HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bills@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bill Standerfer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: big iron on short runways
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:39:19 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO

In article <1992Aug9.020706.2630@seq.uncwil.edu>, cosper@seq.uncwil.edu (Kit
Cosper) writes:
>>PS: the Super King Air 200 is the biggest of the King Airs.
>
>	Not anymore, now there is the 350.  MTOW of it is 15K lbs.,
>	compared to the 12.5K lb. MTOW of the 200.  Story I heard
>	from a friend who has a friend who works for Beech is that
>	the only difference between the two is engine rating.
>	Seems that the marketing guys wanted to keep the 200
>	out of the heavy class in order to make it more attractive
>	to the customer.  Later they supposedly completed the
>	paperwork for the higher MTOW and thus the 350 was born.

The 350 has a different wing than the 200 or the 300.  It has a longer
wingspan and winglets to improve cruise performance.  The 350 also has a
higher gross weight than the *300*, which is larger than the *200*.  And,
since the 350 has the higher gross weight of over 12,500 pounds, it requires a
type rating, although it is approved for single pilot operation.  If the memory
server is still functioning, I believe there is some deal where you can fly it
a 12.5K and below without the type rating, but you have to have it for ops
above that weight (effectively limits the number of passengers you put at risk,
I guess).

Bill "lusting after a King Air" Standerfer
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: pdb1@ra.msstate.edu (Philip D Bridges)
Subject: Re: Why not a bi-winged sailplane??
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:30:34 GMT

bullock@watson.bms.com (JOAN BULLOCK) writes:
>>I have been wondering if a bi-winged design would be feasable for a
>>sailplane.   
>..

 Apart from aesthetics and ground handling considerations, the main
drawback is probably the higher induced drag that is caused by the
mutual interference between the two wings. The interference results
in the biplane having to be flown at a higher angle of attack than
an equivalent monoplane to generate the same lift. This increases
the induced drag. Since the name of the game in soaring is low drag,
this would probably discourage biplane gliders. A good discussion
of this is given in "The Design of the Aeroplane" by Darrol 
Stinton, a book published by Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Hope this helps.


 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|      Philip Bridges                 |  "Strive for design simplicity:  |
|      Dept. of Aerospace Eng.        |   you never have to fix anything |
|      Miss. State University         |   you leave out."                |
|      (601) 325-3623                 |                                  |
|      pdb1@ra.msstate.edu            |           Bill Lear (1903-1978)  |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: I give up...
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:45:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23479
Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP ()
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner NJ

In article <greg.714148959@saltydog> greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis) writes:

> Question:  Why do they insist that you specify the "route" portion of
> your IFR flightplan in the NE?  It's not like you're EVER going to use it!

Because you aren't always cleared all the way to your destination
before departure.  If you have a radio failure, they will expect you
to follow your clearance until it ends, then follow the route in your
flight plan.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: M21208@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: New ARSA question
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:44:57 GMT

In article <16c2peINNq79@smaug.West.Sun.COM>
brianh@pongo.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Horn) writes:
 
>FARS, FARS, FARS...
>
>91.130 Airport radar service areas.
>(b) Deviations.  An operator may deviate from any provision of this section
>under the provisions of an ATC authorization issued by the ATC facility
>having jurisdiction of the airport radar service area.  ATC may authorize
>a deviation on a continuing basis or for an individual flight, as
>appropriate.
>
>91.131  Terminal control areas.
>(a) (1)  No person may operate an aircraft within a terminal control
>area unless that person has received an appropriate authorization from
>ATC prior to operation of that aircraft in that area.
>
And to go along with the FARs, the ATC handbook, ARSA section:
 
Termination of Service:  (stuff deleted) "Terminate ARSA service to aircraft
landing at other than the primary airport at a sufficient distance from the
airport to allow the pilot to change to the appropriate frequency for traffic
and airport information."
From: jimm@simsol.UUCP (Jim Morris)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: "remain clear of the ARSA..." (response to Geoff)
Date: 11 Aug 92 16:37:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: simsol.170
Organization: Systems Simulation Solutions, Beaverton, OR

