HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: guy.byars@ssa.org (Guy Byars) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
Subject: RE: BBS FOR THE SSA
Date: 16 Dec 92 02:51:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Soaring Society of America's BBS (513)-871-7720
Reply-To: guy.byars@ssa.org (Guy Byars) 


  It is now official.  The domain for the BBS for the Soaring
Society of America is:

                     @SSA.ORG

The response I received clearly indicated that a domain name with
bbs in it was not desirable.  And since this service is for _YOU_ the
SSA member (you ARE all SSA members aren't you?!), I'll try my best to
accommodate your your requests.

The domain should be functioning next week. When I test it and determine
that it is working correctly, I'll post a notice to that effect.  Do
_NOT_ try to Email to it until then.  Feel free to call it up and try it
out.  The number is (513)-871-7720.

  Until then, if you need to Email me, please to so at my day job:

                 feguy@cvg.sdrc.com

                                                Happy Holidays!

                                                Guy Ford Byars (11)
                                                
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring,rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: uh311ae@sunmanager.LRZ-Muenchen.DE (Henrik Klagges)
Subject: Re: Info on American Spirit glider kit.
Keywords: info-kit glider kit
Organization: Leibniz-Rechenzentrum, Muenchen (Germany)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 22:17:56 GMT

> 475+ pounds ...
Seems slightly on the heavy side. Given the trickyness of resins
I'd rather have another look at the new Czech/Polish gliders, which
are very good performance & price/performance.

Cheers, Henrik

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
From: peny@ppc.lpc.ethz.ch (Peter Nyffeler ,x4399)
Subject: Re: looking for a Ka6
Reply-To: peny@ppc.lpc.ethz.ch
Organization: ETH-Zuerich, Physical-Chemistry-Lab. - Switzerland
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:33:13 GMT

Have a look at Germans AEROKURIER magazin, they have a lot of second hand offers in it.

I think you may save money if you import a "crashed plane". The Std. Libele E4 
(I think it was HB-1090) from my colleague Rolf was exported this way to England.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
						  __________
Peter Nyffeler					 / ___  ___ \
ETH-Zuerich, Physical-Chemistry-Lab.		/     \/     \ 
Switzerland					|  ___  ___  | Soaring
e-mail:peny@ppc.lpc.ethz.ch			|     \/     | Club
fax: ..41 1 252 34 02				|  ___  ___  | Zuerich 
tel: ..41 1 256 43 99				\     \/     /  
						 \__________/ 
					     + Control-line modell enthusiast
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: Buying planes and training in them
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 15 Dec 92 01:11:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.145636.20671@yang.earlham.edu> alanmoore@yang.earlham.edu writes:
>Some friends of mine and I are thinking of buying my dad's '45 Navion.  One of
>the guys already has a license, and the other three of us start ground school
>in January.  The guy that has a license pretty much thinks we shouldn't use the
>Navion to get our license because it will be hard on the plane.  However, one
>of the main reasons for buying a plane in the first place is to help with the
>cost of getting a license.  Around here it is $3000 with instruction and a
>plane, and $1000 if you have your own plane.  With three people, that adds up
>(even if we do "rent" the plane to ourselves...)  What are other people's
>feelings on this?
>

Expect to pay more using the Navion over renting a trainer.  Basic
operating costs (gas and oil), wear and tear in a primary training
environment (lotsa takeoffs and landings) and insurance (retractable
gear airplane, propellor, and bigger engine) my guess is your hourly
costs will exceed the $2K delta you list.

Make sure that flying is something you *really* want and can do.
There are statistics somewhere that show many people losing interest
and not completing the Private Pilot rating.  You might find for
some obscure reason that you cannot get a medical which disqualifies
you from getting a license.

It is much better to find out now rather than after shelling out $$$ for
and airplane that you can't use.

Just my opinion.

Kerry
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: Re: Buying planes and training in them
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 12:30:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.145636.20671@yang.earlham.edu> alanmoore@yang.earlham.edu writes:
>Some friends of mine and I are thinking of buying my dad's '45 Navion.  One of
>the guys already has a license, and the other three of us start ground school
>in January.  The guy that has a license pretty much thinks we shouldn't use the
>Navion to get our license because it will be hard on the plane.

A Navion is a relatively heavy, complex airplane.  Last year while doing
an owner-assisted annual on my plane, I asked the A&P about a Navion which
was in the shop getting a new wing skin put on.  He said that the airplane
had had some engine work done, and one of the mechanics (who is also a
relatively high time pilot) took the Navion up to go around the pattern.
He landed hard and put the main gear strut up through the top surface of
the wing; a major repair which the shop had to swallow.

The wear and tear on a complex 47 year old aircraft would IMHO likely
generate unexpected maintenance costs which would wipe out any advantage
of owning vs. renting during pilot training.

> Around here it is $3000 with instruction and a
>plane, and $1000 if you have your own plane.

$2000 difference? It will disappear at the first annual (and probably
then some).

"Aviation is the great equalizer.  No matter how much money you have,
it teaches you what it feels like to be poor..."

Dan Masys
masys@nlm.nih.gov
From: sgavian@amy5.stanford.edu (Sarah Gavian)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Airlines in Caribbean
Date: 11 Dec 1992 18:19:31 GMT
Organization: Stanford University
NNTP-Posting-Host: amy5.stanford.edu

Does anyone know how I can get the names and addresses of the plethora of  
small airlines buzzing between islands in the Caribbean?
From: rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Lycoming, old used up motors
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:26:16 GMT
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota

In article <1992Dec11.191818.29554@newsgate.sps.mot.com> shade@chdasic.sps.mot.com writes:
|Hi netters:
|
|I was recently reading an article on VW engine swaps.  Several companies
|make adapters for just about any motor to the VW transmission (transaxle).
|It got me thinking...  (uh oh)
|
|What sort of horsepower is produced by a 4 cylinder Lycoming?
|
|Are these motors ever decomissioned from flight service? (i.e. affordable?!?)
|
|Can the average Joe go and get a used up but still running Lycoming?
|
|Knowing VWs, I think a pilot/builder must have a certain sense of adventure
|to use a VW motor on an aircraft.  Not being quite so brave, I was toying
|with the idea of using a Lycoming on my buggy.

Many Lycoming's (and others) were built to be installed in auxiliary
power units and other "big motor" ground equipment.  They are essentially
aircraft engines but not certified.  They can be used in aircraft, but 
only in experimental categories.

Basically, the answer is "yes", there are probably lots of non-airworthy
engines about that are good or even close to brand new.  We have one
ourselves sitting in an APU, but a warning - the engine alone has been given
a rough value of "about $2,000".  I honestly don't know if that's accurate,
but we're at least going from that assumption.  :-)

So.... Is it cost effective to use these older (and noisy!) engines in a
VW?

-- 
// Robert J. Granvin                                         rjg@stat.umn.edu
// School of Statistics - University of Minnesota        System Administrator
// ``One of the `right' people.''
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: aboyd@quantum.on.ca (Andrew Boyd)
Subject: Re: buying an airplane for initial training
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 16:42:42 GMT
Organization: Quantum Software Systems
Distribution: na

In article <732@oscar.UUCP> hurvitz@oscar.UUCP (Dennis Hurvitz) writes:
>go buy a c150 for $14,000, get your license in it, and sell it (if you
>can part with it) for probably what you paid for it....

if you buy the right 150, yes.  If you can avoid sinking money into
overhauling the engine, and if you can resist upgrading the avionics.

Problem is you can't always tell if the engine is going to need overhaul
soon.  500 SMOH looks great on a 2000 hr TBO until you realize after you
bought it that it uses 1 quart per hour and that the overhaul was 25 
years ago.  Gotcha for $10K, which you will not get back when you go
to sell it again.

IMHO, you either are going to need a lot of luck, or lots of smarts to
break even on the buy-instead-of-rent-to-get-a-PPL trick.  If you're that
lucky, don't waste your time buying 150s, buy lottery tickets.  And the
truth of the matter is that few people getting PPLs are expert on 150s.

