HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Colored Airways (was: Tri
Date: 25 Aug 92 09:54:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

GP> .There appear to be three more in the "lower 48", an Amber, a Blue, and two
  > .Greens:

GP> .A016 AP/ 23840 23839 WC
  > .B003 ANI ANV JNR OAY HHM OQK
  > .G013 OUC HI// ZOLMN MQI
  > .G015 SMA ANV VTR

Move B3 and G15 to the "Alaska" column.  And A16, while technically
crossing a bit of US airspace, is defined by two Canadian navaids.
(I believe those two numeric fixes define the US border crossings.)  If
that crossing of US airspace is sufficient to put it in the "lower 48"
column, then you should add B20 to your list, also.

        D/ (trivia-r-us mode...)


 * OLX 2.2 * Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                       
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: Re: Propping big engines
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Distribution: rec
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 12:28:15 GMT

In article <17v8qoINNibk@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> rob@cats.ucsc.edu (99708000) writes:
>
>The engine is a Conti IO520 on a 210 (with a 3 bladed prop, no less).
>I thought this idea was nuts--he offered to demonstrate, but I
>declined as I didn't want to see him with broken hands (or his head
>cut off).
>
>Who of you out there has propped an engine this big?
>Tell me about it please, if you have.
>
The starter solenoid (contactor) went flaky on my 182 when it was 2100nm
from home in Oakland, and I was able to prop the O-470 without too much
difficulty (though with some anxiety, to be sure).

The difference between it and propping my 172 was that one could more-or-
less just flick a blade past TDC on the 172 and it would slowly wake up.
On the O-470 swinging a 7 foot prop, it takes two hands and a definite
shove to get the blades turning and when the beast fires up the deep
exhaust roar scares you even if you're expecting it.

Not for the faint of heart, but doable with standard propping technique.
(See Wanttaja, R. "Farewell to Arms", Kitplanes magazine)

Dan Masys
masys@nlm.nih.gov
From: rfinch@water.ca.gov (Ralph Finch)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Headset/intercom incompatibilities
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:19:39 GMT
Organization: Calif. Dept. of Water Resources

I have a Telex Air 3000 headset.  My instructor has a Peltor 7004
headset, and I can't remember the brand of his portable intercom.

He has to put a new 9-volt battery in his intercom to hear me.  Even
then I often have to shout to activate the VOX.  He says this also
happens with another pilot who has a Telex, and it doesn't happen with
other headset brands.  When I transmit with a PTT switch, he has no
problem hearing me.

Any ideas on what causes this problem?  How about cures?
--
Ralph Finch			916-653-8268
rfinch@water.ca.gov		...ucbvax!ucdavis!caldwr!rfinch
Any opinions expressed are my own; they do not represent the DWR
From: dth@mole.cis.ufl.edu (David Hightower)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Locked on the Controls (was GLiding instruction)
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:26:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <bakc.109.714659356@giraffe.ru.ac.za> bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN) writes:
> [Story about instructor tossing joystick deleted]

This story also appear in an early-80s AIR FORCE magazine, in the "There
I Was..." section...

_________________________________________________________________________
Dave Hightower		|    opinion? I'm allowed to have an opinion?
dth@cis.ufl.edu		| well, if I DID have one, it'd be mine, all mine!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: "Aero-car" from 1940's/1950's
Date: 3 Sep 92 12:18:57 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <bakc.121.715501755@giraffe.ru.ac.za>
bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN) writes:

> Anyway, what is/was the state of play with aerocars?  They never seemed to 
> find a market but surely someone still has one in service  or knows a bit 
> of their background/history?

The roadable aircraft was the design of Molt Taylor, who is still with
us and has other designs like the Scoot Amphibian and Imp (a small
homebuilt with a rear prop)  The Aerocar wasn't really a success
because it wasn't easy to convert from one aspect to the other and like
many hybrid designs, was so compromised to perform both functions, it
could do neither very efficiently.  The Aerocar remains the only
certified street drivable airplane, if I remember correctly.  Several
examples still exist, one is at the EAA headquarters.  Molt, in his
later years, designed another aerocar around a Honda Civic.  The wings
and tail bolted to the car and power was from a turbine engine.  It has
yet to be actually assembled.

Corky Scott
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan)
Subject: Re: Air Lifeline experience
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 02:55:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Aug28.041526.26722@qdeck.com> jbrown@qdeck.com
 (Jordan Brown) writes:

>rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan) writes:
>> This [AirLifeLine] is an organization which in their published
>> informational brochure quotes a pilot bragging about "Despite the
>> thunderstorms....  and the fog.... we made it."
>
>I can't be sure, but if you're thinking of the promo piece I'm thinking
>of, some context is appropriate.


Actually, my quote came from a pamphlet called "AIRLIFELINE
and the Private Pilot."  The full quotation is as follows:

Why Do Pilots Love Flying for AirLifeLine?

.... Several miscellaneous [and appropriate] quotations omitted ....

"Despite the thunderstorms.... and the fog.... we made it.  Later,
we learned that the little girl was totally recovered."
 -- Oscar Victor

IMHO the above encourages an inappropriate attitude toward safety.

Regarding the detailed case you described, I feel the level
of urgency imposed by carrying urgent medical cargo creates
an unacceptable level of risk.  Specifically, this is why 
the FAA licenses Commercial pilots and Part 135 operations
to a higher level of professionalism than private pilots.

I do not feel that a patient's acute medical need justifies
a private pilot lowering his weather standards.  This
could easily result in additional deaths or injuries and
could create a bad reputation for GA.

As I mentioned in my previous posting, I just signed 
up for AirLifeline myself, particularly since I understand
many of their missions originate or terminate in Rochester,
Minnesota.  However, I view my role as providing a
charitable service for a non-emergent situation only.
If critical medical materials or an unstable patient
needs to be transported, that would be much more 
appropriately handled under Part 135.

-- 
Richard Kaplan M.D.           Medical Software Exchange BBS
806 2nd St. SW # 104          (507) 281-1989 14,400 HST
Rochester, MN  55902          (507) 281-1689 Voice
PP-ASEL-IA     N4VRB          rkaplan@mayo.edu|netcom.netcom.com  
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: k9jma@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (edwin.m.schaefer)
Subject: Re: Airplane pollution (was toxic waste)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:49:28 GMT

In article <6857@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.205117.16240@news.arc.nasa.gov> doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay) writes:
>>
>>On my last trip to LA from San Jose (last weekend) I got 15 nautical (air) mpg
>>(17 smpg). Just read a story about a kitplane (Velocity) that took a 5000 mile
>>vacation and got 21 smpg at an average speed of 185 mph. 
>
>I read a few years ago that small GA airplanes account for about 0.3% of
>gasoline use in the US. 
>
>These engines may emit more pollution per hour than a good auto engine, but
>I wonder what a per-mile comparison would look like?

I recently saw on televison a story about a gov't program to see whether
they could develop a substitute for the gasoline powered lawnmower that
would be acceptable. They had some storage battery driven electrics that
they were offering in exchange for your gas powered job - a few hundred
in the study as I recall. The goal was to _eliminate_ the pollution from
the gas engine.

Does this mean that lawnmowers burn a large fraction of the gas (doubt its
as much as 0.3%) or that they will soon be knocking at GA's door with more
restrictions to reduce or eliminate it (pollution and GA).

Ed Schaefer   Skylane N97178
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: tel@cbnews.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lester)
Subject: Re: Overloaded Cherokee Crash comments
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:32:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.163321.2020@btree.uucp> jerrys@btree.uucp (Jerry Samsen) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.001840.10143@tfs.com> davew@tfs.com (Dave Whitlock) writes:
>>This brings up a question.  How does a CFI handle a student that does
>>not seem "sensable."  Have any CFIs out there had a student that you
>>had to say "You a not mature enough to be a pilot" ?
>>
>
>Personally, if I had such a situation, I would tell the student exactly
>why I will no longer fly with him and if the case was extreme, I would
>pass the word to as many local flight schools as possible what my
>experiences were.  

	And open yourself to a horendous slander suit. I don't disagree 
    with your  actions. I just wonder if the threat of slander or liable
    would inhibit an instructor.  Especially if the student is well
    heeled and arrogant enough to drag your butt thru the courts.

    This seems like a case of "damned if you do......."
    Let him/her go and if (s)he later kills some one, your liable, stop 
    him/her and your liable for slander.

    What a great legal system we have.   8-{


-- 
	-----------------------------------------------------------------
	Tom Lester				att!cblph!tel
	Sonerai IIL (under TEST)		(614) 860-3259
	N4LX 					(614) 927-8106
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Number of U.S. Pilots  (was Number of small aircraft wanted)
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:41:50 GMT
Organization: National Library of Medicine

In article <1940106@hpgrla.gr.hp.com> leed@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Lee Devlin) writes:
>Many persons get their pilot's
>license and then don't use it.  After a few inactive months, they no
>longer trust their flying skills and thus lose the desire to bore holes
>in the sky.
>
>  So this also
>helps to explain why only 14% of all licensed PRIVATE pilots have the
>instrument rating.
>
I'm puzzled.  Are not the AOPA statistics about pilots based on "active"
certificates (meaning a current medical)?  If so, these folks actually
are out there from time to time boring holes in the sky.

If this is true, it is really quite scary -- only 1 in 7 of the people
in the pattern at the average GA airport has the knowledge, skills, and
experience of getting the instrument rating.  I guess I'm one of the
pilots for whom the IFR ticket was a revelation in understanding flying,
and look back in chagrin at how perilously close to grief I was a few
times, along the "Continued VFR..." road to perdition.

The world of VFR training has changed a lot; twinkets like me who got their
license two decades ago can, BFRs notwithstanding, stay pretty much on
the sidelines of the modern aviation system with a notion of how to
get from A to B which is 20 years out of date, and the conviction that
if we've been a pilot for xx years, we must be pretty good at it when
in fact we may be a danger to ourselves and others.

I guess this is why old people get paranoid -- they know too much.
The newly minted VFR pilot thinks "I'm OK, You're OK."  The IFR pilot
looks around at all those other planes, ATC, and the weather and
thinks "I'm not OK, You're not OK (but it's OK)" :-).

Dan Masys
masys@lhc.nlm.nih.gov
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
Subject: Re: Robert Taylor
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:11:18 GMT

robie@umbc4.umbc.edu (Mr. William Robie; POSI (GRAD)) writes:

>In article <1992Sep2.234906.23041@news.columbia.edu> arw4@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Aaron R Wininger) writes:
>>Does anyone know where I can get posters/prints of Robert Taylor's combat
>>aircraft paintings?

>Try Virginia Bader's aviation art studio in Alexandria, Virginia (in case
>anyone picked up on the name, yes -- she is related to Douglas "Tin Legs"
>(aka "Dogsbody") Bader of WWII fame.

>Virginia carries, or can get, prints by nearly all of the well-known
>aviation artists.  Directory assistance for area code 703 should have
>the shop's phone number, and I believe that she has a catalog available
>these days.

It's (703) 548-4440.  

Virginia Bader Fine Arts Gallery
1305 King Street
Alexandria, VA

Joe Morris / MITRE
From: mtk3@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew T. Kenner)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: What is Ground Effect?
Date: 2 Sep 1992 19:59:15 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: mtk3@po.CWRU.Edu (Matthew T. Kenner)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu

I know that there have been a few responses about this, but when I
looked it up in The Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics by Hubert "Skip"
Smith, he seemed to give a little different story.  I am not sure which
is the more generally accepted one, but I will attempt the explain this
new version of ground effect. Here goes......

	Smith dispells the "myth" that it is compressed air that causes
the sudden increase in lift as one approaches the ground.  He says that
the real reason is flying close to the ground causes a reduction in the
downwash of the wing.  Induced drag results from downwash, which results
from vortex formation at the wingtips.  The high angle of attack that is
necessary for low speed flight results in a higher pressure differential
between the two surfaces of that wing and this causes stronger vortices
and , hence, greater downwash.  This means high induced drag.  Well, Smith
describes that as the wing gets closer to the ground, the ground starts
to destroy some of the vortex and this results in a reduction of induced
drag.  So this means that as the plane approaches the ground, there is a
sudden and dramatic decrease in the amount of induced drag and the plane
will pick up speed and try to keep on flying!  He says that this will happen 
only within about one span length or less of the ground.
	Some things that will affect how much ground effect a certain
aeroplane experiences is high vs. low wing and a lower aspect ratio
wings have higher induced drag to begin with so they will feel a greater
effect.  
	Smith goes on to explain two more minor effects that also cause
"ground effect".  One is that the the reduced downwash changes the
direction of the airstream in such a way that the angle of attack of the
wing is affectively increased (meaning more lift).  Also, this same
reduction in downwash causes the horizontal tail to experience a higher
alpha which tends to lower the nose and increase airspeed. 
	These three occurences (primarily the first one) are (according
to Smith) the reasons that aeroplanes experience ground effect.  
	This particular section, and the whole book, seem to be pretty
good in describing what aerodynamics is all about  without all the
complex mathematics usually associated with textbooks.  Of course, I am
not associated with the author in any way.  

	Just thought I might give the other side.

		-Matt Kenner


-- 
Douglas's Law of Practical Aeronautics: | 5   5 | Matt Kenner         __|__
"When the weight of the paperwork equals|   5   |            __|__ *---o0o---*
the weight of the plane, the plane will | 5   5 |   __|__ *---o0o---*   
fly."  -Donald Douglas                  |=======|*---o0o---*  mtk3@po.CWRU.Edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: awtron@strawber.princeton.edu (Andrew Tron)
Subject: Re: Homebuilt Fly-by-Wire
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:51:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.003027.12229@den.mmc.com> zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin) writes:
>Homebuilts are getting complex enough as it is - take a pressurized
>Lancair IV for example, not to mention the BD-10!!  Actually, the 
>BD-10 is a good example for this discussion.  The Venerable (J.) Bede
>(any English History buffs out there in rec.aviator.land?!) et al
>explicitly designed that bird to have a simple, all mechanical,
>manual flight control system.  This is _not_ an easy thing to do
>for an aircraft with its, uh, largish range of operating speeds.

Last month at Oshkosh, I got a close-up look at the cockpit of the BD-10J.
I noticed that it had two sticks -- a side stick and a center stick.  I
asked one of the Bede representatives at the show "Why the two sticks?".
The answer -- the side stick is a low-gain control for the subsonic regime,
and the center stick is a high-gain control for supersonic regime. Trying
to go supersonic while using the sidestick would involve excessive stick
forces, while flying subsonic with the center stick would make the controls
way too sensitive for the "normal" pilot according to the rep.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never trust a pilot with clean hands.| Andrew Tron at Princeton University
No flight plan has ever survived     | awtron@strawber.princeton.edu (Internet)
contact with air traffic control.    | uunet!phoenix!strawber!awtron (UUCP)
From: parker@gdls.UUCP (The Dougster)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: How do you keep current?
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:20:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: General Dynamics Land Systems, Sterling Heights, MI

Simple question with profound implications.

I've had my PP-ASEL for three months. With all the talk about
alphabet airspace, I'm wondering what others use to keep abreast
of all that's aviation related. 

I'm in an information vacuum. Whaddaya say?

Douglas
--
Reply-To: gdls!parker@ilium.troy.msen.com
DoD #1961    BMWMOA    Renting N56136
--
A dress is nothing but pants with one pantleg.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: dst+@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky)
Subject: when to file "Lifeguard"
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:47:32 GMT


I agree with Brian Horn that "Lifeguard" should only be used in valid
emergency situations.  

I fly for the Volunteer Pilots Association, a Pittsurgh group similar to
AirLifeLine.   On an outbound leg to pick up a donor organ, I do not file
Lifeguard; I leave early enough that I don't need special handling to reach
my destination on time.  However, once I have the organ on board, it's
important to get it delivered as soon as possible, so I do file Lifeguard
for the return leg.

Flying patients is *not* emergency medical transportation.  If a person
is ill enough to merit use of the Lifeguard callsign, then we Part 91
pilots shouldn't be flying them; they should be transported by a Part 135
air ambulance service with appropriate equipment and medical personnel
on board.

Still, if you're slogging your way through weather and turbulence with a
scared 3 year old patient on board and ATC wants to vector you via Outer
Mongolia, you can tell ATC about your situation and *request* that they help
you out with a more direct routing.  This is a more responsible choice than
filing Lifeguard, which *automatically* requires ATC to give you priority
over everybody else from takeoff to landing.

-- Dave Touretzky,  CFI-AIM Seneca N8147E (``The Sometimes Lifeguard Beast'')
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: perkins@spot.Colorado.EDU (PERKINS TYLER R)
Subject: Re: hang glider variometers?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:12:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.173541.7451@brtph560.bnr.ca> you write:
> Does anyone know about wrist worn audio variometers used by hang
> glider pilots. I saw a sailplane pilot wearing one. He said it
> cost about $250. 

He may have been wearing the Ball M20.  I tried a friend's once--
very nice.  This one even had a total energy probe (which, of course,
would not be of any use inside a cockpit!)  I recently purchased
the Ball M22 vario-altimeter with all the bells and whistles: TE probe,
barograph...  $800, but I love it!  You can get slightly bulkier
hang-gliding vario/altimeters new for less than $300, like the NES or
the Roberts "breadpan".  And there are even matchbox-sized models out
there for around $200, but they are just audio-only varios with no
altimeter.  Compact and feature-laden (but more expensive) models like
my M22 are becoming commonplace because of the explosion in popularity
of paragliding, especially in Europe.

You can contact Ball at (303) 530-4940.  They seem to be nice people.
If you can find it in a good news shop, you should get a copy of the
magazine Hang Gliding.  It contains lots of ads for just this sort of
thing.

Hope this helps,
	--Tyler Perkins			perkins@spot.Colorado.EDU

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: verhulst@raven.aosg.gsf.dec.com ()
Subject: Re: Flying saves money (sic)
Keywords: money
Organization: AOSG
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:51:41 GMT

>I know.  Lies, damn lies, and statistics.  These aren't statistics.  They're
>neither standard nor devious.  They're just numbers.  They're trying not to
>lie.  But you can make them lie too, if you want to.  Just strap them to this
>conveniently-located railroad track...
>
>						Geoff


Most people use statistics the way a drunk uses a lamppost:
more for support than for illumination.

						Mark Twain
Newsgroups: rec.aviation