In article <skip.124.713448021@mitre.org>, skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild) writes:
> 
> This reminds me of the situation they have in the LA basin area where 
> VFR east bound departures from Van Nuys are expected to fly 5 miles south, 
> then 5 miles west below the lip of the Burbank ARSA, then continue another 
> 5 miles west while climbing, and then a climbing right turn to the northeast 
> to the Van Nuys VOR before heading off to the southeast into the LA basin, 
> just the avoid the Burbank ARSA!  What a bummer.

Just so you will know that it is not only VFR traffic that gets picked on in the
LA basin, consider this:  I have departed Long Beach IFR, northbound, twice in the
last couple of years. The clearance was the same each time. It sent me about
15 miles east, then fifteen miles north, then fifteen miles back to the west
before I could finally proceed north to Lake Hughes.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: smith@ur-guh.com (Russ Smith)
Subject: Re: Commercial and Military Simulators
Keywords: simulators, memories
Reply-To: smith@ur-guh.com
Organization: Ur-Guh Complex Inc.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:34:46 GMT

Ron Natalie mentioned a simulator at the University of Maryland. A while
back I worked in the Wind Tunnel building there. They had a couple IFR simulators
in the Aeronautical Engineering department -- one was an old LINK GA-type that
moved, etc (even had/has stubby wings!); the other was a fixed position F101
simulator. The latter had been donated by the Air Force to the department
(or the equivalent "sell to State as surplus for a $1") -- it had a HUGE
electronics rack running it (like two long walls worth), -watercooled-
(had a hose hooked up to a faucet), tube powered, and was usually broken
in some way. My intro to it was a (very) short ride, canopy down, where my
AE collegue tried to "demonstrate" a lightning strike (flash, boom, smoke,
instrument failure, big laugh for AE guy, wet pants for demoee as he frantically
attempts to get out of plane (probably without thinking about the eject handles))
-- fortunately for my heart, it didn't work (at the time, nerdy-CMSC-type-me
didn't even know why planes took off into the wind). Would be really neat to
have it in the basement hooked up to Falcon 3.0...

[I seem to respond to a lot of Ron's postings -- no good reason other than
he tends to mention things with which I have some familiarity...must be
an East Coaster sort of thing...]

Russ <Smith@ur-guh.com>





Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu
Subject: Ray Ban sunglasses for sale
Organization: Pomona College
Date: 15 Aug 92 19:22:41 PDT

I have a set of Ray Ban's Classic Aviators sunglasses (58mm gray lens, black
metal frame), brand new, never used, that I'd like to sell.

Sporty's has them at $64 plus shipping, I've seen them at the local mall for
$59 plus tax.

I'm asking $50, including shipping. If interested, please contact me at the
address below. The carrying case is included, of course.

______________________________________________________________________________
Javier Henderson, N6VBG         | Beat the 55mph limit (legally):
jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu | Learn to fly!
From: rym20@cd.amdahl.com (Robert A Moragues)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Second Solo - and a question
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:54:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


In article <1992Aug14.153019.16446@eecs.nwu.edu>, phil@eecs.nwu.edu
(William LeFebvre) writes:

[comments about s-turns, 360's deleted]

> ... But with only 120 hours in the book, I am still
>taking the attitude "why take unnecessary risks?"  Perhaps I am being
>overly cautious.  . . . [sig deleted]

Now a message from a local lurker...

I totally agree with this rationale.  Recently, I was confronted with a 
situation where I chose to "wimp out" rather than push a bad situation.
I had plans to fly from RHV to LVK (Livermore, about 20 minutes away) to 
pick up a couple of friends to go for a night Bay Tour I flew up to 
Livermore just before sunset.  

After loading the passengers and starting the plane.  I realized that all
internal cockpit lights were out.  While this is not a particularly 
dangerouse situation, I decided that it would be better to just take the 
plane back to its home base solo, rather than do "flashlight in the mouth"
approaches at night in a heavily loaded plane which I didn't have a lot of
hours in.  (The airplane was a 172; most of my time is in 152s) I am
sure that first time passengers would not have been interested in the
hard landing that may have resulted if I had difficulty pegging the
airspeed where I wanted it.

The end result was an uneventful trip back to RHV where I squawked the hell out
of the airplane. 

-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Bob Moragues         |  PP-ASEL       +
+ rym20@cd.amdahl.com  |  USPA C-18338  +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: anderson@world.std.com (Dave Anderson)
Subject: I give up...
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:20:28 GMT


From yesterday's Boston Area Forecast synopsis section:

  SC FA 121345 AMD 2
  SYNOPSIS AND VFR CLDS/WX
  SYNOPSIS VALID UNTIL 130300
  CLDS/WX VALID UNTIL 122100...OTLK VALID 122100-130300
  .
  SYNOPSIS...09Z CDFNT EXTDG FROM NS ACRS CAPE COD AND DELMARVA PEN
  TO SWRN NC AND NRN MS WILL MOV SLOLY EWD THRU 03Z. SFC RDG BLDS
  SLOLY EWD ACRS AREA TO W OF FNT. ...CUNDY...
  .
  
Excuse me, but, qu'est-ce que c'est un "CUNDY"?  
 
===============================================================================
  Dave Anderson - ATP/CFII - ASMEL
  Concurrent Computer Corporation              508-392-2441
  One Technology Way                           dla@westford.ccur.com
  Westford, MA 01886                           anderson@world.std.com
===============================================================================
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Osh sig haps: The hail, you say.
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:23:51 GMT
 <5879.2a8f828d@hayes.com>  
 <1992Aug18.151624.26224@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

While I also am not an aerodynamic engineer I think I understand why
biplanes aren't being built much anymore for serious traveling
machines.  If I remember correctly there are two basic problems.  One
is interference, the airflow from the one wing affects the airflow of
the other, to the detriment of both.  This isn't a severe effect but it
was noticeable and aerodynamicists knew about it as early as the late
20's when experiments occured to try to space the wings way apart.  It
didn't help.  The other reason is drag and weight.  While two wings
theoretically produce twice the lift, they also produce twice the drag
and the extra spar's and attachments make for a heavier total weight.

This is off the top of my head from readings many years ago so I won't
be surprised to see corrections.

Corky Scott
From: jle@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jer/ Eberhard)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 01:07:42 GMT
Subject: Re: INFO-WANTED: Beechcraft Musketeer
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

> Beechcraft Musketeer. 

Yes, I owned one of these...  

This is the Beech equivalent of a Cessna-172.
It cruises a little slower than the 172, with a little less
load carrying capability.

> strong points?

This aircraft is built like a tank.  It has the "big airplane" feel
of the other Beechcraft airplanes.

The cabin is roomy.  After all, it is a Beechcraft

> weak points?

To actually fly... it needs to have the 200hp fuel injected engine.

With the 180hp engine a C-172 outperforms it.

The yoke is "spring loaded" to "0" degress aileron.  If you
actually want to keep some aileron applied, it is very tiring
to hold that correction.

Two of my "total, catastrophic engine failures" were in the Musketeer.
Both times, the alternator (generator??  I forgot already!)  exploded
due to the case being "crystalized" and the casting exploding, filling
the engine with case parts, which also took out both ignition systems on
the engine.  On a happy note, both engine failures (at night) resolved
to the airport and no further damage was incured.  It turned out that
the casing were both from the same lot.

> spare parts?

Expensive (read Beechcraft... now, read: REAL EXPENSIVE!)

Jer/ Eberhard, (SLASH), HAM = N0FZD     | Hewlett-Packard - MS99, 1UP10,15'East
Pilot: COMM, INST, CFI-Airplane & Glider| 3404 East Harmony Road (303) 229-2861
CAP CFI, Check & Mission, Pikes Peak 218| Fort Collins, Colorado  80525-9599 
EMAIL:  jle@fc.hp.com or Jer_Eberhard@fc.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: Hawker Siddeley Vulcan
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 00:29:14 GMT

Bill Staniewicz writes
> I was watching an old James Bond film and found one
> of the aircraft portrayed rather interesting. It was
> a Hawker Siddeley Vulcan. Does anyone know if this
> aircraft is currently being used and in what capacity?


The Vulcans were bombers (initially intended as nuclear  
bombers; their only action was in the Falklands).  They  
have all been retired.

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
Xref: sparky rec.aviation:13331 sdnet.general:132
From: mikey@slic.cts.com (Mike Shirley)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,sdnet.general
Subject: Re: Need Info on Miramar NAS Airshow
Summary: Great show...go for it!
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 20:47:04 PDT
Distribution: sdnet
Organization: Muth Valley Seismic Control District, San Diego, CA / Port2

bruceh@fps.com (Bruce T. Hill) writes:

> All today I have been watching the Blue Angels practice outside my office.
> Wow!  They have been pretty low (well less than 1000'), fast and loud.
> 
> Does anybody have the show schedule for this weekend's airshow?

Sorry no but 1400 has been the scheduled time for the Blue Angels
in past years.

> 
> Anyone have any tips for a first time attendee with two small children?

Take lots of water/drinks.  Lines can be long for buying.  Take
shade of some sort and 2 or 3 blankets (for padding).  Take
toys/books to keep kids busy.  Take an extra person to help with
kids so that you can see static displays, restrooms, etc.  Or
DON'T take small children.  They will get bored, scared, tired
soon.  Plan for the entire day.  Air displays start in the late
morning, the BA's are the finale.
> 
> Saturday vs. Sunday?

Don't matter, just get there early.  It is a great show.  But
very crowded, hot, lots of traffic.  Not for the thin-skinned.

There is a full show on Friday.  Closed to public.  Unless you
have a source.  Only 5-20% of the crowd as public days.  I'll be
there!!!  Yippy...

--
     Mike, WB6WUI   //   INET:  mikey@slic.cts.com   //   GEnie: SLIC
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: ggr@koonda.acci.com.au (Greg Rose)
Subject: Re: partial power loss, speed
Organization: Australian Computing and Communications Institute
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 04:11:14 GMT

In article <BsvKDw.3y0@cup.hp.com> joea@hpucsft (Joe Algieri) writes:
>Keep in mind that best climb speed will require an INCREASE in drag; increased
>lift requires an increase in induced drag.  Best glide speed is the airspeed
>at which both induced and parasitic drag combined are at a minimum.
[and many others have said similar]

I can't imagine why no-one has pointed out that Induced drag,
parasitic drag, and total drag, are all at a minimum when airspeed is
zero! At this speed, of course, lift is also zero, and your L/D ration
is undefined (although unlikely to be helpful...) :-)

Remember to watch out for boundary conditions. The discussion assumes
an unstalled condition.

--
Greg Rose                 Australian Computing and Communications Institute
ggr@acci.com.au                                              +61 3 282 2532
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: mvore@access.digex.com (Michael Vore)
Subject: Re: Noisy Schweizer release
Keywords: gliding
Organization: Mid Atlantic Soaring Association, Fairfield Pa.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:02:32 GMT

rlarsen@bnr.ca (Richard Larsen P220) writes:

>Steve Peltz mentioned the loud noise when operating a Schweizer release. This
>can be avoided by doing a soft release. Just before releasing climb about 30 
>feet above the tow plane then dive down to tow plane level. This puts slack in
> the tow rope for a soft (silent) release.