There is an old analogy:  if you need some milk, just go and buy some
milk.  Don't buy a cow unless you like owning cows.

>there are no guarantees in aviation....

no kidding.  I know a guy who tried to be really smart & buy a C-140
to get his PPL in - paid about $10K.  After one hour (!), he had
to put in another $10K to overhaul the supposedly topped engine.  It 
needs radios badly, too.  

First time you try to talk to the tower on the old piece of junk in 
the dash, you'll realize you need a new 760 channel comm.  Maybe a
nav/comm.  Then, you'll realize you need a transponder & encoder.  And
gosh, wouldn't it be nice to have a panel-mount intercom to get rid of
all of those wires.  Then, you'll get lost in the haze some day, and 
you'll really want a LORAN or GPS.  Another $10K down the tube before
you know it, which you will not recover when you go to sell your now 
$34K 150.

Guys that own FBOs rarely drive a mercedes to & from their sprawling
country mansions.  You can find rental rates that are very reasonable,
and the beauty of renting is that there is no commitment.  If it breaks,
no problem, toss the keys back to the FBO, bitch to him about his
maintenance, and go get in another rental.  If it's your a/c that breaks,
you're out megabucks, and you're on the ground until you fix it.  

A world of difference, which you cannot fully comprehend until you
experience it.

Buying an a/c is as serious a commitment as getting married.  It
will cost you big pain, time & money if you screw it up.

----
#include <std.disclaimer>
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Ham radio forbidden in plane?
Keywords: ham, amateur radio
Date: 18 Dec 1992 22:16:33 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec18.213002.8176@pony.Ingres.COM> kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki) writes:
>In article <921218105415@AltaHopa.ftp.com> plummer@babyoil.ftp.com writes:
>>In my studies I came across an FAR that seemed to forbid use of
>>amateur radio equipment, not only a transmitter, in a plane.
>The FAR you are referring to is up to the pilot's discression.

That's true for everyone but air carriers. For them, the operator (the airline
itself) must give permission.

This is a recurring flamewar on the rec.radio.amateur.* groups...
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Buying planes and training in them
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:52:51 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy

In article <1992Dec16.031807.19933@qdeck.com> jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown) writes:
>alanmoore@yang.earlham.edu writes:
>>Some friends of mine and I are thinking of buying my dad's '45 Navion.
>>[ ... to learn to fly in ... ]
>>What are other people's feelings on this?
>
>I'm not very familiar with Navions, but if I'm remembering correctly I
>agree with your licensed friend:  it's a bad idea.

>Second, getting insurance for student operations in that class of airplane
>may well be completely impossible.  I wouldn't be surprised if you'd have
>a hard time finding insurance for pilots, even post-student, with less than
>100 hours.  When we bought the Comanche we were looking at 150-200 hour
>minimums, and finally fought them down to 100 hours.  Regardless, insurance
>will be higher for the Navion, and that's an expense you don't need.

This was not a problem for my son finishing his private in a
Bonanza.

>Third, a fast complex airplane is not going to be great to learn in;
>everything will be happening too fast and there is too much to do.
>(Trust me, when you're first learning everything happens too fast in
>a 150, never mind a faster airplane.)

So after learning that all things happen `slowly' you then transition
to a fast complex airplane and are behind the airplane. Lots of
accidents because of this. In addition, after learning in a puddle
jumper there will be roughly 10 hours of dual required plus about
20 hours before the `owner' becomes comfortable with the aircraft.
This needs to be added into the cost equation.

BTW, I learned in a puddle jumper--an Aronca 7AC.

>Fourth, as your friend mentioned, it'll be hard on the airplane.  Trainers
>are built for the abuses students put them through, and in the worst case
>are less expensive to replace than "better" airplanes.

Ahh... the Navion was originally well built.

It is also a common misconception that one needs a slow/underpowered
aircraft for learning. In support I cite the T-34 as the Navy's
PRIMARY trainer.

Dave Rogers
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: uad1221@dircon.co.uk (David Lomax)
Subject: Re: Good to see this newsgroup
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:15:30 GMT
Keywords: Good to see this newsgroup

hansonj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jon M Hanson ) writes:

>I just thought I would show my appreciation for this newsgroup and take the
>opportunity to say hello to everyone.
>
>					Jon Hanson
>					President, University of Arizona
>					Flying Club

Hello, Jon.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.answers,news.answers
From: hansonj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jon M Hanson )
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Good to see this newsgroup
Summary: Good to see this newsgroup
Keywords: Good to see this newsgroup
Date: 16 Dec 92 02:45:01 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

I just thought I would show my appreciation for this newsgroup and take the
opportunity to say hello to everyone.

					Jon Hanson
					President, University of Arizona
					Flying Club
From: bentonh@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Benton Holzwarth)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: BD-5J
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:46:33 GMT
Reply-To: Benton.Holzwarth@tek.com
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <1gj4ehINNcob@transfer.stratus.com> spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker) writes:
>In article <112850002@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com>, ken@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com (Kenneth M. Sumrall) writes:
>> 
>> >While I'm on the the subject, are BD-5J's still being sold?
>> >
>> I didn't get an answer on this one.  Anyone have any info?
>

    According to my trusty dec-92 issue of kitplanes, the one with
the table of kits available:

Bede-Micro Aviation
1484 Carmel Dr.
SanJose, CA 95125
408/293-3023

    Some selected specs:

Design:	BD-5
TopSpd:	240 mph
Cruise:	200 mph
Stall:	64 mph
Engine:	95 hp Turbine-propry	(proprietary?)
WingSpan: 17-21 ft		(is that the 'taming' wing ext kit?)
# seats:  1
Matls:	sheet metal (formed)
Build time: 2200 hrs
InfoPack: $38 $1.60/pg
Plans:	yes
Kits:	yes			(no price listed)
Prefab parts: yes

(I believe Jim Bede has no association with this company. Bede Jet
Corp of Chesterfield, MO is doing the BD-10J).


    Benton.Holzwarth@tek.com

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: adh@cbnews.cb.att.com (andrew.d.hay)
Subject: Re: porsche engines
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 12:49:50 GMT

In article <BzCE3x.F6B@plato.ds.boeing.com> prang@plato.ds.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja) writes:
"I have a friend with a popular homebuilt powered by a Porsche engine, and
"he swears by it.  Cheap to operate, and a power to weight ratio about 25%
"higher than the normal engine that goes in his aircraft.
"
"Mind you, the airplane is an Evans Volksplane.  He mounted the 4-cylinder
"Porsche 914 engine (65 HP) instead of the standard 1600 cc VW (50 HP).

this is actually a vw engine.  it was developed for the 411/412 and
used in the bus from the early '70s [at least] until fairly recently,
as well as the 914-4.

-- 
		+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Andrew Hay	|	one step beyond the outer limits of the twilight       |
a_d_hay@att.com	|	zone in the darkened room at the night gallery	       |
		+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: laforce@xenon.arc.nasa.gov (Soren LaForce)
Subject: Re: porsche engines
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:25:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.203939.18168@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, springs@wings.dartmouth.edu (David Fisher) writes...
> 
>Hello.
> 
>   I am in the process of building a kitplane (hence the posting to this
>newsgroup) and am currently looking into what kind of engine I should put
>in this.  I could go with a conventional engine (Lycoming or Continental),
>but the problem there is that a low-time engine costs a great deal.  I told
>a friend of mine about this, and he suggested using a Porsche engine.  He
>has some experience with them, (he is a certified Porsche mechanic) but only
>in cars, not in planes.  I also read an article in AOPA Pilot (November '89)
>describing Mooney's Porsche-powered plane, the M20L.  All in all, it sounds
>interesting enough to research.  My questions for the net are these:  does
>anyone have the address or phone number of Mooney so that I could call and
>ask about the plane, or any experience putting Porsche engines in planes?
>Specifically, I'm curious how Mooney geared down the shaft rpm's, and what
>kind of reliability they have seen with this combination.  Any gratuitous
>information is welcomed also.
> 
>    -David Fisher

My understanding is that the Mooney engine was a derivite of the 911
flat six.  As your friend has probably already told you, if you go
with a 911 engine, use the 3.0 liter or newer (1978 on).  Do not,
under ANY circumstance, use the 2.7 liter engine.  The 3.0 is a long
life, high reliability (200k+ with no work is normal) engine.  The 2.7
isn't (top ends last about 70k on the street).  Some things can be 
done to the 2.7 to correct this, but then the cost is about the same
as a 3.0.

The bad news:  a used 3.0 w/o induction can be expected to cost 
$3000 to $6000.  $3000 is the cheapest ad I've seen in Panorama
(the porsche club of america magazine) for a used engine (that one 
had 70k on it).  I think you can get a rebuilt long block for 
around $7000.

The good news:  200,000 miles at 50 mph is 4000 hours!  I don't know
what the life would be at 65% power (50 mph must be around 10% power).
However, very few 911 drivers just toot around at 10% power!

Send me mail if you would like more information, I could go on for
a few more pages.


--Soren            laforce@xenon.arc.nasa.gov

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: adh@cbnews.cb.att.com (andrew.d.hay)
Subject: Re: Slick50 Report
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 12:39:07 GMT

"Here's the slick 50 posting.  I seem to be unable to post a file from 
"my site.  If you can post this thing w/o having to type it, go ahead.
"
"--Soren            laforce@xenon.arc.nasa.gov
[]

i remember reading in one of the major mags [flying, i think] several
years ago when slick 50 was fairly new, the story of a man who
experienced a mid-air engine failure.  when the engine was
disassembled, the oil pickup was found to be almost completely blocked
by teflon crap from the slick-50 he had added to his last oil change.

i have heard enough stories and anecdotes like this to convince me to
*never*ever* use slick 50 in *anything*!

-- 
		+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Andrew Hay	|	one step beyond the outer limits of the twilight       |
a_d_hay@att.com	|	zone in the darkened room at the night gallery	       |
		+--------------------------------------------------------------+
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Subject: Re: Impending Velocity factory visit
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:47:19 GMT


|> In article <1992Dec18.154143.10436@anasazi.com>
|> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
|> 
|> > Ask them how it was that their Velocity (a Rutan Long EZ variant with the 
|> > canard for stall proofing) got into a stalled canard situation that almost
|> > killed the test pilot (he pancaked with the plane into a marshy area).

The pilot was not "almost killed," he chose to ride it down and was not 
injured. The plane was flying again in 2 or 3 weeks.

|> > I have never once seen any mention that the canard was either installed
|> > wrong or had too much lift which would potentially result in the canard
|> > stalling before the main wing.

The canard is supposed to stall before the main wing. That is how these 
designs get the "stall-proof" characteristic. The canard stalls while the main
wing is still generating plenty of lift. This creates a nose down pitching 
moment. The angle of attack of the canard decreases, and then generates more 
lift again.

In article <1992Dec18.185132.5173@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) writes:
|> 
|> This has been dealt with extensively in both Kitplanes and Sport
|> Aviation and also in rec.aviation.  The canard was not the problem, it
|> was the strake which has since been either modified or kits sold which
|> eliminate the situation.  The exact definition of the phenominon was
|> called "deep stall".
|> 
|> Corky Scott

There is some disagreement from some people as to the exact cause. My reading
of the available info leads me (and a canard expert here at NASA that does not
read the net) to think that is was primarily a configuration problem: the aft
CG limit was aparently at the neutral point. I understand that the "problem"
was solved by redesigning the canard, which will move the neutral point, as well
as changing the rear CG limit. If I am mistaken and it was the strake that was
redesigned, then the result would still have been a change in the neutral point.
I believe they also put leading edge cuffs on the main wing. Again, this will
change the effective neutral point.

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.  

David		doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

The thought police insist I tell you:
my thoughts, not NASA's
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt