HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jeffw@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (jeff waldeck)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: help finding aircraft!
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:23:23 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID

I am interested in purchasing a recreational aircraft that meets the
following criteria:

Can take off/land from a field
2 seats
range appx. 100 miles (or more!)
slow speed (stall speed of say 30 mph, max speed not to important)
price <$10,000 
payload (excluding passengers) of 50-100#
trailerable (with less than 1 hour prep/takedown)
max altitude >8000 feet asl


notes:

-one of the uses would be search & rescue

-I am not currently a pilot but could easily get a liscence (and plan
 to anyways someday)



I have been looking for an ultralight/gyro-copter to no avail 

Anyone have any ideas?

please e-mail with any suggestions.

thanks for any help

Jeffery Waldeck
jeffw@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com
From: ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg)
Subject: Re: BD10; performance figures
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:18:30 GMT


			BD-10 specifications

capacity		2 persons
empty weight		1580 lbs
max gross weight	4140 lbs
airshow gross weight	2920 lbs
max landing weight	4140 lbs
take off dist/spd/wt	600 ft/75 kts/2800 lbs
landing dist/spd/wt	1500 ft/70 KIAS/2100 lbs
max rate of climb	30,000 fpm (sea level)
max speed/altitude	mach 1.4 (920 MPH)/45K feet
max cruise/spd/alt/rng	Mach .91 (603 MPH)/45K ft/2788 statute miles
ultimate G loading	+12 -9
thrust to weight	1:1+ (2920 lbs)
stall speed:
  max gross		85 MPH/74 kts
  airshow gross (clean)	112 MPH/98 kts
  light landing	(2000)	60 MPH/52 kts
engine			GE CJ-610 or GE J-85 or 
			Pratt/Whitney JT-12 or Williams FJ-44
Usable fuel		148 gallons (1000 lbs) normal
			151 gallons (1020 lbs) auxiliary
operating expense	$160/hour



endurance with GE CJ-610:

altitude	mach	MPH	knots	statute	nautical

sea level	 .58	450	392	 624	 551
10,000 ft	 .76	550	475	 750	 653
15,000 ft	 .85	610	530	 866	 753
36,000 ft	 .91	600	521	2027	1763
45,000 ft	 .91	600	521	2788	2425
45,000 ft	1.40	920	800	1259	1094

(5 minute taxi, max thrust takeoff/climb to altitude, let down
and loiter for 45 minutes at 10,000 feet)


cost:

kits		197,500
engine	 	 98,500
avionics 	 80,000
assembly	134,000

financing is available from:

Universal Capitol Corp., Tony Livingston  404/971-0018
National Leasing Corp., Robert Jones	  800/922-9145
Global Financial Assoc. Ltd., Keith Ward  503/776-6460



Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Re: Popular Mechanics Article
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 05:30:14 GMT

From article <1992Oct3.003506.3709@den.mmc.com>, by zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin):
> In article <1992Oct2.174105.4218@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>, crawford@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (James E Crawford) writes:
> 
> |> A few months ago, there was an article on homebuilt aircraft in Popular
> |> Mechanics. Among the aircraft profiled was a very futuristic-looking model
> |> with a rear mounted engine and front canards. I have since lost my copy of
> |> the issue in which this appeared, and I was hoping that someone out there in
> |> net-land could tell me the model name that I am describing. It carried two
> |> passengers and cargo.
> 
> I believe that was the Berkut.  It is an improved derivative of the Long-EZ
> with a larger, more comfortable fuselage.  They had a cover article about
> it in Plane&Pilot a few months ago.  A very sharp looking plane with quite
> impressive performance (once you're off the ground...).  A far as I know,
> the builder's prototype is the only one flying.  Handling qualities are
> said to be very close to its Long-EZ parentage.

I still have the magazine, and it is right in front of me right now.

I look at it on some evenings hoping that I will soon be flying one (Berkut)
back to Central US to visit friends at 240mph, while I am approaching 
first solo for my PVT.  It is not only beautiful (kind of like a fighter
jet w/o the prop in front), but very fast.  Retractable gears, front-and-back
2-seater cockpit with F-4 style canopy, wow.  But then $42,000 for completion
of the plane is somewhat out of reach for me.

The other plane in the magazine which is a bit more reachable is the 
Discovery.  Same canard/push-prop, but with only a price-tag of $17,800 
allegedly.  Only the front gear is retractable, and the aft is not 
as grand-looking as the Berkut.  The 2-seater is side-by-side.  But
at cruise of 180mph, it will do a job.  

One extra feature I like about the Berkut is that with front-and-back 
2-seater and the prop being a pusher, the engine is further away from
the pilot, hence quieter (damn the passenger).  In fact, maybe we can
put an extra tank in the rear passenager seat when there is no passenger, 
and extend the range beyond 1400 miles.

But of course though not so nice but has higher performance and higher
capacity (also much much higher price) is the Lancair IV.  Full-size
comfortable 4-seater, retractable gear, IFR, pressurised cabin and
up to 387mph (342 + 45) cruise, double wow.  But at $125,000 and more,
hey, I can buy a mansion somewhere (decent) in this country.  Of course
if someone were to leave me a few millions tomorrow... (then maybe I would
had gone for a real fighter jet -- a MiG or something). 

Does anyone here has/has built a Berkut (yes, I know, a long shot)? 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: dale@ntg.com (Dale Luck)
Subject: Re: Any LanceAir Builders out there??...
Keywords: lancair, homebuild, aircraft
Organization: New Technologies Group, Inc.  Palo Alto CA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:02:44 GMT

In article arumble@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Anthony Rumble) writes:
>Are their any Lancair builders out there ?

I guess you can count me as a wanna be, soon as I can get it
figured into the budget. With a heart set on the IV its going
to take some saving, for both time and money. In the mean time
I can watch others build and go through the birthing stage.
Maybe come up with some better ideas or new options. I already
see a liquid cooled engine that might be a drop in replacement
with the same HP but lighter and more efficient.

>Anthony Rumble

Dale Luck
NTG, Inc.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: swood@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood - EVENSONG)
Subject: Plane in Gods Must Be Crazy II
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:13:58 GMT

I am interested in finding out who manufactures the kits or the components
for the plane that was seen in the movie, "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"

thanks

swood

-- 
Michigan Archery deer season opens October 1st!!!!!
 I will be sure to be out there, enjoying the sunrise and watching the
  critters roam about.  Whether or not I get a deer, the sunrise will
   still be there, and so will I.
From: bob@halfdome.sf.ca.us (bob pasker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Subaru Power??
Date: 3 Oct 92 10:27:52 PDT
Organization: Disorganized Organization

In article <1992Oct3.114428.704@actrix.gen.nz>, Bruce.Hoult@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
> The 750cc engine is 75 HP and the 1000cc engine is 90 HP.  With the
> fuel injection and engine management computer they automatically
> compensate for altitude up to 17,000 ft.  
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

having also owned such a bike, i can say that this is not true: there
is a jumper under the left hand side panel which is to be connected
over 5k ft. for proper mixture. the fuel injectio computer works via a
mass air flow meter which cannot determine the density of the air.  i
wired the jumper to a switch on the dashboard for easier access. 

-- 
-- bob pasker
-- bob@halfdome.sf.ca.us 
--
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: crawford@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (James E Crawford)
Subject: Popular Mechanics Article
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:41:05 GMT

This is my first bona-fide post on the net, so I apologize in advance for
any typos, mistakes, etc.

A few months ago, there was an article on homebuilt aircraft in Popular
Mechanics. Among the aircraft profiled was a very futuristic-looking model
with a rear mounted engine and front canards. I have since lost my copy of
the issue in which this appeared, and I was hoping that someone out there in
net-land could tell me the model name that I am describing. It carried two
passengers and cargo. Also, if anyone has had any experience with this
particular plane, I would appreciate your comments.

Thanks in advance.

Jim Crawford

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: kaufman@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman)
Subject: Helicopter kits
Reply-To: kaufman@CS.Stanford.EDU
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: rec
Date:  1 Oct 92 16:51:27 GMT

Has anyone built the Rotorway Exec 90 kit?  I have visited the factory in
Arizona (before the ownership change), but have never met anyone who
actually built and flew one.
-- 
Marc Kaufman (kaufman@CS.Stanford.EDU)

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: Bruce.Hoult@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: Subaru Power??
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 11:44:28 GMT

In article <BvHzr6.Ftw@waterloo.hp.com> enns@waterloo.hp.com (Roger Enns) writes:
> I am looking for a more
> reliable and durable powerplant, in the range of 75 to 90 hp.
> With our present 1835 VW, climb rate at gross on a hot day is
> marginal at best.  Rather than hop the sh%t out of the poor VW,
> and risk crank failures, etc, I am hoping to install a very near
> stock Subaru.  At OSHKOSH, the gyro guys seemed to love the
> powerplant, with many flying examples on hand.

upfront disclaimer:  I don't know a thing about requirements for
engines for homebuilt aircraft, but...

... has anyone ever considered using the BMW "K" series motorcycle
engines in aircraft?

To my mind they seem just about ideal, suffering only possibly because
of the weight of the water cooling.

The 750cc engine is 75 HP and the 1000cc engine is 90 HP.  With the
fuel injection and engine management computer they automatically
compensate for altitude up to 17,000 ft.  Based on my experience of
owning a K100 for five years and over 100,000 Km the engines are
absolutely 100% rock-solid bullet-proof reliable.  It has *never*
failed to start first push of the button, and the only thing that
seems to wear out in the engine up to at least the 160,000 or 180,000 Km
mark (the oldest ones that are around this area at the moment) is the
cam-chain, which usually needs replacing somewhere between 80,000 and
120,000 Km.

So what's wrong with them in an aircraft application?
-- 
Bruce.Hoult@bbs.actrix.gen.nz   Twisted pair: +64 4 477 2116
BIX: brucehoult                 Last Resort:  PO Box 4145 Wellington, NZ
"Cray's producing a 500 MIPS personal computer with 256MB RAM and 8 GB
hard disk that fits in your pocket!"   "Great!  Is it PC compatible?"
From: franks@synoptics.com (Frank Stutzman)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Advantages to radial engines?
Keywords: Radials,
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:15:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: netnews.1992Oct5.181511.26641
Reply-To: franks@synoptics.com
Organization: Synoptics Inc. Santa Clara, California.

Somebody at work here made it down to the Salinas airshow (I had to stay in 
town, sniff) and was talking about the the Wilga that was there.  The question
came up as to what the advantages are to a radial engine.   I have no idea.  Are
there any?  Anybody know?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
^ Frank Stutzman             ^                                           v
^ SynOptics Communcations   / \    Faster and faster, until the thrill   v
^ Santa Clara, Ca           |*|    of speed overcomes the fear of death  v
^ franks@synoptics.com      \ /              -- Hunter S. Thompson       v
^ Cessna N7770T @ PAO        v                                           v
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello)
Subject: Re: Subaru Power??
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 23:22:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.044903.13406@netcom.com> geo@netcom.com (George Pontis) writes:
>>>
>>>I though that a mass airflow meter was exactly the device that's needed !
>>>It measures the number of air molecules that the engine breathes, usually
>>>by noting their cooling effect on a hot wire. Once the number of air
>>>molecules is known, then the optimum fuel injection quantity can be 
>>>determined with only minor adjustments to the calculation. Why it has such
>>>a switch I don't know. Are you sure that it is a mass flow sensor ?
>>>
>
>>The problem is that it can't tell how many molecules it "counts"
>>are oxygen, and how many are nitrogen.
>
>
>That's not a problem; 21% of the molecules that it counts are going to be
>oxygen. The nitrogen/oxygen ratio does not change with altitude.
>

I beleive it does. The heavier (MW of O2= 32 AMU) tends to stay in the
lower atmosphere more than the lighter (N2=28 AMU) nitrogen molecules.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: leftwich@indiana.edu (Brad Leftwich)
Subject: compound curves
Followup-To: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:30:31 GMT

Can anyone suggest books or other sources of information dealing with
forming compound curves in sheet metal (alumninum) -- for example for wheel
pants, cowlings, fairings, and so forth? I've heard it's a difficult,
time-consuming process; on the other hand, I imagine it's quite a bit
lighter than fiberglass. Does anyone have any experience using an "English
wheel"? Thanks,

--Brad Leftwich
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: Bruce.Hoult@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Subject: Re: Subaru Power??
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 02:29:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.102752.606@halfdome.sf.ca.us> bob@halfdome.sf.ca.us (bob pasker) writes:
> In article <1992Oct3.114428.704@actrix.gen.nz>, Bruce.Hoult@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
> > The 750cc engine is 75 HP and the 1000cc engine is 90 HP.  With the
> > fuel injection and engine management computer they automatically
> > compensate for altitude up to 17,000 ft.  
>                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> having also owned such a bike, i can say that this is not true: there
> is a jumper under the left hand side panel which is to be connected
> over 5k ft. for proper mixture.

Hmm.  I hadn't heard of that, but then I don't think I've ever been on
a road above 5000 ft in NZ.  I'm just repeating what my mechanic told
me, but of course he could be wrong.


> the fuel injectio computer works via a
> mass air flow meter which cannot determine the density of the air.

Right.  It measures air mass.  Why would it want to know density as a
seperate variable if it's got mass?  The mass of air moving through
the sensor should drop off with decreasing density in exactly the right way.


> I wired the jumper to a switch on the dashboard for easier access. 

Actually, being able to do that easily might well justify the original
claim.  It's not as you've got to change jets or anything. (It's not
quite what I was expecting either, but it would be tolerable)
-- 
Bruce.Hoult@bbs.actrix.gen.nz   Twisted pair: +64 4 477 2116
BIX: brucehoult                 Last Resort:  PO Box 4145 Wellington, NZ
"Cray's producing a 500 MIPS personal computer with 256MB RAM and 8 GB
hard disk that fits in your pocket!"   "Great!  Is it PC compatible?"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello)
Subject: Re: Osprey GP-4
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 01:28:34 GMT

>
>This month, I am investigating high speed, two seaters like the Lancair
>320.  I am limiting my queries to 200hp, and all construction methods
>are fair game.
>

I was at Hollister airport, Hollister,Ca last weekend, and a kitplane
"went in".  I'm not sure what kind it was, i thought it *looked*
like a lancair.  Evidently the plane had very little forward 
speed, as it didn't leave a trail in the dirt.  Anyone know any
more details on this?

-Eric


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: geo@netcom.com (George Pontis)
Subject: Re: Subaru Power??
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 04:49:03 GMT

>>
>>I though that a mass airflow meter was exactly the device that's needed !
>>It measures the number of air molecules that the engine breathes, usually
>>by noting their cooling effect on a hot wire. Once the number of air
>>molecules is known, then the optimum fuel injection quantity can be 
>>determined with only minor adjustments to the calculation. Why it has such
>>a switch I don't know. Are you sure that it is a mass flow sensor ?
>>

>The problem is that it can't tell how many molecules it "counts"
>are oxygen, and how many are nitrogen.


That's not a problem; 21% of the molecules that it counts are going to be
oxygen. The nitrogen/oxygen ratio does not change with altitude.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: leftwich@indiana.edu (Brad Leftwich)
Subject: Re: Advantages to radial engines?
Followup-To: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:52:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.181511.26641@netnews.synoptics.com>,
franks@synoptics.com (Frank Stutzman) wrote:
> 
> ...The question
> came up as to what the advantages are to a radial engine.

In early days there were at least two advantages to radials (and rotaries,
too)

1. Shorter crankshaft, hence lighter weight
2. All cylinders are exposed for better cooling

Unfortunately, the correlary to better cooling in this case is a larger
frontal area with higher drag, which I think is the main reason for the
radial's demise in these aerodynamically conscious times.

But doesn't this discussion belong in rec.aviation.misc?

--Brad Leftwich
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: richieb@bony1.bony.com (Richard Bielak)
Subject: Re: kits
Organization: multi-cellular
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 02:06:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.161239.589@news.unomaha.edu> dworden@cwis.unomaha.edu (David Paul Worden) writes:
>I would like any and all information regarding the purchase, plans, and 
>construction of aircraft kits, especially rotorcraft.  Also if anyone knows
>any of the FAA regs. regarding these kits, please send that as well.
>-- 

You should get the book "Kitplane Construction" by rec.aviatior, Ron
Wanttaja. The publisher is Tab Books, you can usually find it in
the Zenith Books catalog. There is a paperback  and a hardcover
version.

...richie



-- 
* Richie Bielak   (212)-815-3072   |                                          *
* Internet:       richieb@bony.com | Rule #1: Don't sweat the small stuff.    *
* Bang {uupsi,uunet}!bony1!richieb | Rule #2: It's all small stuff.           *
*    - Strictly my opinions -      |                                          *
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Subject: CHARTER: rec.aviation.ifr
Followup-To: rec.aviation.misc
Reply-To: geoff@peck.com
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:06:08 GMT

Welcome to rec.aviation.ifr.  This message, and companion messages
like it, will be posted to each of the new rec.aviation.* groups weekly
through the end of November, to allow people to view the charters of each
newsgroup and better understand where to post articles.

The charter of rec.aviation.ifr is:

****************************************************************************
*   Articles related to flight under Instrument Flight Rules.  Regulatory  *
*   questions, communications, procedures, charts, training methods,       *
*   maintaining proficiency, recurrent training, instruments and           *
*   equipment, questions, and experiences.                                 *
****************************************************************************

There are now a thirteen separate subgroups on rec.aviation; if the charter
above doesn't match the content of the article you're posting (or you're
following up), please consider one of the other groups as a more
appropriate forum:

    announce (MOD)    military      piloting        soaring
    answers  (MOD)    misc          products        stories (MOD)
    homebuilt         owning        simulators      student
    ifr 

A common question is "what should I do if an article spans the charters of
two or more groups?"  The answer is cross-posting.  If you have an article
which clearly crosses the boundaries of several groups, you should post a
**single** copy of the article to **all* of the groups.  Don't post
separate copies to each group.  Most modern newsreaders will display the
article exactly once to the reader -- in the first group in which it is
encountered and read.

If you feel that the replies should be directed to a subset of the groups
to which you are submitting your post, be sure to include a line of the
form "Followup-to: groupname" in the header of your message.  See the
header of this message for an example.

If you are replying to a cross-posted article and your reply is germane to
only a subset of the original groups, please ensure that you check the
Newsgroups: line to remove unnecessary groups.  If the reply is germane to
all the groups in which the article was originally posted, try to ensure
that all the groups are listed in the Newsgroups: line.  Some older
newsreaders cause a reply to go only to the group which is currently being
read.

Use cross-posting sparingly.  If an article "90% belongs" in one group and
"10% belongs" in another, post it only to the first group.

						Geoff
From: kevin@sherman.pas.rochester.edu (kevin mcfadden)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: QuestAir Venture
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:12:37 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <1992Oct1.230109.26400@den.mmc.com> zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin) writes:
>
>If the claimed 600 hour build time is true it sounds like quite a fast way
>to go fast...
>

How fast is fast?  Does anyone have the typical specs of these types of
aircraft?  e.g. hauling capacity, top speed, dimensions, do you need a
license, .....

Thanks,

Kev
From: laird@think.com (Laird Popkin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: QuestAir Venture
Date: 1 Oct 1992 17:20:40 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: django.think.com

I worked for about two years for QuestAir, a manufacturer of a homebuilt
airplane called the Venture.  That was a while ago, and I've fallen out of
touch with QuestAir, but seeing this new group made me curious as to
whether anyone here has flown in one or heard any news about the place.
When I left, the prototype had flown and set a few records, and I know that
since then a number and built.
-- 
- Laird Popkin, Thinking Machines

Connection Machine: Massively parallel supercomputer.  Also a cool black
cube with more blinking lights than you can shake a stick at.