And the tow pilot may not hear you release - then he climbs a few hundred feet
more before he knows you're gone and charges you for the extra alitiude.


-- 
/*------------------------------+----------------------------------------*/
  Mike Vore  W3CCV              |    DC - Food-SIG
    mvore@digex.com             |    Ka-8  MU at W73
    mvore@fedix.fie.com         |    Mid-Atlantic Soaring Association
/*------------------------------+----------------------------------------*/
From: dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC))
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Lawerence Airport -- info wanted
Keywords: Lawerence, info
Date: 15 Aug 92 19:31:28 GMT
Distribution: usa

G'day,
 
My son in `Boston' has moved and the closest airport now looks
like Lawrence (LWM) vice Hanscom.
 
The book lists the following FBO's
 
Million Air
 
Curtis Aircraft Services
 
Phoenix East Aviation
 
Eagle Flight Center
 
Four Star Aviation
 
Anyone have any experience with any of these FBO's good or bad?
How about fuel prices?
 
Dave Rogers
dfr@usna.navy.mil
 
P.S. BTW there is a `little' airport at Haverhill itself. Looks
like it is combined with a seaplane base. Anyone have any info.
on this one?

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: bluejay@feathr.enet.dec.com (Bluejay Adametz)
Subject: Re: Engine swaps, dash-numbers, and the Feds
Reply-To: bluejay@feathr.enet.dec.com (Bluejay Adametz)
Organization: Technical Support & Magic
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:41:35 GMT


In article <l94uh1INN847@peaches.cs.utexas.edu>, bunda@cs.utexas.edu (John Bunda) writes:
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Subject: Scary Stories, was: Encore for mpucket
Keywords: rec.aviation, netiquette, Never Again
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 22:38:41 GMT

Margaret mentioned that there are LOTS of "we could learn" stories out
there that folks are afraid to post.

Hmm,
Is there anyone on the net that might be trusted to accept those
stories folks are afraid to admit to, sanitize them, and post them?

Then we can flame away, and only embarrass ourselves in doing so ;-}

--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: hagood@sabre.den.mmc.com (Dave Hagood)
Subject: Re: Flames (and bumper stickers)
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 14:51:48 GMT

In article <l8vod7INNrs7@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, wsanders@ffeine.Sun.COM (Wiley Sanders) writes:
|> Unfortunately, the obscene and harassing responses to Margaret's
|> (and other women in other newsgroups) postings come through email, not
|> in postings to the net. There's no way to kill those.
|> 

	Really?  I thought the posted flames were bad enough.

	Has Margaret (or any other woman afflicted with similar attention)
tried contacting the organization who owned the computer system used to
send the offending mail and complained?  I manage a computer network here
at Martin, and if I got such a complaint and could verify it, the least
that would happen to the miscreant is termination of all of his access
privileges.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
									|
David M. Hagood			Martin Marietta Astronautics Group	|
									|
Voice:  (303) 977-9657		When in danger, or in doubt,		|
E-mail: hagood@den.mmc.com	Run in circles, scream and shout.	|
Fax: (303) 977-1530							|
									|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
     static char *disclaimer = "My opinions, not Martin Marietta's."    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: Moffet Airshow (need info)
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 17:01:58 GMT

Hoi Chong writes
> What kind of aircrafts will be there?  How close can we 
> get to each type of aircraft as Joe "Just-Walk-in"
> Public?  I am both a aircraft enthusist  (ok, maybe not 
> that much, but  I am taking PVT lesson) and a 
> photographer, and  would like  to know what kind of
> lens (how much  telephoto) I need to  bring.     
> 
> Thanks. 

You can usually get pretty close to the static park -- in  
fact, too close for proper pictures sometimes.  But as with  
all US airshows, its a long way to the flight line.

So 50mm or wide-angle will work best for the static park  
(go early or stay late for the best shots), but you'll need  
at least 200mm or better 300mm for anything flying (except  
formation shots of the Blues)

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation