HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Accident probability in a twin (was: Hinkley crash)
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:49:51 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

> In a single, of course, once the fan quits the you no longer have
> an airplane; you have a glider

Yep.  The single engine plane is just a glider up front, the fan is
just to keep the pilot cool.  Watch him sweat when it stops :-)
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Q.) A fatal crash in Concord, CA??
Date: 6 Sep 92 14:41:52 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

The poeple on compuserve know these guys.  The instructor was th
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
Subject: Re: Twin aircraft (was: Re: Twin Beechcraft crashed in Hinckley, IL)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:24:11 GMT

serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:

>In article <jcmorris.716141852@mwunix> jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) writes:
>>zari@bolzano.math.ethz.ch (Alain Zarinelli) writes:

>>>[discussion of the concept of a "critical" engine]

to which I replied with a joke:

>>A real-world dictionary (as opposed to the written test guides) would define
>>the term "critical engine" to mean "the engine which is still running".

and then added

>> [comment that twins with counter-rotating props don't have a critical 
>>  engine]

to which Mike Seraphin responded:

>Do not be mislead in to believing that counter-rotating twins do not experience
>the same problems as a conventional twin. Even in C/R setups you still develop
>an asymmetric thrust condition when an engine fails.  Although it is not as
>great as that generated in a conventional twin, the plane can still kill you if
>you are not sharp.  C/R twins still have a Vmc speed, below which you cannot
>control the aircraft.  The only real advantage to the C/R setup is that Vmc is
>slower than that for a conventional twin.  But, as I said before, if you are
>not sharp on your emergency procedures any twin CAN kill you.  Having flown
>both types I really can't say that one is better than the other.

>  [and a good text graphic showing the thrust vectors involved]

I didn't say that there weren't problems in a C/R when one fan decides to
take an unscheduled holiday, just that the counter-rotating props mean
that you don't have the dramatic difference in handling based on whether 
the left or right engine failed.

Any multi-engine aircraft, unless the powerplants are all centerline-thrust
(like a Mixmaster) will have a Vmc value which depends (among other things)
on just how much authority the rudder can exert.  The special case of
centerline-thrust birds is why you can get a multi rating in one, but have
your ticket endorsed "centerline thrust only" because you haven't
demonstrated the ability to handle the problems of a "normal" twin
with an engine failure.

For a normal twin, there will be a speed below which the rudder is incapable
of exerting enough force to overcome the turning moment caused by the
fact that the thrust vector (from the remaining engine) no longer passes
through the center of mass of the airplane, plus the P-factor.  The
advantage of using counter-rotating props is that regardless of which
engine fails the P-factor acts to oppose the asymetric thrust vector from
the engine rather than enhancing it.  You've still got asymetric thrust
but it requires less rudder authority (or permits lower airspeed) when
you need to counteract it.

Joe Morris
From: niles@parc.xerox.com (Les Niles)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: what's "necessary for takeoff or landing"?
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:13:30 GMT
Organization: Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, CA

In article <1992Sep15.153709.21452@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg) writes:
>... I told the tower that I would do a high-speed pass if they
>authorized it, ... I did my pass and then went off about my
>business.  When I got back to the airport, the tower chief very politely 
>informed me that I had broken FAR 91.119, which says that you can't come
>within 500 feet of any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure except "when
>necessary for takeoff or landing."  He said that my high-speed pass
>request made it clear that I had no intention of landing.
>
>(1) Is he right?
>(2) If he is right, what is the scoop on the missed approaches that
>people learning IFR do all the time?  ...
>
>the tower guy really *was* nice.  He complimented me on the flyby
>technique before telling me about the FAR, and said not to worry because
>his impression was that I had changed my mind, intending to land but
>not leaving enough space between my aircraft and the C-172 on the
>ground in front of me.  : )

From the AIM (1992):

   232. LOW APPROACH
   a. A low approach is the go-around maneuver following an approach.
   Instead of landing..., a pilot may wish to go around (low approach)
   in order to expedite a particular operation (a series of practice
   instrument approaches is an example of such an operation).  Unless
   otherwise authorized by ATC the low approach should be made straight
   ahead....
   b. When operating within an ATA, a pilot intending to make a low
   approach should contact the tower for approval.  This request should
   be made prior to starting the final approach.

   245. OPTION APPROACH
   The "Cleared for the Option" procedure will permit an instructor,
   flight examiner, or pilot the option to make a touch-and-go, low
   approach, missed approach, stop-and-go, or full stop landing....

A low approach clearly doesn't require any intention of landing, and
is approved every time the tower clears someone for "the option."
There's no mention of how the apparent conflict with 91.119 is
resolved, but I don't think you need to invoke a C-172 on the runway.
You requested a low approach, and the tower approved it.  I assume
your screamin' Eagle didn't exceed the 200 kt ATA speed limit on the
"high speed" pass.

  -les  niles@parc.xerox.com
        Skylane N2461G
From: Kevin@lemoore.ati.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Number of U.S. Pilots  (was Number of small aircraft wanted)
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:41:40 GMT
Reply-To: Kevin@lemoore.ati.com
X-Mailer: ReSource - Mac Release: 1.5



>Why do so many pilots stop flying not long after getting their licenses?
>I think one major factor is a combination of finances and psychology. When
>one is in the process of fulfilling this wonderful goal of learning to
>fly, it's easy to justify the expense. Once the license is in hand, the
>expense of flying becomes much harder to justify.

I can relate. I began taking lessons in Jr. High. Due to finances
(high school dating, college living, new job -- new car syndrome)
It wasn't until I got married that I was able to finish. It was a
goal that I'd worked on for a long time. However, once I had the license,
I bought a house, had kids, and etc., etc.  Then, I suddenly went
too long, forgot the medical, and biannual. Now I'm ready to get back
into the seat as I've found some others to share the expenses with.
But, the expense of getting everything up-to-date is going to take
me a bit.

When I'm outside and look up, I want to forget about all the "other"
commitments (food, house, kids ........), and go at it. However, then
I look at the checkbook with my wife, and .......

I'm not complaining, just agreeing with the above. I believe the key
to flying, for guys like me, is networking with other pilots who are
in the same situation, and whom can share the expense. It's also nice
to have another pilot along when you don't get up very often. The
backup is great!

****************************************************************
Kevin Kurtz
Assistant Principal
Lemoore Elementary School
100 Vine St.
Lemoore, CA 93245
(209) 924 - 3479	(school voice phone)
(209) 924 - 1224  (home voice phone)
(209) 924 - 2274  (home fax phone -- on when requested)
Kevin@lemoore.ati.com
****************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: ericth@i88.isc.com (Eric Thiele)
Subject: single engine twins
Organization: INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation, Naperville, IL
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:28:34 GMT

As opposed to my recent marginally successful attempt at humor, "twin engine 
C152", this is NOT (intended to be) a humorous post.

What is so horribly difficult about landing a twin w/ one fan dead?  
Is the thrust from the lone non-centerline engine what gets you at slow speed?
Torque + high crosswinds = crash?  
Isn't the drag from the dead engine less of a factor at lower landing speeds?
Is the window of "single engine green arc" (was that Vmc?) flyable airspeed so 
narrow that it's exceedingly easy to stall and maybe spin?  
Isn't landing deadstick, once the field is made, a viable option?  

Can you tell I haven't a clue?

If it isn't horrendous, could someone (Dave "BeastMaster" Touretzsky?  Dr. Dan?)
post the engine out procedure?

Thanx
Eric Thiele
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: Flying/Camping the Sierras: Grass Valley / Tahoe
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:00:31 GMT

Hiya.  Not too many months ago, I posted a description of my own
hair-raising experience getting out of Tahoe.  Caught a lot of grief
from the folks who think you shouldn't fly a 172 up there.  I still
don't agree with them, but that's another story.

My experience very similar to yours except that the winds were straight
down the runway gusting to 18kts and I lost the headwind at about 50'
above the runway - stall warning, sink, all that.  I pulled out of it
before I had to set back down and proceded to the golf course to circle.
I had told ATC I would be circling when I called them up.  Like you, I
was near max gross and I've decided that in the future I won't take off
at a density altitude above 7000' unless I'm 150lbs or so below max
gross.  That's in my Skyhawk, a '79 model with max gross of 2300.
As far as Vx and Vy, you should be aware that they begin to converge
at increasing altitude.  They are only 59 and 71 at sea level so at 8000'
or so, they are both probably around the 65kt area you flew.  Another
thing is the flaps setting - I never use flaps for takeoff.  My instinct
tells me that I would only use 10 degrees for a soft field takeoff and I
never take off from soft fields.  Seems to me that flaps would inhibit 
your climb ability and add drag, although 10 degrees doesn't add that
much drag.  

All in all, I love flying the Reno/Truckee/Tahoe area and I've done it
a number of times.  I have become more conservative about temperature
and density altitude, however.  And without the golf course for circling,
Tahoe would be pretty much unflyable for a 172 much of the time.

Anyway, I enjoyed your article.  I just wanted to let you know that I
especially related to your Tahoe experience.
-- 

	Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
	Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
  	phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:01:50 EDT
From: <VPN1@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: interstate runways

All-or-none rules (with certain exceptions such as
ALWAYS check the oil and NEVER fly under bridges)
are IMHO unwise.  In highly populated areas, inter-
states may be a poor choice of an emergency runway--
although it can't hurt to glance in that direction
before deciding.
     In the middle of the Pennsylvania, I-80 is
sometimes busy but more often has huge gaps between
cars and is infinitely preferable to the mountainous
terrain--especially at night.  Yes, there are wires
across the hiway here and there, and bridges, but
the odds of hitting one (especially if the landing
light still works) are small enough compared with
the alternatives.  In some areas they're the only
terrain that is not at a forty-five degree angle to
the horizontal and constructed of rock and on a dark
night, absolutely invisible until you're committed.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Re: What do you do during long boring flights?
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 21:19:46 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

From article <82207@bcsaic.boeing.com>, by stephen@moclips (Stephen L Nicoud):
> 
>    On 4 Sep 92 02:33:30 GMT in a rec.aviation article, berry@athos.pei.com (Berry Kercheval) wrote:
> 
>    Well, on my recent trip from Livermore to Twenty-Nine Palms to
>    Fullerton and back I listened to various AM stations on the ADF
>    receiver....
>      [...]   
>    (Did you know that in the California Central Valley all you can get
>    is Country Western stations?  Ick!)
> 
> "Ick!"????
> 
> That's a matter of opinion.  Sounds like heaven to me!  :-) :-)
> 
> A Country and Western Music Fan,

I (the guy who started all these) second.  Thank you, FCC.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: john@socrates.umd.edu (John VanAntwerp)
Subject: Re: Twin Beechcraft crashed in Hinckley, IL
Organization: University of Maryland University College
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:45:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.172022.26434@hpcvusn.cv.hp.com> mark@.cv.hp.com writes:
>                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>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?
>
>Mark Rowe       Corvallis, OR       PP-SEL G I       Comanche N5943P

I believe the number is 100 fpm...

						John
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: cosper@seq.uncwil.edu (Kit Cosper)
Subject: Re: Trainer Stolen & Returned 3 times
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 03:38:26 GMT

 (Eric Thiele) writes: 

> The Tattler, West Chicago, IL 9/3/92
>|> 
>This just in from the scene at DuPage Airport.
> 
>Early this morning, a twin engine Cessna 152 was stolen from, and subsequently 
>returned to DuPage Airport.  According to Linda Blum, the only eyewitness 
>who would talk to us (the gulls had already fled, in fear for their lives),
>the aircraft was savagely beaten about the yoke and throttle and forced to 
>comply with the evil desires of the alleged suspect, a white male computer 
>programmer.


From all the off-the wall remarks made by others about this
report, it is obvious that no one understands the journalist
trying to fight his way out of this poor soul.  He may CLAIM
to be a programmer, but we all know that such factual (sic)
and accurate (sic sic) reports are beyond the abilities of
mortal man, and MUST come from a journalist.

(If you need smiley's here then you still don't get it, hit 'n' and
go on......)


Kit

-- 
   Kit Cosper                        cosper@seq.uncwil.edu         
   PP-ASEL-IA                        AMA 31022
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Twin Beechcraft crashed in Hinckley, IL
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:08:41 GMT
Organization: National Library of Medicine

In article <1992Sep9.143422.6700@eecs.nwu.edu> phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
>
>What I find very disconcerting at this point is that this well-experienced
>and well respected pilot wasn't able, for whatever reason, to put the plane
>down safely in a real emergency.  If HE can't do it, what does that say
>about me?
>
Welcome to the stark realities of twin engine operation.  There are a 
number of GA twins (most, actually) which have a (usually brief) flight
mode where, upon losing an engine (which, if it cannot be feathered for one 
reason or another) all you can do is stall and crash.  This past weekend
a neighbor down the street (a competent cardiologist and competent multi
pilot) could not maintain control of his Piper Aerostar in an engine out
situation and crashed at the Sussex Country airport in MD, killing himself
his daughter and her husband.  I think the Aerostar may be something of
a worst case, but the msg is that it happens, skill and experience
notwithstanding.

Dan Masys
masys@nlm.nih.gov
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: petri@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (HOWARD PETRI)
Subject: FAA Aircraft Records
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: petri@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: INDIANA U. CYCLOTRON FACILITY, BLOOMINGTON, IN
Distribution:  na
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:05:40 GMT

     Recently someone posted information on how one can contact the
FAA to get a copy of the file on their personal aircraft. I seem to
have lost this info so could some kindly soul please repost this.
I have reason to believe they may have my records messed up. Is there
a mechanism for getting these records corrected? 

Howard Petri
Pegasus N599JH
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Subject: Re: Canard Pros -n- Cons
Reply-To: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown NJ
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 16:02:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.115355.2983@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM> jac@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM (Judy Cadmus) writes:
>Speaking of canards, I saw a for sale ad the other day for a Super Skylane
>(Cessna 206) with, among the many other extras, a Horton STOL kit and a
>cowling with an optional canard.  Has anyone ever seen this configuration on
>a Cessna? 

Yes. I saw one at Florence, OR recently. Didn't get to see it up close but I
had assumed it was a 182 derivative rather than a 172 derivative.

venky
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: ulick@angelico.helios.nd.edu (Ulick Stafford)
Subject: Re: DEA on 60 minutes
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:23:49 GMT

In article <1127@beagle.UUCP> chandler@beagle.UUCP (Jim Chandler) writes:
>Let's not slam the DEA quite so hard.  Although they are probably taking
>the law to the extreme, what they are doing is legal.  Congress passed a
>law that stated that all assets bought by, used for transportation of, or
>otherwise involved in drugs or drug money can be siezed by the DEA or 
>agents when an arrest is made.

And in Nazi Germany many people probabley defended Gestapo actions as
did the elected German government.  It is scary the number of people
who support or defend such secret police action.

