HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rosso@roscoe.csd.sgi.com (Ross Oliver)
Subject: Re: Flying Saucers
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:56:33 GMT

In article <15429@auspex-gw.auspex.com>, tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett) writes about Dr. Mohler's "dream machine" flying saucer/car.

Mohler had a booth at the Sacramento Executive Airport open house last
summer (the only one _inside_ the air-conditioned terminal building).
Lots of glossies, fancy artists rendering, and guys standing around in dark
suits.  I got the impression he was trolling for investors.

Another "feature" Tom didn't mention was the craft is to be powered by
six individual engines, and the beast is supposed to be able to stay airborne
on only three of them.  This is supposed to reduce the risk due to engine
failure to zero.  However, the redundancy does nothing for the most
common engine failure mode: running out of fuel.  Since this would take
out all six engines, and the thing has no significant lifting surface
or rotor blades, it would plummet to Earth like a stone.

Ross Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Software analysts design castles in the sky,
                                    programmers build them, users live in them,
                                              and consultants collect the rent.
From: lmiller@aero.org (Lawrence H. Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Flying Under Bridges
Date: 9 Nov 1992 18:28:02 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: groucho.aero.org

In article <1992Nov8.031519.27384@peck.com> geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.081317.28968@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
>
>> Any ideas from you Ercoupe-loopers?
>
>Many Ercoupes have no rudder pedals; instead, they have interconnected
>ailerons and rudders.

	Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe most Ercoupes
	have no pedals, and no pilot controllable rudder.

-- 
Larry Miller		The Aerospace Corporation
lmiller@aero.org	PO Box 92957		
310-336-5597		LA, CA 90009-2957
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: dinsdale@berlioz.nsc.com (Steve McRobert)
Subject: Re: acrobatics
Summary: pilatus B-4 is great for acro
Keywords: glider acrobatics pilatus
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 06:11:21 GMT

Who says you can't do comprehensive acro in a Glider?
The Ames saoaring club based at byron has a Pilatus B4 which is legal
for loops, rolls, tailslides and even outside loops (tho I haven't been
that brave myself in it.
Also, you can fly upside down for as long as your head can stand it and
the ground stays far enough away (no fuel or oil systems to get upset).

BTW, if you want to get a glider acro checkout, I highly recommend going


to fly with TJ at turf soaring just north of  phoenix!
also, the pilatus is ok for cross country with a nominal L/D of 35:1
(albeit at 47kt).  Not quite up there with my DG, but a lot stronger!

-- 
Steve Mc Robert (a.k.a. Dinsdale Piranha) PP ASEL, Glider, Tow Pilot
Organisation: National Semiconductor. Aircraft: DG300 GJ
Want to soar?  Call the Ames soaring club 510 516 1745 at Byron airport
Xref: sparky rec.aviation.misc:624 rec.aviation.homebuilt:321 rec.aviation:17262
From: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Flying Saucers
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:36:57 GMT
Reply-To: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Followup-To: rec.aviation.misc
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.  Engineering

In article <cf0ZR2m00WB4AlUFVp@andrew.cmu.edu>, jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey 
Dunkle) writes:
> I also recall that the craft wasn't particularly sacuer shaped but more
> like a sprots car cab with some streamlining to some ducted fans at the
> corners.  I don't recall the specific power configuration ( i.e. did
> each fan have its own engine or was there a transmission system from a
> more central engine(s) powering the fans.  In any event, I remember
> being troubled by how the craft would handle power failure.  Either
> there would be an asymmetric thrust/lift condition, or if all fans
> failed....not much glide ratio.  Wonder how the non-pilot "driver" and
> his computers whould handle that.

The a/c he is constructing to sell, is actually fairly airplane like
(without wings) to me, but the testbed mule is a saucer.  BTW he uses 
eight wankle engines (of his own design) in four ducted fan enclosures
with a vane system to direct thrust.  The vanes are patented.

The article was written by Garrison.  The problem according to Garrison
is that the physics of the thing just don't work out.  It will take
so much power to make the vertical takeoff, that with the specific
fuel consumption of the wankle engines, he will not have the kind
of range he expects.  Nor will he have anywhere near the altitude and
speed he is expecting.

What will happen in the case of a partial engine failure is that supposedly
it will fly on two pods.  Garrison thought that was optimistic.

Losing all the engines would be exciting.  Maybe that's a good use for
balistic parachutes...

I just can't wait to have a bunch of non-pilots blasting around in the
air all over the place, sounds like fun ("what TCA, officer?").


Tom Pickett 
tpickett@auspex.com or 74616.2237@compuserve.com
SHO  GOZE
From: bmich@cs.utexas.edu (Brian Keith Michalk)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Exhaust pipes on GA aircraft
Date: 13 Nov 1992 14:28:28 -0600
Organization: U Texas Dept of Computer Sciences, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: cash.cs.utexas.edu

Well, I'm not a pilot, but it seems to me that if you pointed the exhaust
pipes up, then whenever you parked your plane in the rain, you would
get water in the pistons.
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: logging solo and ground time
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:35:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: pony.1992Nov10.203554.17842
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Distribution: na
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

In article <1dmqe4INNr9c@topaz.bds.com> ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie) writes:
>
>> Since attending FAA safety seminars (+ 3 hours in the air) is good for 
>> a Biennial, can you log the time spent at a seminar as ground time?
>
>Who logs ground instruction?
>

I do, or did.  Ground instruction from an authorized ground or flight
instructor is required for the CFI.  It probably doesn't hurt to have
the entry, with some meaningful description, in your logbook.

Kerry
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Stay on the ground, Reba.
Date: 12 Nov 1992 09:53:33 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


In article <1992Nov10.211435.27216@eecs.nwu.edu>,
William LeFebvre <phil@eecs.nwu.edu> writes:

>WHY was this such a big deal?  So the guy made an emergency landing.
>SO WHAT?  This is like pulling over to the side of an expressway because
>you have a flat.

This is a good point.  I think, however, that if you had to pull out your CB
and declare an emergency for all to here when you pulled over with that flat
tire then you'd see a lot more car mishaps on TV.  Announcing that you've got
a potential mishap approaching attracts attention.

Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions, go and get your own."
From: jfarrell@cloudbase (Jerry Farrell)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Exceed Vne or max G's first? (was Re: looping a non-acro aircraft)
Date: 13 Nov 1992 07:08:57 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: cloudbase
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

In article <T0B=!6@engin.umich.edu>, dlevy@viper.engin.umich.edu,
(David W Levy) writes:

> VNE is *always* quoted as INDICATED airspeed, not true.  That is why it
> is a red line on the airspeed indicator.  Only when you get to high
> subsonic speeds is true speed important.
> ...
> The above discussion relates to powered aircraft.  Is there something
> different about sailplanes that I don't know?

Apparently so.  I quote from the Flight Manual (POH) for the Schleicher
ASK-21:

    II.4	AIRSPEED LIMITATIONS AND LOAD FACTOR LIMITS
    
    Max. permissible speed (calm air):
	    VNE = 151.2 kts = 174 mph = 280 km/h

    [other speed limits, discussion of load factors, and control-
    deflection limits omitted.]
    
    True airspeed (TAS) is, however relevant for safety against flutter.
    Therefore, one must take into account that with increasing altitude
    the true airspeed is higher than the reading of the airspeed indicator
    because of the increasing air density.

			VNE at various altitudes

		  Altitude		VNE
		    ft		knots		mph

		   5000		 151		174
		  10000		 144		165
		  15000		 132		152
		  20000		 121		139

[end quote]

I can't believe the physics is different for powered vs. unpowered craft.
Can someone explain the discrepancy?

jf
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Re: Flying Under Bridges
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:47:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.222657.13189@qdeck.com> jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown) writes:
>
>Saying that "flying aerobatics in non-aerobatic airplanes will kill you"
>is statistically true, but doesn't explain why Hoover and Johnson get
>away with it, or why Joe Idiot gets away with it.  Without additional
>explanation, such a statement is taken as stuffy advice from a
>stick-in-the-mud pilot who doesn't really understand airplanes.
>


More accurately, "flying aerobatics in non-aerobatic airplanes *can* kill you."
If that be stuffy advice, so be it.
Sometimes it's that stuffy advice from a 'stick-in-the-mud' pilot can prevent
one from becoming a 'stuck-in-the-mud' pilot.

TH
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: aviva@ultra.com (Aviva Garrett)
Subject: Re: Public perception of general aviation
Reply-To: aviva@ultra.com (Aviva Garrett)
Organization: Ultra Network Technologies
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 00:38:28 GMT

In article <Bx99M4.47q.2@cs.cmu.edu> dst+@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) writes:
>
>#1.  Get your local airport to hold an airport fair.  

My local airport, Reid-Hillview in San Jose, did this at the end
of September. The local EAA chapter was offering free rides to
anyone who wanted, and by the end of the day all who wanted had
had at least a 30-minute ride.


>#2.  Reach out to local community groups.  

There is a high school under the pattern at Reid-Hillview. This
high school has many kids from some of the poorest neighborhoods
in San Jose (I believe mostly Mexican, other Hispanic, and
black). CRAMP has set up a scholarship program, where 1 or
maybe 2 seniors from this high school get a scholarship in an
A&P program. (I don't know the details, but I think it involves
working for a mechanic at the airport, not enrolling in the San
Jose State A&P program.) The head of CRAMP recently told us that
the parents of one of the people who got the scholarship last
year was thrilled that their child had such an opportunity.


..Aviva


-- 
Aviva Garrett
Ultra Network Technologies / 101 Daggett Drive / San Jose CA 95134
aviva@ultra.com  ...!ames!ultra!aviva  (408) 922-0100 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: niles@parc.xerox.com (Les Niles)
Subject: Heard on the air
Organization: Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, CA
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:42:26

This morning at San Jose:

  SJC tower: American 269, runway 30 left, cleared for takeoff.

  American 269: Cleared for takeoff, 269.

  Tower: American 269, do you have that polar bear in sight at 12 o'clock?

  AA269: We thought it was a white elephant.

  Tower: No, if you look closely you'll see it's a polar bear.

  AA269: Most of us pilots are blind anyway.

  Tower: You just gotta adjust the trifocals.

The punch line is that there really *was* a polar bear.
It was a hot air balloon, a mile or two southwest of the field, having
trouble finding a landing site.  The tower kept calling it as traffic for
at least half an hour.  

  -les  niles@parc.xerox.com
        Skylane N2461G
From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Exceed Vne or max G's first? (was Re: looping a non-acro aircraft)
Date: 10 Nov 92 19:20:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: Unify.ansc8hs
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)

In article <pZ==7-@engin.umich.edu>, dlevy@viper.engin.umich.edu (David W Levy) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Nov5.121947.1266@eplrx7.es.duPont.com>, rogersmf@eplrx7.es.duPont.com (Mark Rogers) writes:
> > 
> > The answer given was that there is a larger margin built into the
> > g-rating (e.g., to be rated for +4.5 g's, a plane must sustain 6 g's in
> > testing), so go ahead and pull back a little harder.  Evidently the margin
> > built into Vne is only about 2-3%.  
>                              ^^^^^^^^
> Sorry, not correct.  According to SFAR 23.15(b), the maximum operating
> speed, VNE, must not be greater than 80% of the design dive speed, VD,
> unless it is shown that a smaller margin will not result in exceeding
> VD after an upset at VNE.  The airplane must be shown to be flutter free,
> etc., up to VD.

	A word of caution is in order that Vd is demonstrated in
	a factory-fresh aircraft.  As individual airframes age they can
	flutter at increasingly lower airspeeds, especially if their
	rigging loses some tension.  In some cases flutter has occurred
	at speeds below Vne.

	Another factor to remember is that Vne typically is a TRUE airspeed.
	As your altitude increases, the IAS for Vne decreases, and the
	change is significant.  Sailplane pilots cruising fast at altitudes
	up to 18K in strong conditions can begin pushing Vne, and they
	can easily push it at low IAS's in much higher wave flights.
	I presume that turbocharged powered aircraft POH's would also note
	the reduction in Vne's IAS or CAS as a function of altitude.


------------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@Unify.com
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: getting tired
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:11:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Nov9.221142.7065
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

From article <1992Nov9.164808.8774@cbis.ece.drexel.edu>, by jpw@minerva.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein):
> Why do people get so tired while flying?
> 
> Yesterday I took two friends on a fun trip from PNE (philly) to WWD (cape
> may, NJ), and one of them even fell asleep on the return trip in the
> backseat of the Warrier! When we landed, we all reported being REALLY tired,
> even though I flew the plane. Is it the altitude?

I would think that your body is constantly trying to adjust to new
altitude density, plus countering the feet-not-on-firm-ground effect, 
etc, etc.
Xref: sparky rec.aviation.misc:593 rec.aviation:17236
From: chem4-aa@garnet.berkeley.edu (Lonnie C. Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation
Subject: Re: radios and non-pilots
Date: 11 Nov 1992 02:21:17 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Nov10.143647.19067@cbnews.cb.att.com> tel@cbnews.cb.att.com (thomas.e.lester) writes:
...
>	Lonnie,  (or anyone else that knows)
>
>    How is the handheld liscensed ?   Do you get your own "N" number ?
>    What, if any restrictions are placed on its use ?

There is not an N number on the license, in fact, there isn't much filled
in.  I don't have the license with me, but don't recall anything
"interesting" written on it.  There are no restrictions written on the
license.  I'm sure that whatever restrictions are normally associated with
aircraft radio transmitters also apply.

>    I suspect you may be on of a very few that has ever done this.

Judging from the response I have gotten from other pilots, the FAA, and FCC,
I suspect you are right.  I called the FCC and asked for an application,
back in ~1988 or so, and it seems like they were unfamiliar with the
particulars, but sent the application without a lot of fanfare.  The license
came in a few weeks with the non-applicable blanks left blank.  Pretty
simple, really.

I called ICOM, and they didn't know anything, but suggested that I call the
FCC, which I did, and the rest fell into place.

My impression is that our handheld radios are not a biggie with the FCC, as 
long as there is no abuse, and that the FAA thinks it's the FCC's jurisdiction.
My impressions only;  and things may have changed since 1989.  

Lonnie
-- 
Lonnie C. Martin    lonnie@hydrogen.cchem.berkeley.edu
From: ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: logging solo and ground time
Date: 9 Nov 1992 22:58:12 GMT
Organization: BDS Systems
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.bds.com

> After receiving your PPL (private), is there any advantage in logging solo
> time (cross country or not), or in logging ground time with an instructor?

Once I qualified to log my solo time as PIC (i.e., passed the private) I
stopped logging solo time.  The FAR lists that as Solo OR Pilot-in-command
so that's what I do.

> Since attending FAA safety seminars (+ 3 hours in the air) is good for 
> a Biennial, can you log the time spent at a seminar as ground time?

Who logs ground instruction?
From: dobosz_m@wfooff.enet.dec.com (Mike Dobosz)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Exhaust pipes on GA aircraft
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:48:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: dbased.1992Nov10.215414.29250
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Westfield, Massachusetts

Hi,

If one were concerned with decreasing noise produced by the average general 
aviation aircraft, wouldn't it be a simple fix to have the exhaust pipes 
point up instead of down?  If what I suggest is true (and I believe it 
is...I can state with considerable enthusiasm that my Harley is a heckuva 
lot louder from the rear than the front), are there reasons why this isn't 
done?
							Regards,
							Mike
-- 
             {decvax, ucbvax, allegra}!decwrl!wfooff.enet!dobosz_m
             dobosz_m%wfooff.enet@decwrl.dec.com 
             dobosz_m@wfooff.enet.dec.com               DoD # 0596
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: braner@trantor.emba.uvm.edu (Moshe Braner)
Subject: license for handheld (was Re: radios and non-pilots)
Summary: mine is licensed as "portable"
Organization: University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 01:36:15 GMT

When I got my handheld (Sporty's) it came with the FCC form for getting
it licensed.  So I filled it in, saying that I wanted to use it in a
specific airplane, but also occasionally elsewhere (e.g. in other
aircraft).  I sent it to the address on the form.  After a few weeks
it came back, with a note that that's the wrong address, telling me where
to send it (another FCC office).  (Just goes to show how anal the FCC is.)
The second place sent it back because one cannot have it assigned to
a specific plane AND be usable elsewhere.  Also, one must justify the
need for a portable.  So, I crossed out the specific N-number, and added
a signed statement saying that I need a portable license since I intend
to use the transmitter aboard a number of aircraft.  That worked.
(Now you know why the FCC charges $35 for this "service".)

The forms made it very clear that: a ground-use license is a completely
separate thing from an aircraft-use license.  I.e., I can transmit with
my handheld legally only from inside an aircraft, or within 2 feet of it,
or some such gray area :-)  (Does the engine have to be running?)  (It's
OK if the aircraft is on the ground, but woe onto me if I use it from
the car.)  Also, the "multiple aircraft" claim cannot refer to a "fleet".

The license has an FCC ID number, if I remember right, but I am supposed
to use the N-number of the plane I'm in as the station ID.  Since they
never asked for the handheld serial number, or even make and model, I
don't expect to repeat this song and dance in case I replace the handheld
with another, or even buy a second one.  Whew!  (But I had to do it over
again when I bought an airplane with installed radios, it needs its own
non-portable "license".)  And of course, they never checked my credentials
for proper operation of a radio (presumably a pilot's license means I got
the training).

Never mind that there is no other use for this radio except as an aviation
radio, and there is nothing to stop anybody who wants to use such a radio
for an illegal purpose from buying it anonymously and never licensing it.
Typical of our new police state: if they can't do anything about the
guilty, and are under pressure to "do something", they make life miserable
for the innocent instead.  But cheer up, in Northern Ireland you can go to
jail for possessing a scanner (receiver only)!

- Moshe "big brother pretends to watch me" Braner
-- 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Braner                          braner@emily.emba.uvm.edu
47 McGee Road, Essex, VT 05452        (802) 879-0876                        
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: leonam@aix02.ecs.rpi.edu (Marcus B. Leonard)
Subject: Re: Flying Under Bridges
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 19:23:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.081317.28968@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) writes:
>When flying under a bridge, whether it be the Golden Gate, Mackinac, Brooklyn,
>or the Devil's River in West Texas, is it advisable to fly low, near the
>surface, or high, with minimum clearance on the bridge?  The determining factor
>is, of course, cable stretched across the span, but there is mixed feeling as
>to whether most cables are stretched just below the structure, or down on the
>water.  Any ideas from you Ercoupe-loopers?
>
>Please answer as soon as possible, as I am also concerned with the technical
>aspects of inverted flight in high-wingers over snow fields on moonlit nights.

In the case of bridges over navigable waterways (Golden Gate, Brooklyn,
Tappan Zee, etc.) you probably don't need to worry about cables hanging
far below the bridge structure.  They would be a hazard to ships.

I say split the difference, to give yourself as much room as possible
both above and below.  Also remember the working definition:
"500 feet" == "close enough to read your tail numbers"

Regarding the inverted high-winger question: *don't do this!*  (Unless you
are flying a Cub, Husky, Avid, or other model with a decent skylight, that
is.)

[Does a post like this really need smileys?  Probably so :-) :-) :-P)  ]

				Marc Leonard
				leonam@rpi.edu

Note: if you are making the proposed flight with MS FS4, bridge cables and
such are 1-D objects, and your airplane is a 0-D object (point).  Thus it
is next to impossible to hit cables.  Very convenient.

Note2: Does anyone know of a bridge that you could fly under while actually
maintaining the 500' clearance from people and property?  Royal Gorge?
From: per@front.se
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Flying Under Bridges
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:05:53 MET
Distribution: world
Organization: Front Capital Systems AB, Sweden

In article <1992Nov8.031519.27384@peck.com>, geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) writes:

> Just to make sure that no netters actually might even consider thinking
> about trying such a stunt, you can expect that any flight under a bridge
> or other structure such as the St. Louis arch will be met with a violation
> of FAR 91.13, Careless or Reckless Operation, and you can bet that maximum
> fines and penalties will be levied.

Unless you have a waiver :-) In the air show at the annual Stockholm
Water Festival some of the display pilots start their show by flying
into the display area from under a large bridge.

(Just to show that no matter how wise a rec.aviation entry is, there
is always some smartass who has a silly counter-example).

Per Lindberg (per@front.se)         !        
Front Capital Systems, Box 5727,    !  -----( )-----  Ceci n'est pas une Su-26
11487 Stockholm, Sweden. 8-6611510  !      --!--