HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brian@clipper.ingr.com (Brian Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: biplane gliders
Keywords: biplanes gliders
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:50:32 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA


   As someone else already mentioned, the problem with a biplane glider
is induced drag. 

   The way I understand it is that you get less induced drag for a given
area of wing if you make the span longer. That's why gliders have long
narrow wings. I belive the induced drag has something to do with the 
vortices generated at the tips. When you make the span longer, the tip 
vortices affect a less signifcant portion of the total area and you get
less induced drag. I belive the AOA argument is another way of saying the
same thing that is, the tip vorticies and AOA are related.

   If I understand what I read correctly, a wing of infinite length would have
no induced drag. Note that I'm talking only about induced drag, not parasitic
drag. There are of course practical limits and tradeoffs for a real glider.

   For this reason you can see that you're better off with one real long wing 
instead of two short ones.

   The book I read was pretty interesting. There were a number of other things
that seemed counterintuitive. One was that the induced drag actually decreases
with airspeed. This is the opposite of parasitic drag. As airpseed increases,
you require a lower AOA which decrease induced drag.  My understanding is
that the best L/D occurs at an airpeed where the inducded and parasitic
drag curves intersect. I presume that this is why minumum sink and best
L/D don't occur at the same airspeed. Minimum sink is close to maximum
lift which creates a lot of induced drag. The diffrence in airspeed between
best L/D and minimum sink is kind of a measure of the tradeoff between
maximum lift and minimum drag.

   I was impressed by the amount of engineering compromise that goes into an
airplane design. It is as much an art as it is a science.

   Please correct me if I'm in error, I'm just a lowly glider student 8-)


		- Brian -
From: rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com (Dick Harrigill)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Life Insurance
Keywords: Life Insurance
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:35:13 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle

In article <1992Aug14.122621.19466@brtph560.bnr.ca> rlarsen@bnr.ca (Richard Larsen P220) writes:
>I bought my aviation life insurance eight years ago...
>It is called a Security 350 parachute.

I wonder if Toyota will be putting driver and passenger airbags in their
new planes?



-- 
Dick Harrigill, an independent voice from:     Boeing Commercial Airplanes 
M/S 9R-49  PO BOX 3707                       Renton Avionics/Flight Systems
Seattle, WA  91824                                  Computing Support
(206) 393-9539    rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com    CDP, PP-ASEL
From: stearns@Apple.COM (Bryan Stearns)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: It Found Me
Date: 22 Aug 92 00:13:50 GMT
Organization: Apple

As I mentioned a few months ago, I've been searching for a Grumman
Tiger.

Well, I've found one (or it found me). N28663 is a '78, 600 hours since
new-limits overhaul, older King radios, red/white/blue paint in decent
shape, and gray interior.

I had sent out 104 postcards to all California-based owners of 77-79
Tigers (saying, basically, "Hi - wanna sell?"). I only got a few
responses, and this was one of them (and it came two months after the
postcard was sent!). The guy who owned it had retired and moved to
Tijuana, and wasn't flying much anymore.

I had Bill Heard (Bill's Air Center at Santa Monica) do the prepurchase
inspection. Nothing evil was found that I didn't already know about:
The Century I autopilot's turn coordinator seems dead (but I'd kinda
like to have heading hold, so I'll be looking to upgrade to a Century
IIB, maybe with an HSI). The pitot-static system is past the two-year
IFR limit, and NAV1 is about 8 degrees off (but I'm looking to install
King Silver Crown nav-coms soon). The ADF is dead (I'll wait a bit,
then get GPS instead). The worst problem is that it likes to seep fuel
out of the right tank in flight - just enough to be messy (I got the
owner to reduce the price a bit because of this. The leak is at the
outboard end of the tank, where the spar [a round tube on all small
Grummans] passes out of the tank). On the plus side, it's got the 
Sensenich prop, 74-75-76-77 compression, and flies like a Tiger
should!

I flew it home to Reid-Hillview yesterday, and signed up for the
tie-down next to Geoff Peck's (which had just become available two days
before!).

Thanks to all of you who wrote to me with advice, suggestions, mechanic
recommendations, etc. Once again, another request: I'm looking for a
good radio shop (maybe one that'll let me owner-assist?!), and somebody
in northern CA to look at the leaky tank (that sound you hear is the
teething-on-my-wallet just starting :-).

... Bryan Stearns
   Grumman N28663
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: Re: Gear down
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 13:38:46 GMT

In article <2051@usna.NAVY.MIL> dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)) writes:
>
>Oh, yeah, I just got back from BUF where I climbed to 9000 feet
>in the Bonanza WITH THE GEAR DOWN! That's what 25+ hours in
>a straight legged 182 will do to you.

Wisdom from Ancient Aviators says: Better to climb forgetting gear down
than descend forgetting gear up.

That's also what a lot of hours in a straight leg bird will do to you.

Dan Masys
masys@nlm.nih.gov
From: landry@solvit.enet.dec.com (Chris Landry)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: seats .NE. people (was Small crash / Chrokee Question)
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:40:26 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <66392@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gt9989a@prism.gatech.EDU (John Martin Chapman) writes...
>140 has four seats.  So  if I am remembering correctly, and a 160 is just a
>variant of the 140 (having 4 seats) isn't the fact that 5 people were in the
>plane probable cause for the crash? Or is a 160 the Cherokee 6?
> 

	On a related note . . .

	My first light plane ride, when I was maybe 8 or 9, was in a 4 place
	Cessna, 'though I couldn't tell you which one.  Pilot and 1 adult
	up front, another adult and two kids in the back.  Probably one
	seat belt around both kids.

	Assuming that W&B is OK, how legal is this?  I suspect not very.

	chris
From: joel@cfctech.cfc.com (Joel Lessenberry)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Camping by airplane (Michigan area)
Date: 13 Aug 92 12:20:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI

In article <Bsu30D.CLr@medar.com> wpeloqui@medar.com (Willie Peloquin) writes:
>Hello,
>
>    I am looking for a guide or advice on campgrounds, national parks,
>
>    Thanks in advance.
>
>Willie Peloquin
>
	Hunt up a copy of the michigan airport directory, published
	by the state. It has several airports which are close to, or
	inside, places you can camp...Drummond Island, and Lost creek 	
	are two that come to mind..


 Joel Lessenberry, Distributed Systems | +1 313 948 3342
 joel@cfctech.UUCP                     | Chrysler Financial Corp.
 joel%cfctech.uucp@mailgw.cc.umich.edu | MIS, Technical Services
 {sharkey|mailrus}!cfctech!joel        | 2777 Franklin, Sfld, MI
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Cellular phones again!  A
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:00:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

99> .I thought they were "not OK" (in flight, anyway).

99> .So, I pick up today's San Francisco Chronicle, and there
  > .is a Macy's ad selling pocket cellular phones and telling
  > .me how great it would be to be able to use it in a plane.
  > .I called the San Francisco FSDO thinking that they should
  > .get hold of Macy's and suggest a retraction--and what do
  > .I hear??  Something like "Oh, they're OK.  It's up to
  > .the individual carriers.  Try calling them."

99> .Anybody know what gives?--

It's an FCC restriction, and the FSDO can't speak for the FCC.  'Taint
OK.  There are FAA restrictions on any electronic device, so that part
is semi-correct.  The individual carrier can decide what electronic
devices can be used in flight, but if they say (from THEIR perspective)
that you can use that phunny phone, you'll still be violating FCC regs,
and the FCC has even less of a sense of humor than the FAA.  (And the
FCC _LOVES_ large monetary fines!!)

        D/


(This assumes that the average FSDO person knows whereof he speaks,
even in FAA matters.  Shaky assumption!  <~> )

 * OLX 2.2 * Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
        
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre)
Subject: re: SSN @ DUAT
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:27:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.010107.1756@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman) writes:
|> yea..you can enter your SSN as your certificate #..IF YOU ARE A PILOT.
|> 
|> I am pretty sure it wont work unless your SSN is in the FAA database.

That's correct.  And it typically takes 2 to 3 months from the time
the ticket is issued until it shows up in the database (I guess that
would be about the same time your permanent one shows up in the mail).

Student certificates are similar:  about 2 to 3 months after it is 
issued, it will show up in the database and you can enter the certificate
number (NOTE this is not at all even close to your SSN) on a DUAT system
and get in as a pilot.  As someone mentioned earlier, you can expedite
this process by calling the DUAT provider and explaining the situation.
They FAX something to the FAA and confirm you in about 3 days.  I did
this about a year and a half ago after getting my student certificate
(before Contel started providing anonymous access....I simply could not
use DUAT at all until they verified me with the FAA).

		William LeFebvre
		Computing Facilities Manager and Analyst
		Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
		Northwestern University
		<phil@eecs.nwu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Flying/Driving Habits
Date: 17 Aug 92 14:06:27 GMT
Organization: Bull HN Informations Systems Inc.

pjern@chinet.chi.il.us (Phil Jern) writes:

>The other thing I did was to reach for the flap handle coming down a steep
>hill, while looking at the continuation of the street I was on, which
>looked a little like a runway, for some reason:  I felt like I was too high
>and needed some more flaps.  The sudden slowing of the car snapped me back
>to reality :)

At least you didn't use left yoke and right rudder for a sideslip! :-)
-- 
Roger Ritter N1FZZ (R.Ritter@ma30.bull.com) PP-ASEL, AGI
1946 Luscombe 8A N71983 "Rocky"
Sheep do not so much fly as plummet!        NH CAP: Profile 49
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,sci.aeronautics
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Re: Manuverability of 727
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 04:30:38 GMT

In article <1450@seqp4.sequoia.com> cantrell@seqp4.sequoia.com (Paul Cantrell) writes:
>
>On the subject of 727s, I was having breakfast the other morning with a
>friend who's a retired Delta captain. He told me a story about when he was
>getting checked out in 727's. He said that a steep turn using the heading
>bug caused spoilers to be used to initiate the bank, and that a reverse
>airflow around the spoiler was induced causing the spoiler to refuse to go
>back down at the end of the turn. The aircraft remained in an
>uncontrollable turn for a short time while he figured out how to correct
>the situation. During all future flights, he was careful to only move the
>heading bug a few degrees at a time so that the flight control system
>would just use aileron to make the turn. 

The roll limit on the heading bug is usually around 30 degrees on transports.
With the Sperry SP-150 on the 727, it's technically 32 degrees, but averages
out to 22 degrees in-flight.  This is an "absolute" limit; the same limits
apply to the heading knob.  Thus, it's impossible to do steep turns using
the A/P.

In-flight, roll is accomplished via two sets of ailerons (inboard and
outboard), and three spoilers per wing.  The outboard ailerons are locked
in neutral when the flaps are retracted.  Two of the wing spoilers are powered 
by independent hydraulic actuators.  Spoiler deflection is commanded as a 
*byproduct* of aileron deflection; thus, the ailerons institute the turn.
The spoiler deflection limit's probably not more than 35 degrees (using the 
A320 for ball-park reference: I don't have the data for the 727).

But does the *autopilot* command spoilers first?  No:

"The autopilot Aileron Servo transfers electrical steering commands into
mechanical control movements.  The aileron servo moves the first officer's
control wheel and then, through normal mechanical/hydraulic linkages, the
ailerons and spoilers." (SP-150 Reference Manual)

It sounds like SOMETHING was stuck, but not the spoilers...


>He also verified what we've heard before on rec.aviation - that it's
>difficult to get consistently good landings on 727 because of the
>placement of the landing gear.

I've never heard that one--I always thought it was because of the 
triple-slotted flaps: they cause the airplane to "balloon" slightly 
right before touch-down; one can either brute-force it down (BAM) or
lower the nose slightly, and "roll" it onto the ground (gentle landing).
This lowering of the nose in the flare is *very* counter-intuitive, but 
pilots who are willing to do it can grease the plane in every time.  Watching 
727's at the local airport, "carrier landings" seem to be the norm, 
though. :-)  BAM! <smoke> <wince>

Could you provide more info on this landing gear problem?  

Now, the Tu-154, THAT has weird landing gear. ;-)




---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: brent@telebit.com (Brent Chapman)
Subject: Re: Flying trip in western USA
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 04:09:34 GMT

mvthiel%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Mike van Thiel) writes:

>I'm going to be Flying a Piper Arrow PA-28-200 and the basic route I'm 
>thinking about is :

>Salt Lalke City - Moab (Canyonlands) - Lake Powell - Bryce - Zion - 
>Las Vegas - Grand canyon - (long Flight) - Monterey (CA.) - NAPA valley -
>San Fransisco - Up the coast to Seattle - San Juans - Montana - Yellowstone -
>and back to Salt Lake.

Do you really plan to zig and zag around like that, or is there an ordering
problem in the list above?  Shouldn't that route be more like SLC -> Moab ->
Zion -> Bryce -> Lake Powell -> Grand Canyon -> Las Vegas -> Monterey ->
San Francisco -> Napa -> ... ?  The Grand Canyon is certainly between Lake
Powell and Las Vegas, and San Francisco is certainly between Monterey and
Napa; the rest I'm not sure of...

Advice...  The route to take from Las Vegas to Monterey is South to
Goffs VOR, then West to Hector VOR, then West to William J Fox Field
(WJF) in Lancaster for fuel (about 210 miles); this route will take you
right past Edwards AFB, clear of all the restricted airspace, and
through Tehachapi Pass (one of the better places to cross the Sierra
Nevada, in my opinion).  From WJF, you can proceed on to Monterey,
which is about another 210 miles direct, by whatever route suites your
fancy; you can either fly NorthWest up California's Central Valley
(probably clear of weather, possibly with light turbulence, and
guaranteed to be deathly boring), or fly West to the coast and then NNW
up to Monterey, past Big Sur (possibly precluded by weather or fog, but
an enjoyable flight if not).

An alternative, more direct route from Vegas to Monterey would be
NorthWest to Mammoth Pass, through Mammoth Pass, then on to Monterey.
It's only about 50 miles shorter.  Mammoth Pass is absolutely
beautiful, but there's a real shortage of landing sites once you're
into the pass; once you reach a certain point, at the altitude you'll
probably be able to get to in the PA28-200, you'll be committed until
you come out the other side, 15 or 20 minutes later.  The trip from
from Las Vegas to Mammoth Pass is over some of the most desolate and
deserted areas of the USA, across the North end of Death Valley; very
few airports and very few people.  The trip from Mammoth Pass to
Monterey is right across California's Central Valley; lots of people
and lots of airports, but _damn_ boring...  All things considered,
particularly if I had my family with me, I'd probably take the route
other route, via WJF.


-Brent
--
Brent Chapman                                   Great Circle Associates
Brent@GreatCircle.COM                           1057 West Dana Street
+1 415 962 0841                                 Mountain View, CA  94041
From: peltz@cerl.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Transition Glider to Power
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:21:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.Bt97K5.Gw6
Organization: Computer Based Education Research Lab - University of Illinois

In article <cshotton-190892155013@oac2.hsc.uth.tmc.edu> cshotton@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Chuck Shotton) writes:
>For what it's worth, very little of your glider time can be applied to your
>airplane rating. As I read it, only glider cross country time has a chance
>of applying, and I've never heard whether or not it does. The FARs aren't
>clear on this point.

61.109 is pretty clear on this. Technically, you could use up to 17 hours
of dual instruction in gliders (out of 20 hours required), and 10 hours
of solo time (out of 20). Of course, the three hours of instruction would
probably have to be at night, cross country, and in preparation for the
practical test (most glider pilots don't fly at night, and most instruction
is not cross-country), and the 10 hours of solo in airplanes would need to
be cross-country as well, unless the glider solo flights meet the various
distance requirements.

