HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: guy.byars@ssa.org (Guy Byars) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
Subject: Call For Photos
Date: 22 Dec 92 23:41:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Soaring Society of America's BBS (513)-871-7720
Reply-To: guy.byars@ssa.org (Guy Byars) 

                          CALL FOR PHOTOS
Soaring magazine is planning another sailplane directory issue  in
1993.   In COLOR this time.  They will need color slides or prints
of all kinds of sailplanes, especially the older types.  In flight
shots preferred.
Send a photo & description of your favorite bird to Robert Gaines,
SSA  Publ.   Chmn. 308 Chase Ln., Marietta, GA 30068.  (404)  973-
1414.  Use the 1983 Directory issue as a guide.

--- WinQwk 2.0 a#571
                                                
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: vincent@talos.pm.com (Andy Vincent)
Subject: Ski Resorts
Reply-To: vincent@talos.UUCP (Andy Vincent)
Organization: Philip Morris Research Center, Richmond, VA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 14:04:02 GMT

Does anyone know of any ski resorts on the east coast that have
landing facilites (real) close by?
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: One of my "heard on the air" postings in IFR unattributed
Date: 29 Dec 1992 16:58:31 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <24504@alice.att.com> ark@alice.UUCP () writes:
>There's an interesting point here.  Some radio channels, particularly
>(I think) the ham bands, carry with them an FCC regulation prohibiting
>people from divulging what they hear over those channels.  Thus, though
>it is legal to own and use a ham receiver, without any license, my
>understanding is that it violates FCC regulations to tell anyone else
>what you hear on the ham bands.

Actually, the privacy portion is contained in section 603 (I think) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act of 1986. The ham bands, the broadcast services, and any distress
communications are specifically exempted from the privacy provisions. For the
rest of the services, including aviation, the law states that you can listen,
but you cannot divulge what you've heard for personal gain.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.misc
From: cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus)
Subject: Re: One of my "heard on the air" postings in IFR unattributed
Organization: Taligent, a little subsidiary of two really big companies.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 17:36:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.160958.24690@hpcvusn.cv.hp.com> tommc@cv.hp.com writes:
>Yes.  IFR had published one of my rec.aviation posts, complete with signiture.
>After a short discussion on the net, one of the rec.aviators (Chris Pettus?)
>put Paul in contact with me.  Paul apologized profusely and said that they
>would change the way they accepted submissions.  He promised not to print
>anything without checking with the author first.

Yep, that was me.  And, unfortunately, one of my postings was also used
by IFR Magazine, with attribution, without contacting me first.
Several details of the anecdote were changed.  Prob'ly time for another
call to IFR ...
--
-- Christophe

"I draw the line at Styrofoam packing kernels, you sick pervert."
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.misc
From: philf@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez)
Subject: One of my "heard on the air" postings in IFR unattributed
Organization: Jade and Jett Incorporated
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:31:46 GMT

I received and read my January 1993 issue of _IFR_ magazine this week.
I was rather surprised when I read the "On The Air" section to find,
verbatim, a posting I had made to rec.aviation some months ago.  I had
posted this story (about a Cessna who could not understand their
squawk code from LA Center) as a "heard on the air" humorous posting
here.

The story in IFR Magazine was attributed to "Anonymous."

This doesn't really upset me in a big way, but it was rather
disappointing.  There was a discussion on rec.aviation some months ago
about this "problem," and at the time, I recall that Paul Bertorelli,
editor of IFR, had passed on a commitment to stop printing
unauthorized, unattributed material in his magazine obtained from
rec.aviation.  Does anyone have recollection of the earlier discussion
here, and recall how things sorted out with IFR?

pmf
pp-asmel-ia
mooney n5632j
From: cep4478@ultb.isc.rit.edu (C.E. Piggott )
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Ham radio forbidden in plane?
Date: 21 Dec 92 13:14:12 GMT
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Originator: cep4478@ultb

>> CAP uses the 2M band for communications and we have a unit installed
>> in our squadron's aircraft;  on the other hand, when you transmit on
>> the 2M band, the needles on the nav heads go left an right,

I am curious about the configuration of your antennas (where did you
mount the 2m antenna?  Is it a 1/4 wave whip?  Where is it with respect
to the VOR receiving antennas?) and the output power of the radio you
used.  It would be interesting to try putting a good dummy load on the
back of the radio.  I'm wondering if the leakage is out of the radio,
inside the cabin, rather than through the antennas.  If it's through
the antennas, this sounds like it might be an easy problem to fix with
some helical LPF sections on the VOR antenna (is it legal to do something
like that to your own plane?)

Also...this question is addressed in the FAQ.  Might not be bad to add
Mr. Rice's experience with the VOR needles.  Also, not yet mentioned in
this thread (that I learned from the FAQ) is the restriction that ham
radio isn't ever allowed in IFR (even if the pilot/operator says it's OK).


Chris
-- 
Christopher E. Piggott, WZ2B                    cep4478@ultb.isc.rit.edu
President                                       wz2b.ampr [44.69.0.1]
Rochester Institute of Technology               wz2b @ WB2PSI.#WNY.NY.USA.NA
Amateur Radio Club K2GXT                        CEP4478@RITVAXA.BITNET
Xref: sparky rec.aviation:17591 rec.aviation.student:407
From: hdnea@usho92.hou281.chevron.com (David Neal)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: Speeds of private planes
Date: 31 Dec 92 02:45:00 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <C00o4J.2y2@dircon.co.uk> uad1221@dircon.co.uk (David Lomax) writes:
>gff%Rational.COM (Geoff Fitch) writes:
>
>>I assume you want to know cruising speed, ...  
>>the range of 110 - 125 knots.
>
>Well I don't know what you learnt to fly in, but myself and 
>virtually everyone I know who flys, learnt in a 150/152 ...
>perhaps 80-100 knots (IAS) would be a bit more probable (in the criuse).
>
>Cheers
>David Lomax

My favorite Grumman Cheetah N9960U (Six Zero UGLY if you saw the
paint job) regularly clocks 110 KIAS @ 75% power. To add insult
to (Cessna) injury, it also rents for the same amount of money
as most 152's around here: $42/hr.




-- 
David Neal -- hdnea@hou281.chevron.com 

My processes aren't dead! They're only resource impaired!
Computationally challenged!
From: Art.Strickland@f60.n374.z1.fidonet.org (Art Strickland)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: jobs conference
Date: 1 Jan 93 07:55:00 GMT

Does anyone know if there exist an aviation conference for jobs and
resume postings?


 * SLMR 2.1a * We all live in a yellow subroutine.


 * Origin: (1:374/60)
Xref: sparky rec.aviation:17598 rec.aviation.misc:1164
From: doug@alliant.com (Doug Bloomberg)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Frost
Summary: WATCH for *SNOW* in your tailcone.
Keywords: Frost
Date: 2 Jan 93 23:20:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: alliant.1993Jan2.232039.9342
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems Corp.

In article <1992Dec31.111116.20268@walter.cray.com> slow@ferrari.cray.com (David Slowinski) writes:
>In article <C02u32.n1E@oryx.com>, xdejcj@mustang.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (james c janssen) writes:
>> The ATP I was with sprayed the plane down with water. 
>>
>>It seems like I have read somewhere that this is not a good technique
>>for removing frost.  Can anyone comment on this.
>>
>Don't try that trick here in Wisconsin (-7 degrees Farenheit today).  
>You would certainly end up with lots of ice.  The airframe and 
>controls and passenger doors would be entombed in ice until spring.
>
	Last year a fellow ower took our Cardinal from it's nice dry
	hanger, and flew to Minn. for a long weekend. He had the plane tied
	down outside while in Minn. Of course it snowed (I hear it always
	snows in Minn. except for July 4th) and to remove the  ice and frost
	after he removed most of the snow he moved the plane into a hanger 
	for a few minutes. The plane was cleared off and he flew back to
	JeffCo (Denver). He called me when he was in, I was to go away the
	next day.  He said all was fine except the pitch control seemed to
	be binding as he neared home.

	I went out early the next day, tried the controls, and the yoke 
	would not move in or out, roll control was free and fine. I opened
	the bulkhead behind the baggage compartment. I looked into the
	tail cone, it was about 2/3 full of *SNOW*. The bottom of the tailcone
	was solid ice. (The cables for the stabilator run along the bottom
	of the tailcone).

	It took me 5 hours using a 125,000 btu salamander and a hair dryer
	to melt the snow and dry out the tail cone.

	So what happened?

	When the plane was tied down, apparently the wind was blowing directly
	at the tail. The Cardinal has a gap in the tailcone to allow the
	stabilator to move. Even though there was only 6-8" of snow fall, the
	wind was able to fill the tail cone.
	When the plane was brought inside to melt the ice glaze it started to
	melt the snow in the tailcone. Luckily it didn't refreeze for some
	time.  Other wise there would have been NO pitch control.

	Also, there was a heck of a weight/balance problem.

	So... What should you do?

	When in snow country, it wouldn't hurt to have a look inside the
	tailcone when preflighting a Cardinal or Piper or any other plane
	with a means for snow to enter. If there is snow, move the plane 
	to a warm place melt the snow and dry it out. 

	Just a word of caution.

	Doug Bloomberg
	RV-6 builder.
From: chubb@s65.es.llnl.gov (Kris Chubb 38463)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Flyers Recreation Guide
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:27:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Lab.

Pardon me for asking but...

Awhile back, somebody posted something about a flyers recreation guide
from a company in (I think) Sebastapol, CA (Somewhere near Santa Rosa, anyway).
I either copied down the number wrong, or the company moved. If anyone knows
anything about this book, or where I can get it, please let me know.

Thanx in adv.
Kris

-- 
[~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~]
[ Kris Chubb -> Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab.-{Who/Which has nothing  }]
[ PP-ASEL - Flying Particles, Livermore,CA  \\{whatever to do with the}]
[ kchubb@llnl.gov	                     \{trash I call an opinion}]
[    Having Wind Aloft Could Be Hazardous To Passengers In An          ]
[    Un-ventilated Cabin                                               ]
[~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~]
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.answers,news.answers
From: brosen@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Bernie Rosen ACF)
Subject: Re: On the Unauthorized Quote in IFR
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 19:13:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.155249.12053@Firewall.Nielsen.Com> kmcnabb@pcserver2.Naitc.Com (Keith McNabb) writes:
>
>P.S. Doing my second solo cross country - to Oshkosh - on Dec. 26.
>Anything I might want to see?

The ground?

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Subject: Re: Velocity Crash (Was: Impending Velocity factory visit)
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:56:55 GMT

Venky writes:
> As in most accidents, it seems to  be a combination of two factors each of 
> which by themselves would not have been fatal that created this one. Very 
> unfortunate.

I am not so sure that adding 35 gallons of fuel capacity to a plane beyond
what the plane was designed for (resulting in possible CG shifts) can be
called a non-fatal factor. If the strake was changed also, then the plane that
crashed was aerodynamically quite different from a Velocity. 

Certianly unfortunate, but not uncommon when such mods are made by people who
do not expect to conduct a complete flight testing program.
                           ^^^^^^^^

David		doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

The thought police insist I tell you:
my thoughts, not NASA's
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: collier@akro.austin.ibm.com ()
Subject: Re: Wag Aero Sport Trainer
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:29:22 GMT
Reply-To: collier@austin.vnet.ibm.com
Organization: AIX Technical Support - Austin

In article <BzCxy2.9tq@cmptrc.lonestar.org>, mitch@cmptrc.lonestar.org
(Mitch Veenstra) writes:
> From: mitch@cmptrc.lonestar.org (Mitch Veenstra)
> Subject: Wag Aero Sport Trainer
> 
> I've been thinking about building a plane for a long time now.  What I
really 
> want is a j3 cub look alike.  Wag Aero sells a Sport Trainer set of plans
> that is pretty much a cub in all but name.  Has anybody built any of these?
> Have you used the fuselage kit? the wing kits?  How well are the plans laid
> out?  I realize that this is not a complete 250 hour kit, that it will take
> much more time and work to complete, but thats okay.  I've got all the time
> in the world. :)  Also, has anybody used the observer supplement drawings?
> Would be pretty neet to have a L4 look alike.
> 
> Any help is greatly appreciated.
> Mitch
Haven't actually built one but did get a look at the plans. They are of
average quality. Not step by step but sufficient to build. Wag Aero used to
advertise as the CUBy until Piper cried foul. There was an excellent example
at Kerrville last year, won Plans Built category and it was beautiful. The
builder and pilot raved about the plane.

As for dealing with Wag-Aero, I think I'd steer clear of any prefab deals. I
have talked to too many folks that were dissatisfied with the quality of their
work (myself included). Although I had no problem getting a refund,
there is thelost transportation charges as well as the lost time. In the
case of a fuselage
($6 grand??) they may haggle more about a refund and I'd hate to lose that
kind of scratch.

Another source for parts would be from airplane salvage yards. Since the WAST
is an exact duplicate of the cub, you could in effect build a plane from all
scrap J-3 parts (meeting the 51% rule of course) and call it a Mitch Veenstra
Sport Trainer. I suspect the cost would be rather high however.

John Collier                    Voice:  512-838-4675 or t/l 678-4675
IBM AWD-Austin/2830             Fax:    512-838-4851 or t/l 678-4851 
collier@austin.vnet.ibm.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: bky@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (william.a.stafford)
Subject: Re: Impending Velocity factory visit
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:19:57 GMT

In the Dec (current) issue of Sport Aviation there is a small piece about
a fatal crash of a Velocity.  It would be interesting to know if the Velocity
people know any more about this. 

-=[]=-=[]=--=[]=-=[]=--=[]=-=[]=--=[|]=-=[]=--=[]=-=[]=--=[]=-=[]=--=[]=-=[]=-
Wm. A. Stafford                     |
AT&T Bell Laboratories              |  "Who would have thought reading
Display Processing Systems Group    |   and writing could pay off"
hogpg!was   201-386-7589            |       Homer Simpson



Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: klingler@triton.unm.edu (karl da id klingler)
Subject: Anyone have any Quickie, Q2, or Eagle airfoil experience?
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 07:19:43 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

Howdy.  I've got a Quickie that flew until I walked past it holding a hacksaw
blade one morning.  I'm going to Aircraft Spruce next week, and I thought I
might pick up a billet of styrofoam and some epoxy to make another set of 
wings.  I'm interested in the following:

1.  Anyone have a Quickie or Q2?  Anyone replaced the wings on their Quickie 
    or Q2?  What with?

2.  Anyone used an Eagle 1 or Eagle 2 airfoil on an airplane?  I've got 
    coordinates for the Eagle 2, but I'd be open to suggestions if someone
    likes something better or knows something I don't about the Eagle 
    airfoils.

Please send even the smallest tidbits or references to articles!

Thanks in advance,
Dave Klingler

From: mikeh@hpindda.cup.hp.com (Mike Haag)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:21:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Kitplane Construction is 'Book of the Month'
Organization: HP Information Networks, Cupertino, CA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt


What about a discount to the rec.aviation.* community?

Merry Xmas, and watch out for santa up there!
From: ransom@roboBen
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: In-Flight Adjustable pitch IVOPROP
Date: 28 Dec 92 18:23:03 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

I am also interested in IvoProp -- 2-blade for a Kolb Firestar.  I
remember at least one incident reported in the FAA FlightSafety BBS
(1-800-245-3828 I think) about IVOprops splintering when used on
a particular engine -- I think it was the Rotax 582 but check the BBS
to be sure.  One other incident from the BBS on IVOprops was a
prop that the stainless tape on the leading edge of the prop unbonded
resulting in FRIGHTENING noise and out of balance quasi-emergency.

I talked to someone at Kolb who related that he knew
of someone using an in-flight adj IVO and was very happy.  It was
a littl bit overkill but a fun addition.  He suggested it as more 
"useful" if your engine is slightly higher HP than required since 
in-flight adjustment allows lower revs for and still good cruise
speed.

One more note is that, according to technical articles in California
Power Systems (San Rafael, CA) catelog, carbon fiber props are
MUCH better for float planes as they withstand "heavy rain" w/ no
problem.  

One more (really) note is an ad' sheet I got from RPM in 1990 stating
the importance of tip mass in propellor performance.  Obviously lower
mass, especially at the tip, is better.  I don't know if the company
"RPM" still exists but I'll let you know if I find anything.

I've just ordered my Kolb so won't buy a prop for a few months.  Keep
in touch.

check who RPM is or was
1990 ish)

--

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ Ben Ransom                          ^
^ UCD Mechanical Engineering Dept.    ^
^ bwransom@ucdavis.edu, (916)752-1834 ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: jhalper@access.digex.com (John Halper)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Bushby Mustang I info
Date: 25 Dec 1992 18:10:35 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

Hi, 
   I am looking for anyone who has experience building or flying a Bushby
Mustang I. 

Thanks 
D. Halper
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: deckard@mr.med.ge.com (Todd Deckard 4-6606 MRCE)
Subject: Re: Impending Velocity factory visit
Summary: canard velocify
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 20:45:44 GMT


I believe there were two crashes involving unrecoverable deep stalls in the 
velocity.  The second was an attempt by a test pilot to reproduce the 
first accident.  As I heard the story he tried crawling under the instrument 
panel to move the CG forward, and crawling out over the nose to disrupt 
the airflow.  He elected not to bail out and was not injured (at least not 
seriously) in the crash.  

As I understand it, the adage that a canard airplane is stall proof (becuase
the canard is designed with a higher angle of incidence) is something of a 
misnomer.  For this to be true both the canard and main wing have to have 
the same wing loading. Typically the canard carries a higher loading which 
reinforces its tendency to stall first (right?). 

I am curious if you can't manuver yourself into situations where this isn't 
the case (like an abrupt pushover to unload the little wing up front) and 
find yourself in a situation where the main stalls first. Anyone with an 
aerodynamics background care to speculate on this.  Also, I'd like to know what 
the Velocity folks think about the problem.  

-Todd
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Impending Velocity factory visit
Date: 22 Dec 92 12:59:51 GMT
 <1992Dec18.185132.5173@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
 <1992Dec19.014719.9943@news.arc.nasa.gov>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Dec19.014719.9943@news.arc.nasa.gov>
doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay) writes:

> If I am mistaken and it was the strake that was
> redesigned, then the result would still have been a change in the neutral point.
> I believe they also put leading edge cuffs on the main wing. Again, this will
> change the effective neutral point.

I read all the articles concerning the modifications to the Velocity
and I don't recall the canard being modified in any way.  The canard
may have caused the initial problem when it was modified by using gap
seals which made it more effective allowing greater pitching moments
which put the main wing into deep stall.  It was the initial test with
the gap sealed canard that identified the "problem".

You aren't the only person to feel that descending at 15 mph straight
down isnt' necessarily bad, some experiments were conducted many years
ago to see if this characteristic could be engineered into aircraft as
a kind of aircraft parachute or escape feature.

Steve asked why the test pilot who managed to get the aircraft into the
deep stall situation didn't jump.  If it makes any difference, he was
over the Atlantic ocean at the time.  The only damage to the aircraft
occurred when over zealous helpers grabbed the wrong parts of the
aircraft to attempt to drag it onto the beach after being towed to
shore.

The entire story was written up at great length in Sport Aviation about
a year ago, which included the fixes.

Corky Scott
From: parsons1@applelink.apple.COM (Don Parsons)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Impending Velocity factory visit
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:05:19 GMT
Followup-To: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Dec16.135949.14803@walter.bellcore.com>,
venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh) wrote:
> 
> We will be going down to Florida in two weeks to visit the Velocity kitplane
> factory and to get checked out in the Velocity 173. I am trying to make a 
> list of things to observe and questions to ask. Send me any question that you
> would like to be aswered or observation to be made (however trivial or obvious
> it may be). It will help me in my own evaluation. I will post a report after I
> get back. But do e-mail me before Christmas.
> 
> venky

This thread has gone off on a tangent. What about questions for G A
Venkatesh? This looks like a good opportunity to get factory direct answers
and explanations, let's not pass it up...

Thanks Venky for making the offer.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: linden@devl.fnal.gov
Subject: In-Flight Adjustable pitch IVOPROP
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 19:12:40 GMT

anyone have any experience with this prop?
I am thinkimg of using it on my Avid Flyer which
will have a Subaru engine. Any estimates on how
much the adjustable prop will increase performance?
The pricr is $800 for s a 3 bladed in-flight adjustable
prop.