com 
(Rich Ermer (x37666)) writes:
>Has anyone had experience spinning a Skyhawk?
>How difficult is a good spin in a 172?  From my 172 days, I remember that 
>a lightly loaded 172 could be hard to get a good stall break from.

C-172 spins just fine.  I think the POH recommended entry (1975-vintage)
is a little weird, which says to use idle -> full power on entry.  I teach 
spins using the following method: set 1800 rpm, attempt to maintain 
altitude, and as you slow down thru about 60 MPH IAS, simultaneously
apply full rudder & full up elevator.  Maybe even lead the rudder slightly.
It's important to keep holding the column all the way back, otherwise
you'll unstall & spiral dive.  

I find it's a good way to teach spiral dive recognition & recovery, 
actually :-)  "Airspeed's kinda high, eh?"

Obviously it spins easier to the left.  From slow flight, you know
the reason why .... don't you?

A full-spin procedure is a bit scary, at first.  I prefer to
start people off with a "departure stall" out of a climbing turn,
at alititude.  Set 1800 RPM, 15 deg bank, and nose just above the 
horizon.  Much easier on the nervous student pilot to just drop
& recover one wing.  Though I haven't the foggiest why student
pilots are so nervous ... do they think that instructors are
suicidal? 

>What's the utility category weight and CG limits on a 172; is this 
>realistic for 2 adults and 60-90 minutes fuel?

Your mileage may vary depending on your year & model of 172.  The
1975 150HP version says to use 2000 lbs for utility with a forward
C of G (no rear passengers or baggage).  Depending on the empty
weight & how porky your pilots are, you can probably squeak under
the 2000lb mark with full fuel.
From: alans@hp-ptp.ptp.hp.com (Alan Sanderson)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:05:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Lighter-than-air craft?
Organization: HP Pacific Technology Park - Sunnyvale, Ca.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In addition to rec.aviation, there is a balloon mailing list
at the following address - email to:

balloon@loughborough.ac.uk
    to post articles, etc., or
balloon-request@loughborough.ac.uk
    for administrative stuff, including adding your address
    to the distribution list.

              --------------------------

Speaking of Lawn Chair Larry, has anyone seen the ads featuring
him and various other personalities, such as the woman who 
skydived into a swamp and lived?

As far as small lta craft are concerned, we helped launch a
hot air balloon made from newspaper and a hula hoop.  It was
14 ft. diameter, and about 23 ft. tall.  We used a balloon
inflator fan 20 ft. away, and a propane weed burner to heat it.
It flew to over 500 ft. 3 times, with minor repairs between
flights.  It took the builder about 12 hours to cut out the panels
and glue them together - he said he could have done it in 10 hours,
but found too many interesting articles!


 *******************************************************************
 Alan Sanderson      Hewlett-Packard  ISD       alans@hpams0h.HP.COM
 US Snail:           1266 Kifer Rd. MS101S      MaBell: 408-746-5714
                     Sunnyvale, CA 94086        FAX:    408-746-5890
  N29711 Cameron Viva 77       N555JT Cameron D-96 Airship
 ********************************************************************
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computer Network
Date: Friday, 10 Apr 1992 00:53:12 CDT
From: <UD186372@NDSUVM1.BITNET>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: aircraft rental insurance
Distribution: usa
 <1992Apr9.134946.7475@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>

Often times the Insurance companies will sell say $300,000 or $1,000,000
Liability and some Hull coverage. There are two types of Hull coverage.
In motion or not in motion. I used to purchase a Hull amount equal to the
deductible of the FBO I rented from. Some times this is not enough. I had
a $1,000 policy in December of 1981 and the insurance company paid off the
full $1,000 from a prop strike incident. Many times you will find that the
FBO may insure you when you are a student but not you get a license. I found
that out a year after I had gotten my private license. Some times the FBO may
insist he or his instructors check you out in the aircraft you desire to rent.
I rented one C-182 from an FBO in Rapid City SD that kept track off all renters
be they students, or licensed pilots just renting on a per time basis to keep
track that they had flown every 60 days or else you did not rent their plane.
Now that I have a MEL and SES I should be so lucky to find a place to rent
either one with out signing my first born away.
Oh well. Just a report of my past e|periences.
Harry, KB0BUQ, WNHZ-241, CA, IRA, BGI, AGI, IGI, ASEL, ASES, AMEL. And now
working on C-501 type rating.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: u100759@beta.lanl.gov (Jeferey E. Scott)
Subject: re: Gypsy Moth biplane question
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 22:03:27 GMT


> I always thought that conventional piston engined aircraft had propellers that
>rotated anti-clockwise. However recently I have seen a propeller from a 1930's
>biplane called a "Gipsy Moth" that rotated clockwise. Apparently a later
>version of the engine (called a gipsy major?) powered the "Tiger Moth". 
>A local restored Tiger Moth that I have seen also has a clockwise rotating 
>prop.
>Why do most "tractor" aircraft have anti-clockwise rotation?
 
You will find that many older and some newer European designs such as the
DeHavilland Gypsy series and the Palzamany (the engine used in the Wilga) 
use left hand rotation rather than the right hand rotation used in most
American designed engines.  Other left hand rotation engines that I can 
think of include the radial engine in the YAK-18 and some versions of the
Rotax used in many homebuilts.

-jeff scott
From: wolfgang@sam.first.gmd.de (Wolfgang Diestelkamp)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Aviation on a metric basis ? (was:Re: GPS -- A Potentially Dangerous Technology)
Date: 10 Apr 92 09:58:43 GMT
	<1992Apr9.070612.1131@sics.se>
	<1992Apr9.153025.8426@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <mferrare.702889446@adelphi>
Reply-To: wolfgang@prosun.first.gmd.de
Organization: GMD-FIRST, Berlin
In-reply-to: mferrare@physics.adelaide.edu.au's message of 10 Apr 92 07:04:06 GMT

In article <mferrare.702889446@adelphi> mferrare@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Mark Ferraretto) writes:

>   >Flame pilot light: Can we adopt the metric system for aviation?  Are
>   >there reasons to keep the english units besides the conversion costs?

>   An advantage of measuring distances in nautical miles is that it is a 
>   'natural' distance.  Ie 1nm = 1 minute of latitude.

Correct, but where does that really help ? The only place I might make use of it
is checking a distance against the degree scale (north south) on my map, but I
might as well use the scale at the edge of my map.

>    I think France and
>   Germany have metric systems already?  Here we're half and half.  Vertical
>   distances are in feet, some horizontal ones in metres and some in nautical
>   miles.  Eg a/c separation is 500' vertically and 600m (1800'?) horizontally.

We are, presumably like you, on the ICAO system: 
vertical distances in feet,
long distances generally in nautical miles,
short distances generally in feet,
visibilities below 5000 meters in meters, above in kilometers,
you get pretty mixed wx reports e.g.: visibility 3000 meters, 4/8 at 900 feet,
aircraft should contact arrival from 25 NM out :-)

>   Ignoring the actual conversion, there are advantages in going metric.  It's
>   a lot easier to work out how many metres there are in a kilometre than feet
>   in nautical or statute miles etc.

True, but we all (powered) think this way; you can check how hard it is to think
metric when you fly eastern aircraft; this although I usually do think metric !
If we could get everyone to switch to metric, I'd strongly support that !
--
Wolfgang Diestelkamp
wolfgang@prosun.first.gmd.de
diestelkamp@kmx.gmd.dbp.de
From: dmunday@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: eunet.aviation and wandering threads
Date: 15 Apr 92 07:59:27 GMT
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

In article <1992Apr14.164544.25922@cbnewsi.cb.att.com>, pilla@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (michael.a.pilla) writes:
> In article <WOLFGANG.92Apr14123828@sam.first.gmd.de> wolfgang@prosun.first.gmd.de writes:
>>Can we find a net.consensus on this issue ?
>>I for one could restrict myself to not extending these discussions, if
>>rec.aviation.land.usa decides you don't like it.
>>What do people think ?
> 
Well, I'd say sure create eunet.aviation if you think it's needed, but
don't leave rec.aviation.  I enjoy reading about aviation the world over.
I particularly like reading about flying in Europe since I'd like to live
there sometime, and when I do I'd like to fly there as well.

I would like to see the wandering thread problem fixed, but that's a 
problem much broader than a US non-US problem.  All sorts of threads
wander off when they should really be split and re-titled.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Munday           | Bitnet    : dmunday@miavx1      Phone: 321-5145
Munday Computing, Inc.| INTERNET  : dmunday@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Miami University, Ohio| or        : munday@cinnet.com
                      | USmail    : P.O. Box 695, Oxford, OH 45056-0695
"Renting airplanes is like renting sex:  It's difficult to arrange on short 
notice on Saturday, the fun things always cost more, and someone's always 
looking at their watch."  - Ron Wanttaja
From: egeiselman@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Coping with turbulence
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:27:13 EST
Organization: USAF AL/CFH, WPAFB, Dayton, OH




     This is in response to Javier Henderson's question on coping with 
turbulence.  I could not tell by reading the question if the problem is one of 
motion sickness brought on by the turbulence or if the problem is one of being 
uncomfortable with the unexpected attitude changes also brought on by 
turbulence.  I will assume the latter is the case.  My suggestion for anyone 
uncomfortable flying in light to moderate turbulence is to seek out some dual 
time in gliders.  Flying gliders is an excellent way to learn the relational 
intricacies of the aircraft being flown and the air currents through which
it flys.   The goal in soaring is to maintain non-powered flight by taking 
advantage of naturally occurring thermals and mountain wave currents.   
These natural phenomena are marked and identified by their associated "bumps".
As a glider pilot striving for extended flight, one learns to appreciated and 
search for the turbulence that indicates the conditions which afford a gain in
altitude, higher groundspeed, etc....  Through exposure, one may become 
de-sensitized to the negative effects of turbulence and, in the glider, look 
forward to that next bump.  What is the transfer to powered flight?  I believe
transfer of the turbulence de-sensitization is automatic and straight 
forward.  I also believe that one may find him or herself wishing to be at the
controls of a glider instead of their "steel thermal" when one of those 500 FPM
bumps is encountered.  Also, just as one can learn how to find thermals (areas 
of vertical shear), one can know when and where the thermals are not.

     As a bonus:  A glider, being a glider, is a glider.  A glider landing, 
being a glider landing, wherever that landing may be, is a forced landing.  
No go-arounds, no extending a low final.  If one is uncomfortable with the 
fact that a single engine airplane becomes a glider when the engine stops 
"pulling its own weight", flying gliders can help that too.  Every powered 
airplane is a glider waiting to happen.  Is every pilot of a powered plane a 
glider pilot in waiting?

          
E-


-- 

"The opinions and views expressed here are strictly my own and do not 
necessarily reflect the official position of either the U.S. Air Force 
or its contractors."

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: asrgf@cc.newcastle.edu.au
Subject: Gipsy Moth biplane question
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 12:55:35 GMT

 I always thought that conventional piston engined aircraft had propellers that
rotated anti-clockwise. However recently I have seen a propeller from a 1930's
biplane called a "Gipsy Moth" that rotated clockwise. Apparently a later
version of the engine (called a gipsy major?) powered the "Tiger Moth". 
A local restored Tiger Moth that I have seen also has a clockwise rotating prop.
Why do most "tractor" aircraft have anti-clockwise rotation?
From: hastie@alta.mips.com (Glenn Hastie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: landing: flaps or not
Date: 14 Apr 1992 16:12:03 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: hastie@alta.mips.com (Glenn Hastie)
NNTP-Posting-Host: alta.mips.com

In article <moodyblu.703211844@camelot>, moodyblu@camelot.bradley.edu (Matthew Weisberg) writes:
|> 
|> I was talking to a friend of mine the other day, and brought up the subject
|> of landing and I said that my instructor has been teching me to land
|> without using flaps (cessna 152 adn 172).  She was suprised as was another
|> instructor I had back in Detroit.  He said if they are there, why not use
|> them.  I inquried with my instructor about this and he said flaps are a
|> crutch and that you should learn without them and then you can use them if
|> yuou need them.  So far, in my 55 hours most of my landings have been
|> flapless.  Although, we have done flap landings too.
|> 
|> So can someone tell me.  Are there others out there who are learning/being
|> taught this way? I am curious to hear what other views are on this?

You should be learning both--flap and flap-less landings.  Consider the
possibility of an electrical failure and/or inoperable flaps.  In concert, you
should also be learning forward slips.  In normal operation, use the flaps
if they are operable and appropriate to the landing situation.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn I. Hastie	  (408) 524-7431	MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
MS 6-01					930 DeGuigne Dr.
hastie@mips.com				Sunnyvale, CA  94086
From: dm@pnet01.cts.com (Dan Melson)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Aircraft designators
Date: 11 Apr 92 01:17:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: crash.1992Apr11.011709.9271
Organization: People-Net [pnet01], El Cajon CA

dela@news.ee.rochester.edu (Del Armstrong) writes:
>So what should I use when I start to fly my experimental Kolb Twinstar
>Mk-II into controlled airspace?
>
>First, how do I quickly let the controller know what sort of
>monstrosity he's just let into his airspace? I've been planning to say
>something like "experimental Kolb", and let the controller prompt me
>for the info he wants. Is there some terminology or designation that
>will save him the trouble?
>
>And what sort of a designation should I use when I file my flight
>plan? Am I a HXA/<whatever no xponder is>. What is the difference
>between a HXA, HXB, and a HXC? Is this in the AIM somewhere?

If you're not type certified, "Experimental" is almost necessary.  "Kolb",
being one quick syllable, might be helpful to the occasional controller who
knows what it is - or at fields you fly into regularly, may even be sufficient
by itself.  The difference between HXA, HXB, and HXC is in speed.  HXA is for
those with indicated cruise of 100 knots or less.  HXC is for  those with
indicated cruise greater than 200 knots.  HXB is for those in between.
 
I don't think designators are anywhere in the AIM.  The best way to find out
is probably ask a controller at your home field (If they have reason to write
an actual strip on you outbound - normal VFR traffic generally doesn't have
one made for it unless it's an ARSA or something).  The next best way would be
to ask the manufacturer (Or manufacturer of the kit) - who should know, or be
able to find out darned quick.
 
                                             DM
From: wjb@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bill Buse)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 13:50:45 GMT
Subject: Re: NTSB accident report information number
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In rec.aviation, u100759@beta.lanl.gov (Jeferey E. Scott) writes:
> In 1946 many of the manufacturers got a block of "N" numbers assigned for their
> planes.  In Aeroncas, Stinsons, and some others of that vintage the "N" numbers
> are indeed sequencial.  On the Stinsons, the ones that are five digits starting
> with 97, the last three coincide with the serial number.  My Stinson is N97874
> has a serial number of 108-874.

It also may be possible for airlines to get a block of "N" numbers for
planes in their fleet.  I know that the first ten 737s that Frontier 
Airlines took delivery of were "N" numbers N7370F through N7379F and
other 737s in their fleet also had sequential numbers.  

This talk of "N" numbers reminds me of a recent experience where the
737-300 we were flying on had as its last three "N" number digits the 
same number as the flight number of the flight that we were on.  One 
person at the boarding gate happened to notice this and thought this 
was how the flight number was assigned.   :-)  

Bill Buse
wjb@hpisla.lvld.hp.com
HP - Loveland, CO
From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Fair fares
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:51:06 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Apr14.154631.5895@leland.Stanford.EDU>, spagiola@amy5.stanford.edu (Stefano P. Pagiola) writes:
> Should we interpret the current hulabaloo about the new 'fair fares'  
> as an admission that fares have be unfair?

Airlines, like any other business, will do whatever is in their best interests.
They've lowered a few fares and are feeding us all kinds of PR propaganda that  
fares are going down and that now it's cheaper to fly.  That increases 
interest in flying and ticket sales, which is in their best interest.  But if you 
look behind the marketing hype, you find that the average ticket price is actually
climbing a few Flight Levels, which is exactly as you would expect as the industry 
consolidates into an oligopoly and which is also in their best interest.  I 
suspect that simplifying the fare structures will also simplify operations enough 
to save them a little money, as well.

So, the answer to your question: no, it's not an admission of anything.  It's 
a cleverly disguised fare increase! 




-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
From: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Bogus localizer indication experience
Date: 1 Apr 92 21:27:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: mwunix.jcmorris.702163621
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

wisch@Apple.COM (Ed Wischmeyer) writes:
>On the way back home, we were at about 4000 feet above ground, monitoring
>the Livermore, CA, localizer. We were over Bushy Peak, well to the right
>of the localizer course, having identified the station, but the localizer
>needle was giving us a hard fly *right* indication... reverse of what it
>should have been. As we continued inbound at about a 30 degree intercept,
>the needle centered and then went to the correct full scale fly left
>indication.

How far (in degrees) were you from the localizer centerline?  The localizer
signal is valid only within a rather limited area; reverse sensing isn't
an unknown problem elsewhere.  Try watching a localizer needle when you're 
being vectored past an airport a few miles off to one side to see this.

AIM paragraph 12 (Instrument Landing System) discusses the localizer;
figure 1-6 shows the sectors in which the localizer is considered valid.
The rules are:

 (a) Within 10 nm of the localizer, its signal is valid if you are 
     within 35 degrees of the centerline (with the apex at the
     localizer antenna)

 (b) Between 10 and 18 miles from the antenna, the signal is valid
     if you are within 10 degrees of the centerline.

Of course, there can be other reasons for incorrect indications, but
if you were significantly outside of the localizer-valid sectors I
wouldn't get too upset if you can't find anything wrong with the 
avionics.

Joe Morris