Aside from the obvious wrongness of seizures without prosceution or
damage without compensation, what right should a government have
to restrict the sale and consumption of substances, anyway?  Too
many Goddamned fascists around who 'know best' how to run other
peoples lives, and very few people willing to risk their lives
or careers by publicly opposing such laws.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 
+ 'There was a  master come unto the earth, + Ulick Stafford, PP-ASEL       +
+    born in the holy land of Indiana,      + Dept of Chemical Engineering, +
+ in the mystical hills east of Fort Wayne'.+ Notre Dame, IN 46556          +
+      B'fhearr liom bheith ag eitilt.      +    ulick@bach.helios.nd.edu   +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: aboyd@quantum.on.ca (Andrew Boyd)
Subject: Re: Canard Pros -n- Cons
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 18:47:37 GMT
Organization: Quantum Software Systems

In article <1992Sep11.014728.13453@tc.cornell.edu> 
braner@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Moshe Braner) writes:
>.. The horiz stab of a standard plane does NOT
>need to generate negative lift for stability.  That's a common
>myth...  Typically it generates negative lift at high speeds and
>positive lift at low speeds.

um, are you really sure about this?  As you slow down your C-172,
you pull back on your control column, correct?  That causes significant
upward deflection of the elevator, correct?  Given that you are moving
forward through the air, you get a cross-sectional picture of the tail
that looks something like this:

    air ---->           /
                      /
		============/   

So, the horizontal stabilizer is pushing downwards at slow speeds.

Or, if you approach it theoretically, you know that your centre of
gravity is forwards of your centre of pressure, with your tail
developing negative lift - you agree that this is correct in cruise,
at least.  We get another picture of the forces on the a/c that looks
roughly like this:

                   ^
                   |
                   |
                   |
nose    C of G   C of P               tail
          |                            |
          |                            V
          |
          V

You are saying that at slow speed, the tail is pushing up.  This would
imply that the C of P has moved forward of the C of G.  It's true that
the C of P moves forward as you increase your angle of attack, but not
that much, at least in the a/c we fly.

Remember from ground school what happens to your stability as you move
the C of G too far aft, which means it is too close to the C of P?

----
#include <std.disclaimer>
From: al@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Alan Peterman)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Transponder problems
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:32:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Sep15.153257.19905
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

In article <1992Sep14.222857.11456@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg) writes:
>
>Transponders typically take about five minutes to warm up.  That's why
>the switch typically includes a "standby" mode -- you should power it
>on to standby when you start the plane, and turn it on just before
>departing.  If you leave it powered off till you are (for example)
>cleared onto the runway for takeoff, you won't get a peep out of it
>for the next few minutes.

Close, but not the whole story.  Most GA transponders have a warm up time
of about 45-60 seconds.  This is to allow the transmit tube to get warm
and stabilize at the correct frequency.  Putting the unit in standby will
do the warm up, and the transponder will come on line IMMEDIATELY after
being put in the "on" mode, if warmed up in standby.

Now for the "bad" news.  Most of the cheaper encoders being sold now
use a solid state pressure sensor that lives in an "oven" that is 
warmed to a preset temperature.  This requires 3-10 minutes (depending
on the ambient temperature) to get to operating temperature.  Often
the encoder is powered off the transponder, so until you turn the
transponder to standy (or on) the encoder does not start to warm,
so you may not get mode C for quite a while.  This is why we chose
to use the more expensive mechanical encoder for our plane, since
we often were in the air less than 7 minutes from engine start.

-- 
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!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: andrea@diasonx.UUCP (Andrea Larsen)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Reasons to fly (was Number of U.S Pilots)
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:12:02 GMT
Reply-To: andrea@diasonx.UUCP (Andrea Larsen)
Organization: Diasonics Inc. -- Milpitas, California

Is this thing working?
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: km11480@medtronic.COM (Keith A. Meisel)
Subject: Twin Engine Club Plane
Reply-To: km11480@medtronic.COM
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:20:45 GMT

Some of the more career-minded members of a flying club
to which I belong are lobbying for the club to
 buy a twin .  As background, we have 60 members, and the club
aircraft consist of two Warriors, two Archer II's, an Arrow (201)
and a Cherokee six.  Is a twin-engine an appropriate aircraft
for a club situation?  Is it potentially too dangerous for weekend
flyers?  Also, could the costs associated with owning a twin
become a financial burden on the rest of the club operations?

I'd like to get some feedback either by posting or e-mail.  I 
would share your opinions with my fellow club members.  Thanks
in advance for your help.