HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bqueiser@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Brian J Queiser)
Subject: Re: Taurus now #1 seller?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:52:06 GMT

Sang-Yoon Oh <so0z+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>> The other thing to consider is that Ford chooses to market the same
>> car as two different models: Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable.  The Sable
>> sells almost half as many units as the Taurus.  In the U.S. market,
>> the Japanese companies sell only one model in each size/price class.
>> Suppose they split their production and called 2/3 of them Honda
>> Accord and the other 1/3 Acura something.  Then the Honda Accord would
>> be nowhere close to the Taurus in sales.  Or to put it another way,
>> if you combine the sales of the Taurus and Sable, they far surpass
>> sales of the Honda. By the way, in their home market the Japanese
>> companies sell a variety of models in the same size class, many of
>> them clones of each other.  For whatever reasons, they put all their
>> eggs in one basket in the U.S. market.

>Well, according to my knowledge, they combine Tarus and Sable when they
>count the yearly sales of Tarus.
>Couple of magazines I have read has the list of top 10 sellers in US in
>this format.
>
>1.  Ford Tarus/Mercury Sable
>2.  Honda Accord
>
>I can't remember the number figure but I'm pretty sure that they combine
>number of Tarus and Sable they have sold, since they are exactly same
>car with different nose and interior.

Since I haven't seen the magazine/article you are referring to, I cannot
comment on whether this is the case, but it is definitely a fact that in
calendar year 1992, the Ford Taurus outsold the Honda Accord by about
15,000 models.  I haven't seen numbers for the Mercury Sable, but in 1991,
it sold about 80,000 models, entirely separate from the 375,000 or so
Taurus sales that year.

Perhaps some magazines see fit to lump the numbers together when they
go to print, but that is entirely their method.

I think where the real confusion is coming in is the model year sales
figures for 1992.  The model year officially ends in October, I think,
and at that time, the Honda Accord was outselling the Taurus by about
15,000 vehicles.  Ford had a tremendous sales incentive program for their
dealers that month and when they fell short, they decided to extend it
through December so they could win the calendar year honors.  TWSJ
said that analysts beleive it may have cost FoMoCo about $150 million,
or $10,000 per car.  All for bragging rights.  Which leads to a nation
talking about it for a week.  Which leads more potential Accord, Camry,
LH, and Lumina buyers to their friendly Ford dealer.  Could be money
well spent in the long run.

Regards,

Brian

bqueiser@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am the engineer, I can choose K.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Engineering Mechanics
Ohio State University
Columbus, OH
Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: rizvi@ee.ualberta.ca (Syed Rizvi)
Subject: Re: Insurance rates?
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:46:08 GMT

wee@darkside.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Operator) writes:

>Just got a new '93 Toyota Celica, and the insurance rates are out of this
>world.  I just wanna know what other Celica owners are paying....
>The lowest quote I found for the Celica here in Oklahoma is: $1600 for
>full-coverage (I'm financing and they require full) with a $500 deductible.  
>This quote was *IF* I had a clean record....
>I'm 19, single male, and have two speeding tickets.  


>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Huy Nguyen                        | "It's not nearly enough to survive,
>wee@darkside.uoknor.edu           |  But to live." - M.M.
>-
	I would like to know whether the insurance rates for all
		the japanese cars are much higher than the
		amerivans
			can anyone give us someni
			some information
				thanks
-- 
Syed Rizvi                              rizvi@ee.ualberta.ca
Electrical Engineering                  
University of Alberta 238 Civil Elect   Voice (403)492-2954
Edmonton, Alberta Canada                Fax   (403)492-1811
From: qazi@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Aamir Hafeez Qazi)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: Taurus now #1 seller?
Date: 25 Jan 1993 18:48:01 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <wfMrhV200WBM86MWo8@andrew.cmu.edu> so0z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sang-Yoon Oh) writes:
>
>I have a question on this number one selling car in the US.
>According to the articles I have read, Ford gave a big promo to rental
>car companies(dumping may be the right word here) in order to beat
>Accord.
>I don't know what the percentage of new Taurus is sold to rental car
>companies but must be a huge number.  
>What is the point of having or checking who sold the most number of car??? 
>To inform public that which car is the best liked by majority, isn't it??

--I was just thinking about this the other day.  If the sales figures indeed
  include fleet sales to rental car companies and the like, then I believe
  they should be left out.  I believe that virtually all Accords are bought
  by households, not in large quantities in the fleet market (I haven't seen
  an Accord rental car, have you?).  I think that sales figures should 
  represent what the American PUBLIC buys, not what American business buys.
  In this light, I wonder if the Taurus really is the #1 selling car in
  the States today!

--Aamir Qazi


-- 

Aamir Qazi
qazi@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
--Why should I care?  I'd rather watch drying paint.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.misc
From: aharbin@engr
Subject: Re: FCC General Radiotelephone license in aviation
Summary: Canadian view?
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 13:31:55 GMT

In article <1jov1iINNje6@mirror.digex.com>, stephens@access.digex.com (John Stephens) writes:
> ...> Kerry Kurasaki (kerry@Ingres.COM) wrote:
> ...> : 
> ...> : Operating aviation radios outside the US requires an operators license,
> ...> : usually a FCC Restricted Radio Telephone Operator's Permit (FCC Form 753).
> ... 
> ...> I take the above applies when the radios are installed on a US registered,
> ...> plane, si?
> 
> Yes, that is correct.
> 
> ...> 
> ...> So, if I go to Canada (or any other country, for that matter) and try to
> ...> get checked out at the local FBO, will I still need the FCC Restricted
> ...> Radio Telephone Operator's Permit?
> ...> 
> 
> I don't know the answer to this one -- a Canadian pilot would.  I
> am expanding the distribution to include Canada (original was
> posted "usa" only), to see if we can get an informed response to
> the second question above.

I don't know how informed I am about this, but while I was adding on my
night rating (done seperately from the private) a pilot from England (I
think) came by the flight school to take the exam for the Canadian radio
licence.  He said that he needed it for what ever he was doing in Canada.
I guess his British one didn't count here.  We don't get a large number
of foreign pilots here on the 'Rock'(Newfoundland), and those that do come
do so with their own planes.  The test is rather Mickey Mouse here if you
wanted to know and only costs $5-CANADIAN.


Andy Harbin
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Question: How Jet Reverse Thrusts
From: clark@kiwi.gen.nz (Clark Mills)
Date: 28 Jan 93 09:07:37 GMT
Organization: Household UNIX, Auckland, New Zealand
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

Hello, how does a jet reverse thrust?  By re-pitching the rotor blades?
By reversing the spin of the jet motor (somehow)?  Any help appreciated.

Thanks...  clark
From: mtravis@vnet.ibm.com
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 10:52:27 EST
Subject: Re: Help landing, please
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student

 In article <1k2f9d$gbl@agate.berkeley.edu> neff123@garnet.berkeley.edu
 writes:
 >>The CFI just keeps saying to pull back more, but that
 >>seems like it will make the plane either go
 >>up more or cause it to drop on the the runway faster.
 >
 >The key is a stabilized approach at the correct speed.
 >You should have it trimmed out and the power set so that the plane
 >requires little input to stay on the glide slope at the correct
 >speed.  As you near the touchdown zone, simultaneously (and
 >smoothly) reduce power and begin to pull up.  This will slow you
 >down to touchdown speed ( around 1.15 * Vso) while keeping you on
 >
 >I think landings gave me the most trouble while working on my
 >PP ASEL.  But once they click, it's a great feeling!

Something no-one has mentioned yet that I find suprising is simply
shifting your focus from the near end of the runway (The end that you
are about to cross) to the far end of the runway when you are entering
ground effect. (About 50 feet above the runway +- ).

Set up your entire approach so that you can maintain 500 fpm descent
starting at the beginning of Base leg. Airspeed according to book.
If you maintain airspeed, but let your vertical speed increase, you
will balloon when you flare because the excess energy created when you
flare gets converted to airspeed or altitude. (If your "Scared" of
hitting the ground you will balloon. If your not scared, and want to
plant yourself, you will bounce. then you will be scared!)

Anyway, set up a 500 fpm descent, then just as you cross the threshold,
cut power and glide. When you cross the threshold, DO NOT look at the
runway beneath you; look at the far end of the runway. (or the trees
at the far end of the runway) You will be able to judge your height
above the runway much easier. It takes practice, because your nature
probably wants to watch your tire (on a 152, anyway) rub the pavement.

Try this. I did and it made all of the difference in the world.

Mark Travis.
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Cross country flight.
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:31:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

RT> .Recently I took a flight of over 50nm to a destination without actually la
  > .at an airport at the destination. Once at the destination I headed back fo
  > .I have my private piolet liscense so I am not trying to satisfy cross-coun
  > .requirements. My question is: Does this trip get logged as a cross-country
  > .flight for log book recording purposes?

You can log anything you wish as an X-C flight.  Or not log it at all.
You're only required to log flights which you wish to use for currency
or to fulfill the requirements for another rating.

If you read 61.51, there is no category defined as X-C, and there is no
definition of X-C in either Pt. 1 or Pt. 61.  There _are_ requirements
defined for what flights can be used for the various ratings, and if
your logbook makes it easy to locate those flights, so much the better.
Following this principle, most people only log as X-C flights with a
landing at an airport at least 50nm. from the point of origin.

        D/
---
 . QMPro 1.0 41-3345 . Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                                                                                
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: weissen@lem.ee.ethz.ch (Thierry Weissen)
Subject: Re: Amount of time to stay in practice
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 07:28:24 GMT

In article <Margolin-270193180304@fp1-molbio-14.uoregon.edu>, Margolin@oregon.uoregon.edu (Brian Margolin) writes:
|> I am a pre-solo student and was wondering what net.heads think about
|> something that I heard.  A friend of a friend told me that in order to not
|> kill myself flying I would need to fly at least once a week after getting
|> my liscence in order to stay in practice.  I certainly would like to be
|> able to fly once a week but don't know whether or not that will be a
|> reality.  Somehow, this person's statement does not seem to ring true with
|> me.  What do the more experienced aviators feel about this.  

To me it seems almost impossible to fly every week. Of course it depends where you live, but usually the weather does not allow you flying during certain periods. This year we had fog during november and december. In october and january the "flyable" days are also rather seldom. Unless you are more lucky than we are overhere, you can forget about flying weekly. 

Nevertheless it is clear that you should practise regularly! Otherwise you are a threat for yourself and anybody else (in the air and on the ground). After flight school you may know how to handle an airplane, but you do not have much experience.

So I wish you often VMC and happy landings

Thierry Weissen
weissen@lem.ee.ethz.ch
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: login@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (h.reza.zarafshar)
Subject: Flap on landing on turbulent days
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:43:02 GMT

Hi.  I only have a few (6.5) hours under my belt, so, I hope this question
is not too dumb to ask.

Last sunday, we had some gusty winds and experienced some low-moderate 
turbulence below 3000'.  As we were coming for the landing, my instructor
said don't use any flaps for this landing due to turbulence.  But later on,
(unfortunately, I don't remember which leg of the pattern it was), he asked
me to bring flaps down 10 degrees.

In my ground school, my instructor (another one), felt that was not necessarily
good advice.  So, I am now confused.

I sort of agree with the ground school instructor that flaps are very useful
for landing regardless of the presence or lack of turbulence, because they
provide drag without increasing airspeed.

Can the experts out there help me out?

Reza Zarafshar
AT&T Bell Labs,
att!iexist!reza
708-979-8855
From: amm@NeXT.COM (Alan M. Marcum)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: One of those wandering threads
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:19:05 GMT
Reply-To: amm@NeXT.COM (Alan M. Marcum)

Andrew Boyd writes
> In article <1993Jan14.205605.28529@unisys.co.nz> rhys@unisys.co.nz 
> (Rhys Hermansson) writes:
> >I know we all have to do flapless landings in case of faulty flaps
> >or strong winds, but have you ever tried to do land with the
> >throttle stuck open?

After a fashion, yes.  Following some maintenance, I took a T210
from Palo Alto to Orange County, ~300nm miles away.  Despite the
plane having been test flown, during the flight (WELL after
departure, somewhere during the descent) a clamp blew off a hose.
This left, in essence, a hole in the intake system, and allowed
the engine to run at much higher manifold pressure than normal
idle when throttle was reduced.

This made getting down and slowing down during the the LOC-BC
(localizer back-course) approach into Orange County, um,
interesting, since I'd expected I'd be able to reduce manifold
pressure to something reasonable.

I ended up going around because I was way, way to high and fast
to put it down.  (Yes, I checked out the engine's response
before committing to a go-around: I'd rather put it down too
fast, brake hard, and run off the end at, oh, 20-30 knots than
have a failed go-around and have to put it down at 60-70 knots.)

Because I was expecting it, I was able to land easily the second
time.
--
Alan M. Marcum
NeXT Tech Support
amm@NeXT.COM
From: gps19@herald.usask.ca (Gregory P. Siemens)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: NACA airfoil data request
Date: 25 Jan 1993 15:34:11 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
NNTP-Posting-Host: herald.usask.ca
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]

[ Article crossposted from sci.aeronautics ]
[ Author was Gregory P. Siemens ]
[ Posted on 15 Jan 1993 17:21:28 GMT ]



C
Does anyone out there have the raw data for NACA airfoils
(or any others).  Data I need is Lift and Drag co-efficients for any
angle of attack.  I have a book with several NACA airfoils in it
(Abbott) but it contains only the graphs of this data and not the data
itself.  I need the data in a form that could be typed into a data file
or read into a program as a data file.  I would very much appreciate
this data as we are trying to compile a database of Cd/Cl vs. Angle of
attack for a large number of airfoils(not just NACA).  If you know of
someone who has this data or a way of getting it please mail me with the
info.

			Thanks in advance.
From: mam@gvgdsd.GVG.TEK.COM (Mark A. Matthews)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student,rec.radio.amateur.misc
Subject: Re: FCC General Radiotelephone license in aviation
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:37:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gvgdsd.gvg.tek.com

In article <1993Jan15.173610.5480@crash> jav@crash.cts.com (Javier Henderson) writes:

>So, if I go to Canada (or any other country, for that matter) and try to
>get checked out at the local FBO, will I still need the FCC Restricted
>Radio Telephone Operator's Permit?

>Would my ham radio license be an acceptable substitute for the FCC Restricted
>thingamabob?

An Amateur Radio License is not applicable - you must posses a FCC Restricted
Radio Telephone Operator's Permit or a General Radiotelephone License.

This applies to operating an aricraft equipped with radios licensed with
an FCC Aircraft Station License.  The operater's permit requirement is
waived when the aircraft is operating within the bounds of the United
States.

Operating an aircraft with radios licensed to another country (than your
own) in that country would require compliance to their regulations.  If you
find yourself in that situation, ask for details.

Operating an aircraft with radios licensed to another country in yet
another country - well, ask the regulatory agencies involved.  They
get paid for figuring out that sort of thing.

And this is radio regulatory thing - in the US, the FAA would rather not
be involved, so you need to chat with the FCC.

-Mark
From: dcamp@ucs.indiana.edu (Doug Camp)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: Help landing, please
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:00:45 GMT
Followup-To: rec.aviation.student
Organization: Indiana University

In article <930125145822@AltaHopa.ftp.com>, plummer@vax  (William W.
Plummer) wrote:
> 
> I seem to be stuck trying to perform a good, repeatible landing. 
> My typical approach is slightly fast and I flare a bit high.  Then
> I fly the plane (Cherokee) essentially parallel to the runway and the
> CFI starts saying, "Pull back.  Pull back.  More. More."  I pull back
> and the plane balloons.  Then, I suppose speed is lost due to the

I had this problem for a long time - it was very discouraging. I 
finally found that (assuming my airspeed was correct and I hadn't flared
too high) if I concentrated just on trying to not let the plane sink,
and let that control my desire to "pull back, pull back", my 
landings got better. Getting the airspeed and flare height correct
are the keys :>

Doug
--
From: stadler@Apple.COM (Andy Stadler)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: pitch & power on landings
Date: 26 Jan 93 08:38:26 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <1993Jan25.194628.18856@pony.Ingres.COM> kerry@Ingres.COM
 (Kerry Kurasaki) writes:
>In article <1k1001INN2g5@early-bird.think.com> bruce@Think.COM (Bruce Walker)
 writes:
>>  [...regarding the age-old pitch-vs-power question...]
>>
>>Or is there something here which warrants a fundamentally different way of
>>thinking about how to control the airplane?
>
>I ascribe to the theory that pitch is PRIMARY for airspeed and power is
>PRIMARY for altitude.  As a hedge, they ARE interrelated and inseparable
>(like time and space).


I too was confused by this until my instructor tried a completely different
approach, which worked perfectly for me.  This might make sense for you, but
if it doesn't, that's OK, keep looking - we all use slightly different "mental
models" of what's going on.

My "mental model" is:
    Power adds ENERGY to the system
    Energy is represented by altitude AND by airspeed
    Pitch DISTRIBUTES the energy that's already in the system.

For example, to accelerate in level flight, you add power to add energy,
and you keep the nose level to convert that energy to speed.  To climb, you
also add power, but you increase the pitch to convert that same energy to
altitude this time.

So on an approach, I never ask myself "am I too high/low" or "am I too fast/
slow".  I always look at BOTH questions, and combine the answers to get a
solution.  Examples:
  Above glide slope, correct speed - too much energy, reduce power
  Above glide slope, slow speed - correct energy, rebalance by pitching down
  On glide slope, too slow - too little energy, add power
  etc.

These examples may seem too complex to think about in real time.  As I said
before, there's a different system for everyone.  Whatever your system, I 
suspect you'll find what most people do:  That the system in time fades away,
and you just "do" the right thing.

Probably the most important rule of thumb in any approach is learning how to
quickly trim for correct airspeed, and then sticking that airspeed by 
knowing how to NOT mess with the pitch too much.

--Andy    stadler@apple.com
From: drinkwat@adobe.com (Fred Drinkwater)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Traffic reduction
Date: 28 Jan 93 19:13:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: What organization?  I have 2 kids.

Yesterday I discovered a technique to deal with lunch-hour pattern
overcrowding at Palo Alto.  There were five or six planes in the pattern,
both left and right.  Then, my CFI told PAO tower that he was releasing me
for my first solo.  Magic!  Before I got to my second takeoff, the
traffic was down to just me and one other.

No FARs, aluminum, or bones got bent or broken :-)

Thank you Lloyd Swenson CFI, West Valley Flying Club, and N164DP.

	Fred Drinkwater, PIC 0.7 hours
From: ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: Question: How Jet Reverse Thrusts
Date: 28 Jan 1993 18:12:24 GMT
Organization: BDS Systems
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.bds.com

> Hello, how does a jet reverse thrust?  By re-pitching the rotor blades?
> By reversing the spin of the jet motor (somehow)?  Any help appreciated.

It's cruder than that.  It dones't actually reverse by blowing the thurst
out what's normally the intake.  It workes by diverting the flow from the
engine mechanically back towards the front.

This is pretty easy to see on older small jets like 737's and DC9's (sorry
MD80's).  There's a clamshell normally in a stowed streamlined position
that flips into the path of the output of the engine when engaged.
From: blacker@arco.com (Hal)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: Help landing, please
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:55:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: Arco.1993Jan26.155505.26030
Organization: Arco
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1b2

Subject: Help landing, please
From: William W. Plummer, plummer@vax
In article <930125145822@AltaHopa.ftp.com> William W. Plummer,
plummer@vax writes:

>I seem to be stuck trying to perform a good, repeatible landing.

>My typical approach is slightly fast and I flare a bit high.  Then
>I fly the plane (Cherokee) essentially parallel to the runway and the
>CFI starts saying, "Pull back.  Pull back.  More. More."  I pull back

>An important issue is that, after the balloon starts, I am sort of
>befuddled and am not sure what to do.  The CFI just keeps saying to
>pull back more, but that seems like it will make the plane either go
>up more or cause it to drop on the the runway faster.

The first few hours of landing instruction can be very
frustrating. Just stick with it and it will all come into
focus.   

As far as my suggestions---listen to your instructor, your CFI
knows what the airplane is about to do, while you're still
"behind" the aiplane in your understanding and your
reactions.  If you don't understand your instructors
coaching, ask for an explanation, even if you have to abort
your next take off and  pull off the runway.  Discussing
technique while in the pattern is not always an efficient
way to learn.  

Hal
blacker@inetg1.arco.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student