HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dave@exlog.com (Dave St.Clair)
Subject: Ear protection for small children
Keywords: Earplugs, HeadSets
Reply-To: dave@exlog.com
Organization: EXLOG, Inc.
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 16:47:52 GMT


(I originally tried to post this to .products and crosspost to .owning --
apparently it only made it to the crosspost.  So I'm trying again).

What does one do for ear protection for a 2 and 4 year old?  The've
flown with me a few times (local) and really enjoy it -- especially
my 4 year old.  The only problem is the noise level.  As I'm about
ready to purchase a plane (cherokee 180), I thought I'd check the
net.experience.

Does anyone with small kids use headsets?  When I fly without kids
(just me and my wife), we both don our FlightCom 5DX's.
Highly recommend these. We've thought about buying the low end FlightComs
for the kids.  Are there any headsets just for the little ones?
Or should we just try earplugs?

Any opinions/experiences welcome.

dave st.clair
dave@exlog.com







Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Subject: Re: Flyers Recreation Guide
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 07:40:47 GMT

In article <144738@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> chubb@s65.es.llnl.gov (Kris Chubb 38463) writes:
> 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.

My, you have a long memory.  :-)  From an article in June of '89, I wrote:

    It's the Flyer's Recreation Guide by Reed I. White,
    published by Alta Research, P.O. Box 1001, Sebastopol,
    CA 95472.  The cost is $24.95.

The cost has probably since gone up.

							Geoff
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: len@Tandem.com (Len Fishler)
Subject: Re: Flyers Recreation Guide
Organization: Tandem Computers
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 23:49:30 GMT

In article <144738@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, chubb@s65.es.llnl.gov (Kris Chubb 38463) writes:
|> Pardon me for asking but...
No pardon required (:-)).
|> 
|> 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.
|> 

I've got a copy at home.  It's a pretty good book, kind of focused on flying
to out of the way neat places and hiking once you're there. It also covers 
fly-in sightseeing spots.  The area covered is the Western United States.  I 
bought my copy locally, at one of the on-airport pilot's shops around here, 
but I've seen it in Sporty's catalog, as well.

- Len Fishler -
fishler_len@tandem.com
PP-ASEL-IA
Centurion N3784Y RHV
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.misc
From: philf@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez)
Subject: Re: One of my "heard on the air" postings in IFR unattributed
Organization: Jade and Jett Incorporated
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 05:43:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.022413.2879@EE.Stanford.EDU> siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:
>   Certainly don't want to start a flame war here, but let me ask:
>given for example the kinds of strict legal restrictions that apply to
>reproducing overhead cellular phone conversations and the like, is it
>really all that valid to post something "heard on the air" to the net
>in the first place?

Well, all ATC conversations are, I think, a matter of "public record."
That is, all are in fact recorded by the FAA, and are retained for at
least a brief period.  I believe that anyone can obtain such a
recording under the Freedom of Information act.  (Notice the "I
believes" and "I thinks" here...I believe these to be facts, but would
welcome correction if I have this wrong.)

Also, ATC conversations take place on an open, "party-line"
communication channel, which may be freely monitored by anyone owning
a $19.95 receiver.

I think this all suggests that it's "valid" to post transcripts of ATC
communications.  Note that 99.9% of the time (and 100% of the time in
any such postings that I've done), no actual identities are ever
included in these anecdotal transcripts.  For example, I'll always use
a made-up N-number.

>   To put this in another way, independent of the strict legalities of
>the whole thing, if what's posted to the net is really originally
>"heard on the air" and hence is "in the public domain" in a sense, and
>if it's OK to reproduce that on the net, does the poster then really
>acquire more rights in the words than the individual(s) who uttered
>them in the first place?  

I personally would never claim to have rights to words spoken on an
ATC channel.  However, this is somewhat different from having rights
to the whole of a written article that includes some quotes from an ATC
communication.  This is analogous to a newspaper, which doesn't have
rights to the specific words of a Presidential speech, but definitely
has rights to a story in which quotes are embedded.

>  Or, if you've reproduced someone else's words without _their_
>permission, have you a valid complaint when someone else then
>reproduces your (unauthorized) reproduction of their words without
>_your_ permission?

A typical "heard on the air" posting usually relates context and
contains comments about the event.  To the extent that I think I have
any valid complaint, it would be that my posting, taken as a whole and
re-printed verbatim, contains some "public domain" quotations plus a
unique contribution that I've made by bringing it together and writing
a little story in a way that may be understood and enjoyed by others.

And finally, my usual disclaimer on this topic:  I'm not really
worried about my rights here.  I am worried about the general issue of
Usenet postings reappearing in other media without attribution.  I
personally am much less interested in issues of authorization.

pmf



Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: vandeyar@cmgm.stanford.edu (Mark A. Vandeyar)
Subject: Southern European Scenery for MS-Flight Sim
Keywords: flight
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 09:36:17 GMT

Hi,

Does anybody know of an ftp site where I could obtain scenery and airports
for ms-flight simulator 4.

Thanks,

Mark

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: tjohnson@tjohnson.mentorg.com (Tom Johnson)
Subject: Look for Tow Plane
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 18:41:37 GMT
Reply-To: tom_johnson@mentorg.com
Organization: Mentor Graphics Corporation
Keywords: 
Followup-To: 

Our soaring club is searching for a new tow plane.

If any of you have a plane suitable for towing gliders
that you want to sell, please contact me.

We are particularly interested in the following aircraft.

     Pawnee   

     Ag-Wagon (I think, is the Ag-Wagon single wing?)

     Super Cub 150/180

     Maule

     180 Scout (or Citabria)

Thank you.

  Tom Johnson
  home (503) 638-0384
  work (503) 685-7000 ext 3523
  or e-mail tom_johnson@mentorg.com
From: martinl@torolab6.VNET.IBM.COM
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 09:18:18 EST
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Aircraft Tuned Exhausts
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: Usenet 3.0

I have a question for you airplane engine experts - how do you design a
tuned exhaust for a Lycoming IO-540? (6 cylinder). I know there are
several tuned exhausts available for the IO-360s (four cylinders).
These seem to mostly be the cross-over type (two front cylinders
joined to one pipe, the two rear cylinders joined to another). As I
remember, a Lycoming 4 banger has a firing order of 1-3-2-4
(two left side cylinders fire, followed by the two right side jugs),
so the exhaust gases would have longer time to clear the exhaust
system. If this is correct, then what power advantage would this give
over straight stacks? (Which brings up another question - how important
is backpressure to the performance of an airplane engine?) Most Lycoming
installations I have seen have 'Y' pipes - the two jugs on one side of the
engine join into a common pipe. On my bird, I have all three jugs on one
side into one common pipe.

It is claimed that a properly tuned crossover system will net you 10%
increase in horsepower. Comments?

I have seen (including in this month's issue of Sport Aviation) several
examples of each jug having it's own exhaust, with all pipes being
about the same length. It is claimed that this is an attempt at tuning,
yet all pipes exhaust into the open air. I might see the logic if the
four pipes joined into one common collector, but what tuning could
there be for the open exhaustsystem, execpt for back pressure?

Of course, there is always the case of 'true' tuning. This is when
the pipes are of such a length (same length for each cylinder),
such that on the exhaust stroke during the valve overlap (when both
intake & exhaust valves are open), the pressure wave in the exhaust will
draw some of the fresh fuel/air mixture out of the cylinder into the
exhaust pipes, and the pressure wave will then reverse before the
exhaust valve closes, to pack the previously drawn out gases back into
the cylinder. As I understand it, you need a 1/2 or 1/4 wave length
pipe to have this effect. For airplane engine, running at 2600 rpm,
this is quite long, and impractical to fit. (It appears to me that
this is not the principle that the crossover system operates on, as
the path lengths for the two jugs tied together is different - The
common pipe is not in the middle of the engine, but rather runs down
on side).

Can anyone out there offer any advice? References? I have read quite
a few textbooks & SAE articles of engine design, but never found
anything really useful.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.misc
From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com
Subject: Re: One of my "heard on the air" postings in IFR unattributed
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 14:38:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.003146.8745@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us>, philf@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez) writes:
> 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

Sounds like they're getting 'desparate' for material.
From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Frost accumulation
Date: 29 Dec 92 20:00:06 GMT
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)

In article <23DEC199213460702@venus.lerc.nasa.gov>, fskevin@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Kevin R. Kirtley (SVER)) writes:
> In article <2566@usna.NAVY.MIL>, dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)) writes...
> 
> >Suppose you `polish' the thin coat of ice nice and smooth, hold
> >extra airspeed etc. All the things you have done before and
> >gotten away with.
> > 
> >Now while accelerating down the runway for take-off the
> >vibration, increased airflow, etc causes part of the
> >ice coating on the leading edge of ONE wing to break away.
> >You now have extreme roughness right at the leading edge.
> >Upon rotation for lift-off there is a very good possibility
> >that the airfoil and hence a good part of the wing will
> >stall. 
> 
> IMHO the wing will not stall.  The flow near the leading edge of the wing
> is dominated by inertial forces, i.e., inviscid. Such a flow is not strongly
> influenced by surface roughness.  ...  But a rough, even very
> rough leading edge will only cause the boundary layer to transition to
> turbulent earlier or if already turbulent, more turbulent.  The result may
> actually be beneficial since turbulent boundary layers can sustain stronger
> adverse pressure gradients than laminar or transitional boundary layers and so
> can inhibit boundary layer separation near the trailing edge.

	I'll second Prof. Rogers' expectation that "there is a very good
	possibility that ... a good part of the wing will stall".
	One factor is that normal takeoff rotation for most aircraft goes
	to an AOA near that for Cl_max.  In this AOA range an earlier
	transition to a turbulent boundary layer typically is accompanied
	by an earlier transition to a separated boundary layer -- in
	other words, more of the wing will stall.

	The cases that I'm aware of that benefit by delibrately making
	the boundary layer turbulent use this technique primarily at
	relatively lower AOA's, and initiate this turbulence at point
	on the chord that's well aft of the leading edge.  The only
	exception I can think of is for a different purpose, tripping
	a clean and clearly recognizable stall break on a wing that
	otherwise has a fairly gradual transition to stalled.


------------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@Unify.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: Re: Frost accumulation
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 14:21:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.014917.16187@ichips.intel.com> papworth@pdx022 (David Papworth) writes:
>
>Don't pour antifreeze on the windshield. (It might well be bad for 
>the plexiglass). Don't try to use a scraper (it leaves scratches).
>Pour pure (hot) water on it, and use paper towels to remove the excess.
>
Oops. Don't use paper towels on a plexiglas windshield.  Depending upon
the quality of the wood fibers from which they were made, paper towels 
will leave fine abrasive scratches on plastic windshields.  I know :-(.
Use a soft cloth instead.

Dan Masys
masys@nlm.nih.gov
From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Frost accumulation
Date: 31 Dec 92 20:53:08 GMT
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)

In article <1992Dec31.161612.28414@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, tostan@dumbo.lerc.nasa.gov (Stan Mohler) writes:
> 
> Using the data in the paper, here's a quick prediction for a small plane with a 
> 5-foot chord wing.  Assume frost or ice with a roughness height of 0.3mm. ...
... the
> small plane could still lose about 15 percent of its maximum lift.  I can't
> predict stall for this Reynolds no. from the data. 
> 
> The point is, small roughness at the leading edge IS very dangerous, but
> light planes get somewhat of a break because they are at lower Reynolds no's.

	Choice of airfoil can make a lot of difference.  Sailplanes,
	using laminar-flow airfoils, suffer much larger performance
	degradation.  Many show more than 30% decrease in lift/drag ratio
	due to rain or bugs on the leading edge.  This is despite flying
	at an even lower Reynolds number, with speed for max L/D typically
	near between 50 and 60 knots (without water ballast), stall around
	15 knots lower, and mean chord around a couple feet instead of 5.
	Of course exact numbers vary depending on type of sailplane.


------------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@Unify.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: fskevin@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Kevin R. Kirtley (SVER))
Subject: Re: Frost accumulation
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 23 Dec 1992 13:46 EDT  

In article <2566@usna.NAVY.MIL>, dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)) writes...

Admonitions against flying with frost on the wings deleted:

> 
>Let's take a sort of worst case situation:
> 
>Suppose you `polish' the thin coat of ice nice and smooth, hold
>extra airspeed etc. All the things you have done before and
>gotten away with.
> 
>Now while accelerating down the runway for take-off the
>vibration, increased airflow, etc causes part of the
>ice coating on the leading edge of ONE wing to break away.
>You now have extreme roughness right at the leading edge.
>Upon rotation for lift-off there is a very good possibility
>that the airfoil and hence a good part of the wing will
>stall. 

IMHO the wing will not stall.  The flow near the leading edge of the wing
is dominated by inertial forces, i.e., inviscid. Such a flow is not strongly
influenced by surface roughness.  Of course ice accretion which changes the
gross shape of the leading edge is another story.  But a rough, even very
rough leading edge will only cause the boundary layer to transition to
turbulent earlier or if already turbulent, more turbulent.  The result may
actually be beneficial since turbulent boundary layers can sustain stronger
adverse pressure gradients than laminar or transitional boundary layers and so
can inhibit boundary layer separation near the trailing edge.

Even with this opinion, I'm not the least bit interested in keeping frost
and ice on my aircraft while flying.  You see, ice likes to stick to ice.
Got a little ... get a lot.

Kevin 'yeh I gots one of those PhuDs too' Kirtley
Short Wing Piper Lover

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: jmmatthe@apgea.army.mil (Jeffrey M. Matthews <jmmatthe>)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Frost accumulation
Date: 23 Dec 92 21:52:08 GMT
Organization: CRDEC APG

In article <23DEC199213460702@venus.lerc.nasa.gov> fskevin@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Kevin R. Kirtley (SVER)) writes:
>In article <2566@usna.NAVY.MIL>, dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)) writes...
>
>Admonitions against flying with frost on the wings deleted:
>
>> 
>>Let's take a sort of worst case situation:
>> 
>>Suppose you `polish' the thin coat of ice nice and smooth, hold
>>extra airspeed etc. All the things you have done before and
>>gotten away with.
>> 
>>Now while accelerating down the runway for take-off the
>>vibration, increased airflow, etc causes part of the
>>ice coating on the leading edge of ONE wing to break away.
>>You now have extreme roughness right at the leading edge.
>>Upon rotation for lift-off there is a very good possibility
>>that the airfoil and hence a good part of the wing will
>>stall. 
>
>IMHO the wing will not stall.  The flow near the leading edge of the wing
>is dominated by inertial forces, i.e., inviscid. Such a flow is not strongly
>influenced by surface roughness.  Of course ice accretion which changes the
>gross shape of the leading edge is another story.  But a rough, even very
>rough leading edge will only cause the boundary layer to transition to
>turbulent earlier or if already turbulent, more turbulent.  The result may
>actually be beneficial since turbulent boundary layers can sustain stronger
>adverse pressure gradients than laminar or transitional boundary layers and so
>can inhibit boundary layer separation near the trailing edge.

I used to fly a Super Cruiser with the original 3S leading edges, which looke
like they'd been worked over with a golf club.  The wings had been repainted
with enamel, which had started peeling, and the previous owner had tried to
stick the flakes back down with another couple of coats.  Looked like an al-
ligator; the roughness had to be about 1/8 in.  Plane flew OK.  The takeoff
performance was underwhelming, though a 100 hp Lyc., a curise-ish prop, and
the extra weight may have detracted from the performance as much as the wing.
Dunno about the cruise speed; I never believed the ASI, but I can't remember
now whether I thought it was reading too low or too high.

'Course the Cruiser had an extremely forgiving wing, and lots of it.  And I
never had occasion to ask it for all it was supposed to be able to do.

J. Matthews
If you use this information, you will surely die.  If that fails to happen,
return said advice and I will refund your purchase price.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
From: fskevin@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Kevin R. Kirtley (SVER))
Subject: Re: Frost accumulation
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 23 Dec 1992 13:51 EDT  

Of course my previous post does not apply to truely natural laminar flow
wings as owners of early Rutan designs will attest.

KRK

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.ifr
From: pnegus@rugby.Corp.Sun.COM (Paul Negus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Conversion of Ratings
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:33:57 GMT
Reply-To: pnegus@rugby.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rugby.corp.sun.com



Anyone know how to convert a CAA private license (Britain) over to a US one? 


thanks - Paul Negus
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: edan@netcom.com (Edan Shalev)
Subject: Re: Decathlons and spins
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 06:02:39 GMT

Decathalons spin very good upright and inverted and have never had any problems
recovering from the hundreds of spins (upright,u-flat,inverted,i-flat)
that I have done.. but on one of the reply's to this question stated that
pusing the yoke of a cessna would stop a spin.  Well this is true, but you
have to be carful in the order you do this, it makes a big difference!
because when I want to ACCELERATE a spin, i push the yoke/stick foward!
so if you are in a spin, and push the stick foward you are just going to
make it spin faster and make it harder to recover.  Pushing the stick foward
(while rudder is held) causes the wing with lift to get more lift, which
results in the speeding up of rotation.

You have to give opposite rudder to slow the rotation, then move the stick
foward to stop it.  So giving a stong push on the stick foward at the
wrong time can lead to a few unwanted turns in the spin, and make the pilot
feel uncertain about the plane's ability to recover from spins.

-Edan

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: jrp@bohra.cpg.oz.au (John Pitman)
Subject: Decathlons and spins
Organization: Computer Power Software Group Pty Ltd
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:32:20 GMT

Hi there,
I have been told that Decathlons , once in a spin are difficult to recover
from, or at least require flying out, rather than just neutralize controls and
they come out by themselves. can anybody clarify/confirm/deny this assertion 
please?
jp
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc