HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Attention DC area pilots.
Date: 11 Sep 1992 00:54:04 GMT
Organization: BDS Systems
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.bds.com

Anybody want to meet down to Warrenton-Faquier (W66) for their Spagetti and Meatballs fly-in next weekend?

-Ron
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: wd@cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Diestelkamp)
Subject: Re: Definition of Service Ceiling
Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany
	<1992Sep10.041119.18763@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>
	<1992Sep11.141242.11958@spdc.ti.com>
	<1992Sep11.172022.26434@hpcvusn.cv.hp.com>
	<1992Sep11.121451.1@pomona.claremont.edu>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 12:36:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.121451.1@pomona.claremont.edu> jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu writes:

> I believe 100 fpm is the figure to be used here (I know, check the facts before
> you post...but the main reason I'm posting is to make that silly remark
> above...)

Quite right, even without you checking it; but with all this talking
about twin engine failures let me add, that your figure for all
engines operative. With one engine out, it's only 50 fpm.
-- 
Wolfgang Diestelkamp
wd@cs.tu-berlin.de
wolfgang@first.gmd.de

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: goodin@kpc.com (Rich Goodin - Consultant)
Subject: First Glider Flight
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer, Santa Clara Ca.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:37:30 GMT

It was the best of times and the worst of times...

Since the weather was absolutely wonderful over the Sierras yesterday and the
Mooney was actually available I decided to fly out to Minden to check out what
it would take to get a glider rating.  I flew the indirect route over Yosemite
(wow, smooth air and no thunderstorms - this can't be the Sierras :-).  As my
passenger was a climber I got a whole new perspective on the area.

The bad times:

Flying east from Tracy CA (near the infamous Sunol Pass) at 5500 in cruise I 
looked down at my chart for 5-10 seconds and looked up to see what looked like
an Archer head on and banking away to the left.  I hadn't seen it before I 
looked down, my passenger didn't even see it coming.  Figuring a closure rate
at about 250+ knots, I've been trying to picture what I should have been able
to see before I looked down at the chart.  I think I'm going to relive those
10 seconds for quite a while - or at least until I can figure out what I could
have done to avoid it.  Flight following?  Some controller must have had a
few interesting seconds watching that.  Is 10 seconds too long to stay in the
cockpit.  If so, how do you fly?  Was I too secure in thinking that nobody would
be flying west at 5500?  I think the only reason that he saw me was that I still
had my landing lights and strobes on.  I usually do this crossing Sunol, too 
many airplanes in too small an area :-(  No good answers yet, so on to....

The Good Times:

Impressions of my first glider flight.  Landed at Douglas County Airport (16-34 is
the power runway of choice during glider ops) and hooked up with Soar Minden.  My
passenger (who had only flown twice in a light plane) and I decided to take a
40 minute demo flight.  She liked it a lot better than the Mooney, less 
instruments - better view :-)  Flew parts of the tow myself, if you think that
formation flight is interesting - try it at the end of a rope.  That poor tow
pilot :-(  I finally  started getting the hang of it and stopped overcontrolling.
For those who haven't flow a glider, adverse yaw is a BIG consideration.  I finally remembered what those funny petals on the floor were - oh yea, RUDDER!
Entering the pattern and flying with partial spoilers felt pretty much like a 
power approach.  What a view - I'm hooked.  Now all I've got to do is find a 
week to spend out there to get my rating.

Isn't winter wave soaring season? :-):-)

Rich Goodin
Goodin & Associates, Inc.
currently: goodin@kpc.com
From: brianh@pongo.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Horn)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Twin Beechcraft crashed in Hinckley, IL
Date: 11 Sep 1992 17:39:24 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo

In article <1992Sep11.172022.26434@hpcvusn.cv.hp.com> mark@.cv.hp.com writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.141242.11958@spdc.ti.com>, serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>> all figures assumes standard temp.  SE service ceiling is 7500.
>                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>My understanding was that the service ceiling of an aircraft was
>the altitude at which the plane could no longer maintain a 500 fpm
>rate of climb.  Am I mistaken?  If not, how does the C310I rate a
>service ceiling of 7500 when it cannot climb at 500 fpm much above
>sea level even at the lightest weight charted?

Yes, you are mistaken:

1) The service ceiling is measure at 100 fpm for a *single*.
2) For a twin (one secured) this is reduced further to 50 fpm.

[I hope I remembered this correctly :-)]
From: exumfs@exu.ericsson.se (Mark Steph)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Renting woes...
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:25:11 GMT
Reply-To: exumfs@exu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems

In article 26696@peck.com, geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) writes:
>...
>Could something be done to provide "Hertz-like" ease of renting?  Well,
>it's been tried several times.  Beechcraft Flight Centers may still offer
>"exchange privileges" with other Beechcraft Flight Centers.  A while ago, a
>company attempted to set up a nationwide FBO chain with similar equipment
>(all new Piper Archers, as I recall) at each FBO.  They went bankrupt.
>It's possible that someone might try a new and innovative approach in the
>future, but I suspect that it would require backing from diverse sources,
>ranging from "alphabet soup" organizations like AOPA to the FAA to
>insurance companies.
>...
>						Geoff

I think they were called "Avian" or "Aviall" or something like that.  Look around
and you'll see their remnants.  Almost every FBO I've seen has a gray Archer
with blue trim.  All the tail numbers are NxxxAV.  They are all equipped 
exactly alike (unless later owners have added/replaced/removed.


---
Mark Steph               | You don't get something for nothing
exumfs@exu.ericsson.se   | You don't get freedom for free
(yes, .se *is* in Texas) | You won't get wise with the sleep still in your eyes
PO Box 833875, MS L-05   | No matter what your dream might be
Richardson, TX 75083     |      -Neil Peart, "Something for Nothing"
From: darias@.com (Dan Arias)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: C152 Checkout
Date: 12 Sep 92 00:27:28 GMT
Reply-To: darias@oracle.UUCP (Dan Arias)
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, CA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

A few months ago I got my PPSEL in a C172, but today, for
reasons of trying to make my flying habit a little more
affordable, I got checked-out in a C152 out of San Carlos
(SQL).

The 152's at the Palo Alto Flying Club rent for $13/hour
(20%) less than the 172's.  The trouble with them is that they
are mighty small for my 6'3" 225 lb body which is why
I learned in a 172 in the first place.  Optimistic weight
and balance calculations say I could carry a person who
weighed less than 160 lb, full fuel, and perhaps a smile.
The POH says that 152's are only about 10 knots (9%) slower
than the 172 assuming I'm being nice using only about 60%
power in both birds.

I've got about 135 hours now and I was finding that about
half my time since my checkride is spent flying alone and the
other half is spent with only one other person, so the tradeoff
between expense and comfort seems reasonable.  I like to get
in 1-1/2 hours a week to stay proficient--sometimes I'll take
people to lunch on a cross-country, sometimes I do airwork,
and sometimes I'll do an hour of takeoffs and landings.
Zoooom! Weeeee!

The 152 sort of looks like a 172 from a distance but looks
can be deceiving.  Doing preflight I notice that the wings are
lower (ouch!).  Getting in is interesting but then so is getting
into a 172 for me.  The instruments are arranged differently
from the 172--the tach is on the other side, the fuel switch
is hidden in the carpet, and I can't seem to find that damn
avionics power switch.  I sit high in the saddle and the nose
looks awful long and thin out there.  Taxi and takeoff are the
same but climbout takes a while with me and the instructor.
(Thermals are your friend!)  Today the weather was 25 SCT with
haze over San Jose.  The instructor has me fly out to the coast
south of Half Moon Bay (HAF) were we do MCA, stalls, steep turns,
and a power out bringing me down to about 500' over a field on
the side of Highway 1.  The 152 seems less stable but more
nimble than the 172.  This takes a little getting used to.

Finally, we huff-and-puff up over the hills to Crystal Springs
and head back to SQL for some landings and takeoffs.  My
approaches are a bit steep and my flares early but after
three of them the instructor is convinced I won't break
the plane.  (Long legs and big feet with nowhere to go must
learn to stay off the toe brakes on touchdown.)

Another milestone (perhaps small, but personally significant)
along the path of piloting enlightenment is achieved.

Mwa-ha-ha!

--Dan
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: How realistic are simulators?
Date: 6 Sep 92 14:49:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: pilot.Sep.6.10.49.37.1992.452
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

> I've got a very basic flight simulator. On average, how realistic
> are simulators?

You're talking something that runs on a PC or workstation right?
The answer is not very.  I've got quite a few hours on the Silicon
Graphics and Microsoft flight simulators.  In the mode where these
are supposed to emulate small Cessnas (150/172), I find them very
dificult to land.  Also the NeXT flight simulator, while having
rather neat graphics, doesn't demonstrate any stability that a
certificated airplane hadd better have (though it claims to be
a Cherokee).  Also, none of these things model stalls or various
other near the edges of the curve type problems realistically.

This isn't to say they aren't fun.  As near as I can tell, I was
the first person to hack IP rather than XNS datagrams into the
SGI flight simulator, which yielded more lost time at BRL and
NASA Ames than nearly anything else (of course, we only played on
our own time :-).

This isn't also to say that they aren't useful for flight training.
While they are useless in learning to actually fly a plane, they
are useful in practicing things like instrument procedures, provided
the simulator implements this realistically.  There are a number
on the market that are targetted to pilots rather than as games
that do this.  Currently, though the FAA permits logging of time in
"real" simulator, no PC based solution is approved.

-Ron
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Seatbelts (was: Re: Hinckley Crash)
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:45:39 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

> If that was an accurate quote of 91.107, I read nothing that precludes
> sharing of seatbelts, as long as the belts are "properly secured about
> that person", whatever that means.

First, the 91.107 I posted was exact (I just shortened the part where
it refers to civil aircrtaft and then exempts baloons, etc... to the
word [aircraft]).  This had been brought up before.  Some FSDO's have
agree with you.  Your milage may vary.  The interesting part is the
word "approved."  I'm not sure if a seat is "approved" based on some
fixed number or size of occupants.

-Ron
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: fishler_len@Tandem.com (Len Fishler)
Subject: Re: Purchase of Cessna 182
Keywords: Cessna 182, Parnership
Organization: Tandem Computers
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:18:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.181236.14851@exlog.com>, dave@exloghou.exlog.com (Dave St.Clair) writes:

... stuff deleted
|> car port-type structure) for its entire life. The current partners fly the
|> plane about 60-75 hours a year.
|> 
|> I'd like some advice on what I need to do to insure the airplane is in good
|> shape.  I plan on going over the maintenance records and talking to the
|> mechanic who performed the last annual.  Obviously, I'm going to fly it and
|> check the interior/exterior appearance/wear.
|> 
|> What else should I do?  Are there particular areas I should pay close attention
|> to? Don't be afraid to include "obvious" things -- I'm liable to
|> overlook these.  Also, any input on partnerships would be appreciated.
|> 
... stuff deleted

I'd strongly recommend contacting AOPA, which provides much support on 
purchase to members.  Also, there's a pretty good inspection checklist in the 
book "Tips on Purchasing Cessna Singles", which should be available at most
aviation type shops, as well as though Sporty's.  

One area of concern is the relatively low time per year that this particular
182 has been flown.  It probably means that it has sat idle for weeks at a
time, during which internal cylinder corrosion was likely to have happened. 

Another thing that I'd strongly recommend, which the book also urges, is 
getting a good pre-purchase inspection performed by an A&P (AI even better),
preferably the one that will be maintaining your plane once you purchase it.
It costs real money, but is worth it in the long run.  It pays to have someone
who has no interest in the plane doing the inspection for you, so don't have it
done by whomever was maintaining the plane previously.

When I bought my plane, I made the pre-purchase a part of the sales contract,
with the seller responsible for any required airworthiness repairs, up to 
an agreed upon ammount.  If the repairs exceeded that ammount, the seller had
the option to drop the contract and pay for the costs of the inspection.  In
my case, it turned out that the inspection found more than the agreed upon 
ammount, but the seller and I agreed to split the additional costs, and closed
the deal.  Make sure that you have that contract in writing, with the clause
requiring the seller to pay for the inspection if he wants to opt out.  That
gave me a lot of leverage when the inspection turned up some expensive items.

- Len -
PP-ASEL-IA
Centurion N3784Y
fishler_len@tandem.com
From: al@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Alan Peterman)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: what's so great about the KR-87?
Date: 13 Sep 92 20:02:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Sep13.200222.14265
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

In article <BuFtzM.AxH.2@cs.cmu.edu> dst+@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) writes:
>
>I've heard that the King KR-87 ADF is a much better unit than the earlier
>models, such as the KR-85 in my Seneca or the KR-86 in the Cheetah
>
>What is it about the KR-87's receiver circuitry that makes it so superior?

Well since nobody else has responded, I'll give a few reasons why the KR-87
is the best panel mount ADF.  For one thing, the KR-87 is the only King ADF
to use LSI chips - thus the parts count is way down, and the reliability
is way up.  This also allows the use of microprocessor based design
and the resulting elimination of things like band switches and multiple
tuned circuits for each band with lots ofvaricaps and inductors that 
require periodic realignment.  This all adds up to much better
reliablity, less power consumption, smaller unit and so forth.

In addition the KR-87 adds some features due to it's digital design.
Stuff like a timer for flight time is pretty stupid, but the unit
does output sine/cosine data for an external HSI and will work with
other such "modern" gear where the KR-85/86 (which are basically the
same unit) are pretty much stuck with just the non-slaved bearing
indicator.

Now I'm not saying that the KR-87 is worth the incremental cost
in all cases, but it IS a much better ADF.

-- 
Alan L. Peterman                                 (503)-684-1984 hm & work
                       al@qiclab.scn.rain.com
It's odd how as I get older, the days are longer, but the years are shorter!
From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Soaring decisions (was: ...long boring flights)
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:45:32 GMT
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)

In article <rl.715969923@cgl.ucsf.edu>, rl@socrates.ucsf.edu (Robert Langridge) writes:
> 
> MacCready is renowned amongst sailplane pilots for his analysis of the
> best speed-to-fly between thermals to maximize performance.  I recently
> learned that migrating raptors adopt a similar strategy - to put it crudely,
> the stronger the thermals the faster you fly between them.

	Some of these raptors are remarkably adept it this, and the
	best examples I've seen were California Condors.  (Maybe that's
	because it's just easier to SEE a big bird than a "little" bird
	when they're at cruise altitude?)

	In optimizing their cruise flight they don't just speed up
	the way sailplanes do -- they shift their Cl/Cd curve to
	higher speeds by partially folding their wings, to increase
	their wing loading.  I'd bet dollars to donuts that they
	also crank in the avian equivalent of negative flaps.


------------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@Unify.com
From: guy.byars@cccbbs.UUCP (Guy Byars) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: WHAT'S THE PATTERN OF GPS
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:48:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Cincinnati Computer Connection BBS - Cincinnati, OH - 513-752-8248
Reply-To: guy.byars@cccbbs.UUCP (Guy Byars) 

There is a BBS which will tell you all about the gps availability
and probably much more than you would ever want to know about GPS.

It is managed by the Coast Guard (?) and is the source of official
GPS info.  The number is 703-866-3897.

I also have a GPS (Flybuddy) in my Skylane.  I have had it about
a year and until recently, rarely got more than 2 satelites.
Lately, it has been very good.

                                Guy Ford
From: yurkon@rudolf.nscl.msu.edu (John Yurkon)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Oshoksh and IFR (was: Logging time for the Inst)
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:51:27 GMT
Reply-To: yurkon@rudolf.nscl.msu.edu (John Yurkon)
Organization: National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory

In article <1992Sep14.041543.26808@peck.com>, geoff@peck.com (Geoff
Peck) writes:
...
>but rather by Center radar.  Separation standards for Center radar are
>much
>greater than for approach radar, because the resolution of the radar
>is
...
They did get a waiver to operate with reduced separation, at least for
approaches, which helped a great deal.
	John
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: harlow@chinet.chi.il.us (Steven A Harlow)
Subject: Damn aiplanes
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:41:42 GMT

 > From: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again))
 > Subject: Re: Twin Beechcraft crashed in Hinckley, IL
 > Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:09:02 GMT
 > 
 > 	The witnesses that the newspaper quoted seemed to be describing a
 > "failure to maintain airspeed"
That would seem to be the essence of the matter.
The concensous is that one engine stopped.
(The news photos showed one prop bent as if it had been spinning
when it hit the ground, the other prop ((despite the impact)) was
straight.)
It seems to have been engine failure induced pilot error.
My iron clad supposition is that after the engine failure shortly
after take off, the pilot was writing checks with the elevator
that his airspeed couldn't cash.
The wing with the dead engine stalled first, the plane "knife-edged"
and (at that low altitude) shortly "cartwheeled" into the bean field.

And I'll bet that it was actually the fire that killed most
of the occupants.

 > >Another depressing note, this crash has gotten *extensive* local media
 > >TV station spent the first TWENTY minutes of their 10 pm broadcast
Truely, the coverage this event has received has been amazing.

 > >                                  I kept asking myself "how many people
 > >died in automobile accidents around here this holiday weekend, and why
This same weekend, a like number (~12) people were killed in shootings
in Chicago.
Another 28 were wounded.
This received about 30 seconds of coverage.

 > 	* Those Damn little planes!
Indeed.

As a pilot, I learned something from the news coverage (in spite
of how it was reported).
I'm just a little afraid that the public learned something different.

(Attention fellow second Amendment proponents: don't get me wrong.
The above reference to shootings should not be taken as an invitation
to a flame war.)
-- 
Steve Harlow, Spinneheim, Glen Ellyn, IL, USA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com
Subject: Re: Mr Spitfire spits the dummy...news
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 02:54:34 GMT

In article <115@newave.mn.org>, john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes:
> In article <17v6trINNi8s@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> rob@cats.ucsc.edu (99708000) writes:
>> The guy punched out at a very low altitude and in a very difficult
>> attitude (almost straight down), but the ejection system miraculously
>> saved him from significant injury. I wonder if that will sell many MIG 29s.
> 
> That crash is commonly refered to as the "Soviet Ejection Seat Demo".
> While I don't know if it sold any Migs, the engineers can certainly take
> pride in how well their ejection seat worked.  Imagine what the press would
> have been like if the pilot had not been able to eject.

And the most fascinating 10 seconds of aviation film you'll ever see.


------

 John Rice         K9IJ    |   "Did I say that?" I must have, but It was
             _|_           |    MY opinion only, no one else's...Especially
           ---X---         |    Not my Employer's....
             o o           |    ASEL, AMEL, IA         rice@ttd.teradyne.com
From: brian@porky.contex.com (Brian Love)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Flying in warbirds or military aircraft
Keywords: Air Combat
Date: 14 Sep 92 23:30:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Xyvision Design Systems

I'm looking for information regarding pleasure flights in a warbird.
This would be a gift to a friend and I'm particularly interested in
the Air Combat organization and any similar organizations.  Any other
suggestions for obtaining a seat in an old warbird or a current
generation military aircraft are welcome.

Brian C. Love           |  Xyvision         |  Remember, you can put it in the
PP-ASEL-IA              |  Wakefield, MA    |  hands of your attorney, but you
Archer  6124J  "Julie"  |  (617) 245-4100   |  can't make it stand up in court.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation