HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 10:01:02 -0400 
From: "Joseph D. Mazza" <mazz+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: P-38 out of the Ice!

I'm not surprised that there seemed to be little damage to the P-38
parts.  A few years ago we dug up an LC-130 (ski-equipped version) that
had been buried in the ice for seventeen years in Antarctica.  It was
completely buried with only a couple feet of the vertical tail visible
above the snow.  I was there when we first uncovered the wings and upper
fuselage and they were in perfect shape.  As the rest of the aircraft
emerged it was also perfect except for the crash damage that caused it
to be abandoned there in the first place.  It's a l-o-n-g story, but
with some repair in the field (well, a LOT of repair in the field) we
flew it out the following season and it's now in the states awaiting
seventeen years worth of upgrades and service changes.
From: mpeters@wtcp.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Michael Peters)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: WANTED: Ultralight two-place
Date: 24 Jul 92 13:37:38 GMT
Reply-To: mpeters@wtcp.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Michael Peters)
Distribution: usa
Organization: WIN Dataplus Services WTC-1 - Dayton, OH

Jer/ Eberhard writes:
>>It has the same Rotax 503 as the Challenger, but only cruises at around 65-70
>>mph.  Sounds like Kolb traded speed for lift, compared to the Challenger's
>>design, and from the sounds of your description, I'd say they made the right
>>choice!
>
>I'm confused.  Is this an experimental or an ultra-light?
>I was under the impression that an ultra-light was limited
>to 55mph airspeed.

Current regulations (see FAR 103) require that ultralights may not
exceed 55 knots top speed, flat and level (approx. 63 mph).  If the
previous post is referring to a two place, it is not considered an
ultralight and must be a registered aircraft, unless it meets the
two place ultralight criteria, which has changed recently,
allowing for more weight, and is to be used for instructional flights
only.  The new rules allow a student to solo the two place.  In the
past a student had to fly a single place ultralight for his/her solo.

In other words, you can't buy a two place UL and fly it with or without
a friend, unless it is used for instructional purposes and even then,
you must be a certified USUA flight instructor.  

People like to call anything that is relatively light and has an 
appearance of an ultralight an 'ultralight'.  So, there is the legal
term 'Ultralight', as defined by the FAA, and Joe public's view of an
ultralight.
-- 
Mike Peters

Mike.Peters@wtcp.DaytonOH.NCR.COM
...!uunet!ncrcom!wtcp!mpeters
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: papworth@pdx022 (David Papworth)
Subject: Re: Bogus Landing Fees
Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:07:35 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.202746.27338@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg) writes:
>In article <2540041@hp-vcd.vcd.hp.com> schinner@hp-vcd.vcd.hp.com (Jim Schinnerer) writes:
>>The other day, I got a letter - a bill, actually - notifying me of my
>>$12 landing fee at Westchester County Airport in White Plains, New York.
>>

>
>Yup.  Happened to me for a plane that had never been east of Lake Tahoe
>but was supposed to have landed at Newark in NJ.  Took a couple of phone
>calls, but I got it straightened out.
>

I've gotten bogus bills from Farmingdale, NY (FRG) AND from 
Teterboro, NJ (TEB). For some reason the New York airports seem
particularly inept about getting N numbers right, and must send
a bill to whatever matches the (wrong) N number they write down.

I usually write a letter repudiating the fee. I've never gotten
a second bill, but it does cost a stamp.

Dave Papworth
Mooney 231QY
papworth@ichips.intel.com





Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: franks@synoptics.com (Frank Stutzman)
Subject: Re: Gee Bee R2 was Re: Airshow Report
Reply-To: franks@synoptics.com
Organization: Synoptics Inc. Santa Clara, California.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:31:35 GMT

In article 6211@cs.uoregon.edu, pablo@cacofonix.cs.uoregon.edu (David A. Cohn) writes:
>I had the great fortune to have a talk with Steve Wolfe and Delmar
>Benjamin right after they returned from the EAA Arlington Fly-In,
>at which Benjamin apparently did an inverted ribbon cut (the Gee-Bee
>and Samsom are hangared about 7 miles from here :-) :-)).

Gosh, am what I am thinking true?

Last December I took 70T to Oregon to visit friends and family.  I was 
flying from Corvallis to Roseburg and was over the Creswell airport 
when I noticed a odd looking red and white plane climbing out.  A few moments
later (I was at 4500' if I remember correctly) this plane pulls up on my right
side, waggles its wings, pulls ahead and does a diving left turn.  Due to its 
rather dimunitive size, I remember thinking that somebody had a real neat
half size Gee Bee replica.  For some reason I always thought that the Gee Bee
racer was a rather huge thing.   This plane  certainly wasn't much bigger than 70T.

Was this really THE Gee Bee that everybody here is talking about?  Do I have the 
special honor of being intercepted by the almost real thing?

BTW, several years ago (pre pilot days), I was helping with Corvallis Airshow
and got to help Steve Wolfe wash Sampson.   He offered to take me up
when he did his pre-show sky writing.  I had to decline due to some of the other
things I committed to do at the show.  I will ALWAYS regret that.

Does Steve still own Sampson?  It just about broke my heart years ago when 
I saw it for sale in TAP.  

#######################################################
Frank Stutzman               # 
SynOptics Communications     #   Sheridans rule of aircraft ownership: 
Product Support              #     
Santa Clara, Ca              #    'The less you fly, the more it costs. 
franks@synoptics.com         #     The more you fly, the more it costs.`       
Cessna N7770T @ PAO          #
########################################################
From: netnews@leadsv.UUCP (Leads Network News)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: prevalence of engine failures
Keywords: n
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:01:02 GMT
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale

From: claude@leadse9.UUCP (Claude Goldsmith)
>I have just learned that my Clubs Piper Archer II  PA28-181 just had a
>unplanned landing in a field in Montana. ....

>Aftermath investigation has shown that the oil pump stopped pumping. I 
>don't know why yet.

>The Piper is a 1977 with 840 hrs TT airframe and engine. The pilot has
>less than 100 hr flying time. He really did a good job and kept his head
>and wits about him.

>The plane is at this moment being trucked to a local airport and AVEMCO
>has indicated that they will buy a new engine! 

If AVEMCO really does buy him a new engine it is a strong positive
testimonial for AVEMCO.  When my Mooney suffered a catastrophic engine
failure many years ago due to a connecting-rod failure, the insurance
company would not pay for the engine.  They argued that such a failure
is "normal wear and tear".  I had the policy reviwed by an attorney
and he agreed with the insurance company.  The Mooney was landed on an
airport without any additional damage.

AVEMCO's rates have been on the high side (for me) for many years.
However, if they cover claims such as described perhaps the higher
premium costs are justified.

Claude Goldsmith, CFII <claude@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com>
 twisted-pair (408) 742-7514	      | Opinions expressed are not 
 on the air - WB6UOO                  | necessarily those of my 
 through the air - Mooney N6416U      | employer.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: Re: Bending 182 firewalls
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 13:47:05 GMT

In article <pvf.711735926@diablo> pvf@alantec.com (Paul Fries) writes:
>
>What about the dreaded "nose gear bending the firewall" attribute of
>the 182?  Wouldn't this be a concern in an airplane flown by lots of
>lower time pilots?  (While possibly being of lesser concern to the
>owner/only pilot.)
>
>Or is this just a myth?  I have had several people pretty much laugh
>when approached with the proposal of flying their 182s, stating their
>fear of this problem.  (They are certainly entitled to reject my
>overtures, I am just wondering about the reasoning.)
>
The firewall bending due to nose-gear-first arrivals was pretty much
eliminated in 1970 when Cessna shortened (for the second time) the
tubular main gear on the 182, and shortened the travel of the nose
gear strut; as a result the plane had a nearly two foot wider main
gear spread, and sat a couple of inches lower to the ground. 
This modification also substantially decreased the risk of being
blown over while taxiing, a common mishap for early 182s (have seen
this happen with my own eyes...it's scary).

The typical scenario which caused firewall damage was a pilot arriving
at the runway with too much airspeed, ballooning upwards during the
flare, and stalling several feet above the ground.  With the onset of
the stall, the nose-heavy 182 would rapidly slam down on the nosewheel,
which transmitted the stresses to the firewall.  In level flight or
slightly nose up attitudes, the nose gear extended lower than the
mains and would contact first.  As a result of the gear geometry
change, later 182's stall on arrival more or less like a 172---
tail down, nose up, and relatively little nose drop tendency with full
aft elevator, and arrive on their main gear even with moderately 
botched landing technique.

So people who fly pre-1970 182s have a point when arguing that the
flying characteristics of their bird make it somewhat tricky for a
novice to land; owners of later models either don't know the problem
is fixed or just don't want you messing with their bird ;-).

Several of the DC area flying clubs operate 182s as the complex
step-up aircraft from their 152-172 lineup, and as far as I know, the
firewall problem has not been an issue for them (they have late 70's
and early 80's 182s).

Dan Masys
masys@lhc.nlm.nih.gov
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Multiple simultaneous engine failures
Date: 28 Jul 92 16:16:00 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

I recall from Ernest K. Gann's book "Fate is the Hunter" that one of
the upengined versions of a DC-4 or 5 he flew for a now defunct airline
had problems with the fuel system that would simultaneously fail all
four engines in a spectacular exhibit of backfiring.  Apparently the
fuel system was not upgraded to handle the extra fuel burn of the more
powerful engines which caused them to cut out under lean high power
conditions.  The story is pretty funny because the engineers didn't
believe him when he told them about his first encounter with the
problem and insisted on a check ride with him to prove him wrong.  They
wanted to control the mixtures and throttle settings while he flew the
airplane.  He had admitted that he tended to lean earlier than they
recommended and use power settings a little bit lower because of his
past experiences which placed a premium on having lots of fuel on board
during long trips just in case.

So he let them play with the throttle and mixture setting and had to
admit that the engines ran strongly and without a miss to an altitude
beyond where he had experienced the problem.  However, he kept an eye
on the fuel pressure guages and while the engineers were congratulating
themselves, noticed the tell tail tick.  Suddenly, in what he
characterised as a spectacular fashion, the engines all simultaneously
belched, backfired loudly and quit turning the large airliner into a
quiet glider.

Knowing he could restart the engines, he played it to the hilt asking
if they now understood the problem and if they would like him to
demonstrate how he could restart the engines.  He says he felt bad
about it because they looked VERY scared by then.  He was able to
successfully restart and using full rich, returned to an uneventful
landing.  

Corky Scott
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: greg@octopus.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis)
Subject: Re: GYRO FAILURE IN TIGER
Organization: Data Parallel Systems, Inc
Date: 28 Jul 92 03:35:07 GMT

<VPN1@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>jkf@franz.com (Sean Foderaro) is on his way to OSH from OAK.
>Email from his wife tells me he had attitude gyro failure
>for about an hour, after which it apparently began function-
>ing again.  I have no further details.  I was asked to post
>this to ask if anyone has had a similar experience or can
>offer an explanation.  I'm leaving at dawn Wed. a.m. for OSH.
>Can anyone help?     vince norris, penn state u.

Not unusual, at least in my experience.  I had a similar failure,
in partial IMC, coming home from the east coast last year in august.

Symptoms were a drunken roll (the gyro's, not mine) and eventual
collapse at about 60 degrees of roll and 15 degrees nose-up indicated
pitch.  The DG and turn coordinatnor agreed with each other and
the airspeed indicator and altimeter showed no change of pitch.

All the time I had nominal suction.  After landing and having
dinner we took off again (VFR) and the gyro functioned normally
for the remainder of the trip.  It failed during a following flight
though and again "resurrected" itself.

Needless to say, this AI got replaced pronto.  My logs did not indicate
any maintenance on the AI so I have to assume it was the original,
vintage 1979, Cessna AI.  Replaced it with a Sigma-Tek AI.  A horrible
mistake.

greg

--
Gregory Reed Travis				D  P  S  I
Data Parallel Systems Incorporated   greg@dpsi.com (For MX mailers only!)
Bloomington, IN			     greg@indiana.edu (For the others)
From: lee@bluefuzz.sw.stratus.com (Lee Cooprider)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: War story and story request
Date: 25 Jul 92 14:39:24 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

In article <1992Jul24.202006.21675@Cadence.COM> maples@Cadence.COM (Ken Maples) writes:
>Rod has a great question and I'd like to see as many personal stories as
>possible:  How many of us have had significant mechanical problems in the
>air and how many hours in the air did it take for you to have that problem.

At about 250 hours, I had a complete electrical failure at night.  I normally
hear of partial electrical failures (like radios or lights) or gradual
electrical failures (like generator problems) that leave you less and less
battery to work with.

My problem was a weak solenoid connecting the battery to the entire electrical
system.  I was on long final, full internal lights, full landing lights, flaps
10 degrees, and when I went to 20 degrees the lights flashed.  Puzzling over
this, I continued on and when I hit the switch to lower flaps to 30 degrees,
it became very dark.

Fortunately, I was on 1/2 mile final to a well lit, tower controlled airport
on a CAVU evening (ceiling "absent", visibility unlimited?) and continued to
land sans lights and com (thanks, instructors, for those no-lights night
practice landings).

I had had a problem starting the plane once or twice due to the sticking
solenoid; mechanic thought it was not a persistent problem.  I should have
replaced it immediately; I was still new to plane ownership issues.

The only long term damage was the three months it took my spouse to believe
that it wouldn't happen again on the next flight...
-- 
Lee W. Cooprider				PP-ASEL/IA
Lee_Cooprider@vos.stratus.com			Skylane N2908F "Wiley"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: bluejay@feathr.enet.dec.com (Bluejay Adametz)
Subject: Re: Ramp checks--unreasonable search
Reply-To: bluejay@feathr.enet.dec.com (Bluejay Adametz)
Organization: Technical Support & Magic
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 12:22:40 GMT


In article <xde.02o4@xtxde.UUCP>, xde@xtxde.UUCP (Dave Evans) writes:
>
>I'm not looking at any book, but I couldn't possibly imagine that a renter
>pilot would have to know the AD's. This has to be the FBO's or the aircraft
>owners responsibility, if an AD isn't complied with, then the plane isn't 
>legal for renting, or flying anywhere for that matter.

You'd imagine very wrong. FARs are quite clear: the PIC is responsible for
determining that the aircraft is airworthy prior to flight. Now, if you got
in hot water over an AD, you might have some action against the FBO that 
rented you the airplane (misrepresenting the merchandise or some junk), but
this is outside of the FAA's jurisdiction.

The fact of the matter is that in some cases it's just plain impossible to
determine AD status. Heck, there could be an AD sitting in a mail sack 
downtown right now that renders my airplane unairworthy, but until the 
Post Office does it's thing, there's no way I can know that.  And since ADs
are only sent to the registered owners, the best a renter can generally do
is to look at the logs periodically to see that things are being kept up
to date in general and maybe keep an eye on various magazines and such 
for high-publicity ADs.

It all goes something like this:

Operators/owners are responsible for getting the aircraft to a mechanic.
Mechanics are responsible for performing and documenting AD compliance.
Operators/owners are responsible for seeing that AD compliance is documented.
Pilots are responsible for determining that ADs have been done.

The same applies for required maintenance:

Owners/operators are responsible for getting the aircraft to a mechnic.
Mechanics are responsible for performing and documenting the maintenance.
Owners/operators are responsible for seeing that the work is documented.
Pilots are responsible for determining that the work has been done.

						- Bluejay Adametz
						  Owner/operator: AA-5B N45210
						  A&(almost)P
						  CFII
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: exxon@tigger.jvnc.net (Exxon Research)
Subject: Re: prevalence of engine failures
Originator: exxon@tigger.jvnc.net
Organization: JvNCnet, Princeton University, NJ
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:30:30 GMT

In article <greg.711776678@octopus> greg@octopus.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis) writes:
>dst+@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) writes:
>
>>  GA pilots can expect to average 1 engine failure per 1,000 hours of flying.
>
>Remember, folks, this guy flys behind Continentals.  TSIO-360s at that.
>He's bound to have a very warped sense of engine reliability.
>
>(Mega :-)'s for the humor challenged)
>
>greg, 1000+ hours and not sleeping nights.
>
>--
>Gregory Reed Travis				D  P  S  I
>Data Parallel Systems Incorporated   greg@dpsi.com (For MX mailers only!)
>Bloomington, IN			     greg@indiana.edu (For the others)

hear, hear.  

Bryan D. Boyle
Senior Engineer
Exxon Research and
Engineering Co.
------------------------------------------
    %include <standard.disclaimer>
------------------------------------------
From: adf@crosfield.co.uk (alex france)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: unreliable VOR navigation
Keywords: Gorman CA VOR
Date: 28 Jul 92 12:20:14 GMT
Organization: Crosfield Electronics, Hemel Hempstead, United Kingdom.

In article <1517c5INNqaf@ensta.ensta.fr> collet@ensta.ensta.fr (Pierre Collet) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.201351.2887@news.arc.nasa.gov> doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay) writes:
>The rule of thumb for VOR range is the following ;
>
>Operating range ~= 1.23 sqrt(altitude above the VOR station)
>   nm                                  ft

I've always found it easier to remember as :-
	sqrt(1 and 1/2 times ht. in feet)

since this is a bit easier to do in your head. I had a nice practical
confirmation of this last weekend flying Cranfield to Skegness,
tracking the 026 radial of CFD. Flying at 2500 feet it started to
dither about then dropped out over Boston (Lincolnshire, not Mass.!)
which was on the 60 nm mark. On the way back though, I had to be a
good 10 nm miles nearer before it would lock in again - presumably
there is some hysteresis in the sensitivity which causes it to hang
onto a signal that has been locked in, as opposed to picking up a new
weak one.

# Alex France, Crosfield Electronics, | Phone: +44 442 230000 xt.3541 #
# Three Cherry Trees Lane,            | Fax:   +44 442 232301         #
# Hemel Hempstead, HP2 7RH, England.  | Email: adf@crosfield.co.uk    #
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: robie@umbc4.umbc.edu (Mr. William Robie; POSI (GRAD))
Subject: What is an Ultralight? (was ... WANTED: Ultralight two-place)
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:26:15 GMT

Because there have, from time to time, been discussions on the net regarding
what constitutes an ultralight, I thought that I would post "the basics"
about them (as the present FARs define them).  This might be worth putting
into the FAQ list, if it is not there already.

An aircraft:
1. Having a single seat and intended for one occupant
2. Used for recreation or sport only (no commercial use other than training).
3. Weighing 254 pounds or less (excluding the weight of certain safety gear, 
	such as a parachute).
4. Capable of reaching a speed of no more than fifty-five knots in level 
	flight, with a stall speed of 24 knots, or less.
5. Able to carry no more than five U.S. gallons of fuel.

As I write this, it occurs to me that the figure 55 mph, rather than knots,
is usually thrown around.  I'll have to check on this to see if my notes are
accurate.  If they are not, I'll post a correction.

Two-seat "ultralights" are not legal in the U.S. (at present) unless they
are registered as experimental aircraft and flown by licensed pilots *OR*
are being used for training (only) by an instructor certified through the
U.S. Ultralight Association.

That organization's address, BTW, is:

United States Ultralight Association
P.O. Box 557
Mt. Airy, Md.  21771
(301) 898-5000

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: tel@cbnews.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lester)
Subject: Re: Bent Firewalls in General
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:43:37 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.220752.23551@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
>In article <1992Jul24.150835.21556@cbnews.cb.att.com>, tel@cbnews.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lester) writes:
>
>|>     Seems that if you feel strongly enough about it, take it to a second
>|>     mechanic. I'm sure you could find a mechanic to sign off on
>|>     anything if you looked hard enough and paid enough.
>|>     Just be sure thats REALLY what you want to happen.
>
>I was never suggesting that anyone should shop around for an IA that would
>sign off on anything for a bribe.  I'm sorry if what I posted made me
>sound that sleezy.  I was just wondering what to do if a

    No, you didn't sound "that sleezy" and sorry if that was my implication.
    I just wanted to point out that you can get a second opinion, but 
    temper the cost savings with prudence about safety. If I were to err,
    it would be on the side of, spend the money.   But then I am getting more
    conservative as I get more experienced.  (I don't get older  ;-}  )

-- 
	-----------------------------------------------------------------
	Tom Lester				att!cblph!tel
	Sonerai IIL (under TEST)		(614) 860-3259
	N4LX 					(614) 927-8106