The essence of 61.109:

(a) Twenty hours of flight instruction, including at least
  (1) Three hours of cross country
  (2) Three hours at night (...)
  (3) Three hours in airplanes in preparation for the private pilot test (...)

(b) Twenty hours of solo flight time, including at least
  (1) Ten hours in airplanes
  (2) Ten hours of cross-country flights more than 50 nautical miles, one
      more than 300 nautical miles with at least 3 landings (...)
  (3) Three solo takeoffs and landings at a tower-controlled field

Of course, practically speaking, you'll need more than this. Your glider
experience should help quite a bit, however.
-- 
Steve Peltz
Internet: peltz@cerl.uiuc.edu	PLATO/NovaNET: peltz/s/cerl
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: good@pixar.com (Dead puppies aren't much fun.)
Subject: Re: Manuverability of 727
Keywords: foo
Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 22:23:51 GMT

In article <16hchlINN9q7@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> danodom@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Dan Odom) writes:
:My friends and I were wondering ...
:
:Exactly how manuverable is a 727?
:

I can only provide the following three unscientific anecdotes to give you
a feel for it (you must admit that your question lacks some specificity...)

a)	I was a passenger in a LAN Chile 727 when we landed at what is
essentially an uncontrolled field in the north of Chile.  LAN Chile pilots are
military, which means they train at Sandia as U.S. military pilots.  These guys
seem to enjoy their work.  Let's just say that his spiral descent and visual approach were the most fun I've ever had in a real 727.

b)	A friend of mine was taking his Flight Engineer checkride in a 727 a
few years ago in Colorado.  There were 5 souls aboard, no cargo and light fuel.
He said it was a kick in the pants.  When the real "work" was done, the check
pilot was "showing 'em how it's done" while flat-hatting around in the Rockies.
My friend said that at one point he could look back and see snow being kicked
up by wingtip vortices.

c)	With absolutely no aerobatic training, and with no prior jet time, I
performed a split-S in a 727 simulator (no, not the SGI toy, a *real*
simulator).  We entered the maneuver at 15,000 feet and had comfortably
recovered by 9,000 feet.  I'd say this is the closest to being an answer to
your question.

I always feel good when I board a Boeing.
		--Craig
-- 
	good@pixar.com
-
Vote for a change this fall! 
Vote all those Liberal Tax-N-Spendocrats out of Congress!
From: rah@public.BTR.COM (Richard A Hyde  rah@btr.com)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: So what' so great about Nut Tree?
Date: 16 Aug 92 03:51:42 GMT
Organization: BTR Public Access UNIX, MtnView CA. Contact: Customer Service cs@BTR.COM

In article <7480341@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com> glenb@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Glen Baker) writes:
|
| OK, I appologize for making the comment. You're right. Denny's is a bit
| better than the Nut Tree :-)
|
| ..glen

De Gustabus non disputandum       :-)

 
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   Richard Hyde  |  RaH@btr.com  |    This space intentionally left blank   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Osh sig haps: The hail, you say.
Date: 12 Aug 92 14:05:11 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

> "His Airworthyness".

I've always been partial to "Your Airship" as a title...
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: philf@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez)
Subject: Re: ATC communications (was Re: "remain clear of the ARSA...")
Organization: Jade and Jett Incorporated
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 03:17:23 GMT

>>>One of the issues I had to consider was non-standard air traffic control
>>>phraseology (e.g. "leaving four point five for six").

>>My primary instructor taught me that that was the _right_ way to say it, so

>my instrument instructor keeps jumping all over me when i say "for" or "to"
>amidst numbers.. since they could be confused with "four" and "two"
>But i have the devil's own time getting my mouth and mind around to
>an acceptable phraseology

If you just learn to replace the "for" with "climbing" or "descending"
(as the case may be), and a "thousand" on the end, you'll be 95% of
the way there.  "leaving four point five climbing six thousand" is
still technically non-standard, but OK.  It would be better if you
dropped the "leaving" too, since the "climbing" or "descending" gives
the info that you're changing altitude.

pmf
pp-asmel-ia
mooney n5632j