HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: conover@nuchat.sccsi.com (Mark Allen Conover)
Subject: Lurker Licensed
Organization: South Coast Computing Services, Inc.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:07:54 GMT

The positive brain-waves were really coming in Saturday.  
Now, I am Captain Conover (lurker / trainee puke no more).  Gotta get
a leather jacket and long scarf.  A few hours ago, I passed my 
check-ride!  Didn't screw up much at all.  The previous day's manuevers with
my instructor were pretty cruddy, compared to Saturday's with the DE.
That was a surprise.  However, my soft-field landing was questionable.

The examiner was very helpful, offering tips on little things.  
During the oral part of the test, he guided me toward a correct
answer on a couple of things.  Having taken the written exam the
day before, I was very fresh on the material.
 
One other thing.  Don't do this:  If the DE (or your instructor) pulls
power to simulate an engine out, don't try to put down on an airfield for 
radio-controlled models. Mine actually seemed to think it was funny.  
Glad he was in a good mood.   I was proud of myself for locating
what appeared to be a nice grassy (though maybe a little short) airstrip.
Could actually see planes parked next to it.  Soon, it was clear that these 
were pretty small planes (1/4 scale models?).  The strip was long 
enough to land on if this had been an actual emergency.   
Still, the previously inexpressive guy next to me had a faint smile.  

I will always remember Saturday.  And the family of rec.aviators (fractious as
they are sometimes) who provided an important source of information and
friendship.

Mark Conover //conover@nuchat.sccsi.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: Free lunch?
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:55:35 GMT

In article <9211161929.AA07484@bi.twinsun.com> junio@bi.twinsun.com (Jun Hamano) writes:
>Yesterday when I was trying to figure out where I would like to
>go on my solo cross country, somebody told me that at California
>City solo XC student pilots can get a free burger.  Does anybody
>know of other places where we can get something like that?
>


Just like other things in life....

Q.  Do you know what the difference is between free and paying for it?












A.  Free costs more!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulator,rec.aviation.student
From: Hal <blacker@arco.com>
Subject: Re: FS 4.0 instruction, power <-> airspeed
Organization: Arco
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1b2
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:35:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.212846.28309@ccad.uiowa.edu> Yiannis Papelis,
yiannis@ccad.uiowa.edu writes:
>During the approach lesson I noticed it said to use power
>to control the airspeed.  I was taught that power controls altitude
>and elevator controls airspeed, at least within certain envelope limits.
From: bill@tucson.sie.arizona.edu (Bill Ganoe)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: Questionable Questions on
Summary: Finer detail
Date: 22 Nov 92 05:30:12 GMT
Organization: SIE Dept.,  Univ. of Arizona,  Tucson, AZ

In article <116.186.uupcb@ssr.com>, dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) writes:
 > KBK> .7128.  What minimum equipment is required for VFR operation within a
 >    > .Terminal Control Area?
 >    > .A. Two-way radio communications equipment and a transponder.
 >    > .B. Two-way radio communications equipment, a transponder, and an
 >    > .encoding altimeter.
 >    > .C. Two-way radio communications equipment, a transponder, an encoding
 >    > .altimeter, and a VOR or TACAN receiver.
 > 
 > KBK> .I picked (B), because FAR 91.131 (c) and (d) seem to require Mode C in
 >    > .a TCA.  The answer in the back of the book is (A)
 > 
 > You forgot 91.131(c)(1).  A VOR or Tacan receiver is required as well.
 > Go for (C).

VOR or Tacan is required only for IFR under 92.131(c)(1), so that probably
doesn't qualify for "minimum".  Further, 91.131(d) refers to 91.215(d)
which allows ATC to make exceptions to the requirement for an encoding
altimeter.  Thus answer A (as listed in the ASA manual) is most likely
correct for "minimum" equipment.

 > 
 > KBK> .              Figure 12. Surface Aviation Weather Report
 >    > .                INK SA 1854 CLR 15 106/77/63/1112G18/000
 >    > .                [irrelevant lines deleted]
 > 
 > KBK> .7465. (Refer to figure 12.) What are the wind conditions at Wink,
 >    > .Texas (INK)?
 >    > .A. Calm.
 >    > .      o
 >    > .B. 110  at 12 knots, peak gusts 18 knots
 >    > .      o
 >    > .C. 111  at 2 knots, peak gusts 18 knots.
 > 
 > KBK> .The answer key gives C -- IN TWO PLACES.  This has got to be a
 >    > .misprint, right?
 > 
 > Right.  Go with (B).  And send that answer key back to ASA with a nasty
 > letter.  Tell them to send you the right one.
 > 

Geez!  The ASA explanation is for B.  They just got C instead of B in
the answer spot (immediately following the question number in the answer
section).

 >  * OLX 2.2 * Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
 >                                                                                                     
-- 
William H. Ganoe  (bill@sie.arizona.edu) |
Systems & Industrial Engr. Dept,         | "I'd rather be soaring!"
Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721; USA  |
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: pdills@staff.tc.umn.edu (Peter in Amiland)
Subject: Re: Questionable Questions on
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:54:55 GMT

In article <116.186.uupcb@ssr.com> dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin)  writes:

>KBK> .7128.  What minimum equipment is required for VFR operation within a
>   > .Terminal Control Area?
>   > .A. Two-way radio communications equipment and a transponder.
>   > .B. Two-way radio communications equipment, a transponder, and an
>   > .encoding altimeter.
>   > .C. Two-way radio communications equipment, a transponder, an encoding
>   > .altimeter, and a VOR or TACAN receiver.
>
>KBK> .I picked (B), because FAR 91.131 (c) and (d) seem to require Mode C in
>   > .a TCA.  The answer in the back of the book is (A)
>
>You forgot 91.131(c)(1).  A VOR or Tacan receiver is required as well.
>Go for (C).

According to 1992 Private Pilot Exam Answers, supplied with the FAA-T-8080-15A
"Recreational Pilot and Private Pilot Written Test Book", the correct answer
is given to be .7128. (B) .

This would seem to be the correct answer, not C. If you look at FAR 91.131 (c)
it states:

  (1) For IFR operations. An operable VOR or TACAN receiver and;

  (2) For all operations. An operable two-way radio capable of communications
      with ATC on appropriate frequencies for that terminal control area.

(d) Transponder requirement. No person may operate an aircraft in a terminal
    control area unless the aircraft is equipped with the applicable
    operating transponder and automatic altitude reporting equipment .....

---

Note, (1) states for "IFR" operations. I interprate this to indicate that
you have filed an IFR flight plan. The question: 7128. What "minimum"
radio equipment is required for "VFR" operation within a Terminal Control
Area? -- Should be (B) - Two-way radio communications equipment, a trans-
ponder, and an encodeing altimiter.

--

Peter

P.S. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*  pdills@epx.cis.umn.edu (Internet, immer/always) Walter Computer Lab Mngr *
*  pdills@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Internet, immer/always) Consultant EE/CSCI *
*---------------------------------------------------------------------------*
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: yukyuk@beta.lanl.gov (Craig B. Huffnagle)
Subject: Re: Advanced Tactical Fighter
Keywords: ATF advanced YF-22 YF-23 grey ghost lightning fighter
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:39:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.181024.1341@williams.edu> 92bbb@williams.edu (Bradford Behr) writes:
>In article <1ehjb8INNhd6@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> dwhall@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
>                                                 (Dean W Hall) writes:
>>  The AirForce chose the YF-22 (a much uglier plane) and then. . .
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>I haven't heard much lately, just budget problems.  Does anyone know if the
>>f-22 is scheduled for production yet?  Also, any GIF files?
>
>I agree wholeheartedly. I read somewhere (AWST, perhaps) a description
>of the YF-22 as looking like "an F-14 with water retention problems."
>
>Added to the budget problems was an unscheduled meeting between one of
>the YF-22 aircraft and the ground. Pilot-induced-oscillations are
>currently blamed. Don't know much more than that, but I would guess
>that this might be holding up the production process.
>
>Brad
>
>

I don't believe that the official version was "Pilot-induced-oscillations".

The official version is that the aircraft was doing a low-level fly-by with
the landing gear extended, with afterburners on, and thrust vectoring
engaged.  Then, the pilot retracted the landing gear which caused the rear
control surfaces to overcorrect producing an increasing oscillation in the
control surfaces which led to the aircraft oscillating into the ground.
BTW, this is "most likely" a result of the fly-by-wire system.  Also, the
pilot rode the aircraft in with only a few bruises and walked away from the
aircraft.

- Craig

-- 
Craig Huffnagle       			yukyuk@yuck.lanl.gov
"It takes a big man to cry,
	And a bigger man to laugh at him."	Jack Handey
------------- Think of a disclaimer, it applies. --------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: steve@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges)
Subject: Re: Aircraft in Museums (was: SR-71 / MIG-25)
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:39:31 GMT

prm@genesis.ecn.purdue.edu (Philip R. Moyer) writes:

>The Air Force Museum's 117 is not an F model, but a YF.  It is, like the
>B-1 (which is, btw, an A, not a B), a test article.

>Many of the current A/C at the Museum have been damaged or in some way
>fulfilled their purpose for existing.  I believe the only A/C there that
>are still in active service are (this is from memory, so correct me
>if I'm wrong :-):

>	FB-111
>	A-10
>	F-15	Streak Eagle
>	T-38

They also have:
	T-37
	U-2 (with a little imagination a TR/1)
	NKC-135 (KC-135 with an airborne laser)


>I can't think of any others offhand.  Note that they do not have a Falcon
>yet.  They also do not have an AC-130 (or any 130 variant, for that matter)
>which distresses me to no end....

I was out there 3 weeks ago.  

	They have a AC-130 in the Annex
	There is an F-16 in front of the museum by the Imax Theater.

Hope this cheers you up!
Steve (who also spends too much time at the museum!)
-- 
Steve Bridges, Programmer/Analyst| NCR - Law Department, WHQ-5
steve@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM   ___| Phone:(513)-445-4486 622-4486 (VOICEplus)
Sci.military moderator        | "The airplane does not recognize attitude,
providing a maneuver is conducted at one G" -- A.M. "Tex" Johnston
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: hunter3@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Macs suck.)
Subject: speed record
Organization: Purdue University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:24:30 GMT

    The speed record in the unlimited class air racers is held by the 
   RARE BEAR at a speed of about 523.5 mph. 
      
                                                 Aaron Alexander
 
 HA,  who ever posted that the F-4 was ugly should think twice about that 
   statement. The F-4 may be old, not as manuverable as the toy planes of 
   today but it can survive just about anything and it's dam fast.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: billp@Syntex.COM (Bill Putney)
Subject: Re: Reason for Retirement (was Re: SR-71 Bla
Reply-To: billp@Syntex.COM
Organization: Syntex U.S.A. - Palo Alto, CA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:06:52 GMT

Actually I think the main reason why KC-135Q's existed was that they had
a lot of magic electronics to help the SR-71's find them and communicate
with them.

With the Spook factor reduced for NASA's use more pedestrian means are no 
doubt used.

- Bill

---
=====================================================================
#  Bill Putney                     |  billp@Syntex.COM              #
#  Syntex U.S.A.                   |  {oliveb|decwrk}!synseer!billp #
#  M.S. A5-6                       |--------------------------------#
#  3401 Hillview Ave.              |  P.O.T.S.  (415) 855-1259      #
#  Palo Alto, CA  94303            |  FAX       (415) 855-5301      #
=====================================================================
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Advanced Tactical Fighter
Keywords: ATF advanced YF-22 YF-23 grey ghost lightning fighter
Date: 22 Nov 92 18:39:17 GMT
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
NNTP-Posting-Host: obsidian.wpi.edu

In article <1992Nov21.074312.25348@julian.uwo.ca> pettypi@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Carl Pettypiece) writes:
>like a FBW problem to me (although the oscillations could have
>been a factor).  As the plane was trying to climb (or abort or
>whatever, wasn't clear), the tailplanes were just going wild.  It
>seemed that the pilot had no chance of recovery from somrthing
>like that.  A similar thing happened to the first prototype of

The YF-22 was doing touch and goes. The pilot had just selected max power and 
rotated to climb out. What I've heard suggests one of two things: the pilot
applied to much stick, then over compensated, reversed, etc... pilot induced
oscillations. If you watch the tailpipes AND stabilators were cycling like
wild. The other is that the software has a 'speed mode' and a 'slow mode' the
latter being for senstive areas like landing approaches and takeoff... as he
accelerated the computer didn't switch modes and this led to the PIO... but
I read the second on the nets and I don't recall if that was net.speculation
or taken from another source... But PIO seem to be involved all the time...

I'd like to see the official report on this, the F-22 is a nice aircraft and
I was happy to see it win. (I love Lockheed, ok?)

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################
From: john@newave.newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Museums
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:13:08 GMT
Organization: Newave Communications, Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN

In <1992Nov16.050109.11179@fcom.cc.utah.edu> tcrook@u.cc.utah.edu (Tom Crook):
> Many times on business trips, I've run across a museum by accident.  It
> would be nice to know if there's one in an area I just happen to passing
> through.

There are a few airplane museum guide books available.  The best plane to
find them are in the gift shops of airplane museums.  I picked up three good
ones at the USAF Museum gift shop:

	Robert Ogden, The Aircraft Museums And Collections Of North America
	(this book is very good, but it is getting out of date)

	Michael Blaugher, Guide to 475 Aircraft Museums
	(has a very extensive list of places to go, but it has sent me on
	more than one wild goose chase)

	Michael Morlan, Kitty Hawk To NASA
	(lists only the larger museums, but the information is very accurate
	and the directions to the museums are often quite helpful)

Between these three books, I have been able to plan a number of interesting
side trips while traveling.  If you are only interested in the bigger
museumsk, Robert Ogden has another book called The Great Aircraft Collections
Of The World.

Another helpful publication is "Airshows International", an annual guide to
airshows published by Challenge Publications (the people who publish Air
Progress, Air Combat, and Warbirds International).  I often want to take
photos of planes displayed on military bases that are closed to the public.
My trick is to visit the closed military bases during their annual open
house.

-john-

-- 
==============================================================================
John A. Weeks III		(612) 942-6969		    john@newave.mn.org
Newave Communications, Ltd.			    ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: justin@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (Justin Ridge)
Subject: Re: Exports of F-4's.
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 12:00:47 GMT

zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Dr. Strangelove) writes:

>The F-4 Phantom was exported to the following countries...

[del]

The Phantom was also 'exported' to Australia, albeit for a limited time.
(OK, so they weren't exported, they were loaned... call it whatever).
In the early 70's Australia got really interested in the F-111, and sub-
sequently ordered the type.  However, due to supply delays they were loaned
approx 24 F-4's from the US.

So it may be worth adding Australia to the list of 'users' if not 'customers'.

Justin Ridge
University of Tasmania
--
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: pettypi@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Carl Pettypiece)
Subject: Re: Name of F-111
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 03:56:38 GMT

In article <1emsh9INNlm5@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> gunter@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt) writes:
>zell@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Joseph Zell) writes:
>
>>Could someone tell me the name of the F-111. It's driving me nuts, and I
>>can't think of it. E-mail would be appreciated. Thanks
>>Joe
>
>F-111's are Aardvark's
>RF-111's are Raven's
 ^

That's EF-111, BTW, and used to be called the Electric Fox.
Anyone know why they changed the name?  I thought it was kind of neat!


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Pettypiece (pettypi@gaul.csd.uwo.ca)        Disclaimer:  Hell, I don't
Department of Computer Science                   even know if these are MY
University of Western Ontario                    opinions!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo)
Subject: Re: Blue Angels aircraft (Was: Re: SR-71 / MIG-25)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:19:25 GMT


>	OK you got me! 
>	The Streak Eagle was in fact production aircraft 19 (72-119).
>	Eagle from Squadron Signal.
>
>	I can't remember where I read about the B-58 type pod on the
>	SR-71 , But as for being originaly the RS-71 it is mentiond
>	in the SR-71 in Action page 4. If not the B-71 then where are
>	the other 70 SR aircraft.

I probably shouldnt post this, but I saw it in a B Dalton book store.
"Aircraft of the World" or something like that.   had this info.
I didnt mention that there *was* a pod, but that it was a possibility.
(But maybe they just didnt know and there was?)

It did discuss the LBJ incident.  


Derek


-------------------------------------------------------------------
"He lived a life of going-to-do, 
   and died with nothing done"	       
		-J. Albery	     

In other words---JUST DO IT!
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Exports of F-4's.
Date: 22 Nov 1992 18:44:59 GMT
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: obsidian.wpi.edu

In article <1em6geINNp5i@uwm.edu> zarda@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Dr. Strangelove) writes:
>If I remeber right, the IAI was still doing updates to the phantoms.

Israel is doing some terrific mods! Actually, I believe Boeing is doing the
work, McDD turned it down. (Probably hoping to sell more Hornets....)

The J79s are being replaced by new P&W engines 1180 or something like that...
Company designator... More power and more efficient... Cockpits are revamped,
new electronics suite, etc. The BIG change is a large bathtub running from 
under the cockpit area to just before the nozzles, spannng the entire fuselage
width. It carries electronics, fuel, etc... And the conformal Sparrows are
moved to the corners ala the F-15. It seems the bathtub REDUCES drag of the
Phantom, much like the F-15 FAST Packs... I forgot where I read all this, it
was in some magazine.

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: pettypi@gaul.csd.uwo.ca (Carl Pettypiece)
Subject: Re: RF-4 Phantom
Organization: Computer Science Dept., Univ. of Western Ontario, London, Canada
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:33:44 GMT

In article <1e9bflINN3uu@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> gunter@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt) writes:
>jem3@pyuxf.uucp (25312-mc killop) writes:
>
>>In article <rick.721817895@chronos> rick@imp.phys.ethz.ch (Riccardo Sibilia) writes:
>>>Does somebody know for which missions is the RF-4 Phantom thought?
>>>
>>>Is it still flying these days? Or is it a museum piece?
>>>
>>>Thanks
>
>Japan also has some RF-4EJ's manufactured by Mitsubishi

Don't forget the RF-4Es built for the Luftwaffe.  Although being
replaced, I think there's still a couple of Geschwader (sp?)
flying them.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Pettypiece (pettypi@gaul.csd.uwo.ca)        Disclaimer:  Hell, I don't
Department of Computer Science                   even know if these are MY
University of Western Ontario                    opinions!
From: schin@acs.bu.edu (neil schier)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: 57 Chevy vs. Acura NSX (was Re: Advanced Tactical Fighter)
Keywords: ATF advanced YF-22 YF-23 grey ghost lightning fighter
Date: 24 Nov 92 03:20:44 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA



Isn't one of the F4's nicknames Big Bad Ugly (F4II)  

Regards 
Neil

P.S. Anybody see that tape of the MiG 21(?) doing a mid-air stall?
From: strega@hardy.u.washington.edu (Randy Haskin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: F-117a Tailhook
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:00:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov16.170039.5534
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

> Most Air Force tactical aircraft (except the AC-130 and
> maybe the F-117 and A-10) have a tailhook for emergency
> use.

Actually, the hook is on the F-117 and is a quite important item.  This is
something to take into consideration when you see an F-117 at your local
airshow - if the local runway is less than 15,000 feet long, mobile arresting
gear is REQUIRED for the Air Force to let the 117 fly in.  This last summer,
we had an F-117 come into the airshow at the Museum of Flight in Seattle, 
and since Boeing Field is less than 15,000, we had a Marine crew install
arresting gear to meet these requirements.
* This requirement should tell you something about how long it takes to roll 
out if there is a brake failure.....

Randall Haskin
strega@u.washington.edu
From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Speed Record
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Date: 23 Nov 1992 20:28:05 GMT
Organization: Ministry Of Atomic Death Rockets
Distribution: world
Reply-To: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com



What about the Tupolev Tu-95 Bear bomber, that big sucker with the swept
wings and 15,000 horsepower engines with contrarotating props?  It has
a top speed of 500-odd miles per hour.



Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM  + + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-



Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military