HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com (Dick Harrigill)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Operation Raincheck
Keywords: atc
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:37:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle

Last week I had the opportunity to attend the 3 night class
called Operation Raincheck that is put on by the FAA.

Operation Raincheck is a class for pilots, specifically
IFR and IFR wanna-bes.  It is, more than anything else,
designed to familiarize the pilot with the air traffic
control system.

The class I attended was held at the Seattle Center ATC complex in
Auburn.  These classes, however, are held all over the country.

This class was very valuable and worth your time if you get
a chance.  I wish I had had this earlier in my flying
experience.  Although billed as an "IFR" class, 99.9% of the
information is general purpose and VFR related things that
all pilots can benefit from.

Some side notes:

-The facility tour was very interesting.  I always wondered
what ATC saw.  The controller I was with had an airplane ident,
and another airplane briefly squawk 7700.  
Interesting (and enlightening).

-Everyone talks about how stressful a controller's job is.
This may be true, but I cannot remember being in a professional
environment before where the workers consistantly seemed to enjoy
their job, were very friendly and courteous, and projected such
a high level of satisfaction with what they do.  I've seen higher
stress levels at Dairy Queen (although they do make better
sundaes :-) ).  If I had my career to do over again, I would
seriously consider ATC.




-- 
Dick Harrigill, an independent voice from:     Boeing Commercial Airplanes 
M/S 9R-49  PO BOX 3707                       Renton Avionics/Flight Systems
Seattle, WA  91824                                  Computing Support
(206) 393-9539    rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com    CDP, PP-ASEL
Xref: sparky rec.aviation.misc:127 rec.aviation.owning:32
From: gblanck@vermont.Eng.Sun.COM (Greg Blanck)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.owning
Subject: Looking for a 1/2 partner
Followup-To: poster
Date: 14 Oct 1992 17:26:10 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: vermont


I'm looking for a 1/2 partner for an upcoming
airplane purchase; most likely a Bonanza (S35,
V35, V35A, V35B or F33A). Will be based at either
PAO or SQL.

If anyone's interested please contact me at:
gblanck@Eng.Sun.Com, or call @ (415) 688-9543.

Greg Blanck
From: ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Unfamiliar phraseologies
Date: 10 Oct 1992 16:53:13 GMT
Organization: BDS Systems
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.bds.com

> C'mon, guys, it's in the AIM.

1 point for getting that right.

> I suspect it says "four one seven"

BZZZT.  Wrong.
AIM--Radio Communications Phraseology and Techniques
4-34.  AIRCRAFT CALL SIGNS
a.  Precautions in the Use of Call Signs-
5.  Air carriers and commuter air carriers having FAA authorized call signs should identify themselves by stating the complete call sign (using group form for the numbers) and the word "heavy" if appropriate.

EXAMPLE:

UNITED TWENTY-FIVE HEAVY.

EXAMPLE:

MIDWEST COMMUTER SEVEN ELEVEN.

-Ron
From: s925609@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (KSC - Firefox)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: >>aviation GIF files
Date: 16 Oct 92 07:28:36 GMT
Organization: RMIT Computer Centre
NNTP-Posting-Host: minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au

The ftp.cs.ruu.nl site has pretty good quality Gif files, prob better than
most I've seen, and try
harbor.ecn.purdue.edu
	at /pub/skunk-works/pic
	
some pretty cool stuff there.


 +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 |     Kevin Cheng ...aka Firefox         s925609@minyos.xx.RMiT.oz.Au     |
 |                    Aerospace Engineering ..... RMiT                     |
 |                                                                         |
 | Together since the world began, the madman and the lover.               |
 |     Discovered by Allied troops written on a latrine wall at Dachau     |
 +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: rlarsen@bnr.ca (Richard Larsen P220)
Subject: re:FAQ on ultralights
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, BNR-RTP
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 12:19:44 GMT

The world glider record is over 49,000' but it is unlikely 
ultra lights will go that high. At higher altitudes the air is
thinner so your stall speed is higher. If your stall speed is higher
than your red line speed obviously you cannot be there. Gliders
have red line speeds of 155 to 175 MPH typically.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation
From: kaufman@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman)
Subject: Re: Where are the chopper x-countries?
Reply-To: kaufman@CS.Stanford.EDU
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 11 Oct 92 15:31:25 GMT

hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:

>Okie, I asked someone on this net last time how to transport a small
>private chopper across the US.  His answer was why don't you fly it.
>My thinking was the same as yours -- WHAT?  It cost a zillion dollars
>to make the trip flying.  So how do you do it? 

Either you just do it, or you take the main rotor off and trailer it.
Dick Smith (of Dick Smith Electronics, in Australia) once flew a Bell
jet ranger around the world solo.  So x-country trips ARE possible.
I think it cost him a zillion dollars.

>What do you think of that kit chopper Exec 90?  I saw some where it
>is $50,000.  Could that be true?

I think that's about right.

>Does it really cost $100 per hour to operate a chopper like Exec 90?

It costs $100 per hour to operate a Robinson R-22.  This includes reserves
for overhaul (EVERYTHING gets overhauled at 2000 hours) and some debt service
on the loan to buy it. (I base this on the fact that $100-$125 is the rental
rate).

>How last will the thing last if I operate it 3 hours per weekday?
>(you know what I wanna do)  Oh, Exec 90 has about the same spec you
>mentioned (100mph, 2 hour fuel 17 gal.) 

The Exec has a life limited rotor blade (2000 hours I think), so you will
throw the old one away at 2000 hours.  How long it lasts depends on how
long you can avoid hard landings and a tail boom strike :-)  If you want
to commute and take along something heavier than a briefcase, you will have
to look at an Enstrom or Schweitzer (formerly Hughes) 300.

-- 
Marc Kaufman (kaufman@CS.Stanford.EDU)

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown)
Subject: Re: Amsterdam crash a new record?
Organization: Quarterdeck Office Systems, Santa Monica CA
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 03:24:23 GMT

ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter) writes:
>So on the macabre side, does this set a new record for people killed
>on the ground by an air crash?

With the modification somebody else mentioned regarding "on the ground"
vs "bystander", I believe that it does.  I don't have my trusty disaster
list from my almanac handy, but I believe the previous record was on the
order of 97, in a similar incident.  (Cargo plane crashed into school.)

Cerritos (at around 15) doesn't even come close.  Ramstein was around 50.

It's even possible that it'll exceed the Tenerife "on the ground" total.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation
From: erik@tera.com (Erik Hedberg)
Subject: Re: Where are the chopper x-countries?
Keywords: money boats helicopters
Organization: Tera Computer Company, Seattle, WA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:18:06 GMT

In article <kaufman.718817485@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> kaufman@CS.Stanford.EDU writes:
>hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:
>
>>Okie, I asked someone on this net last time how to transport a small
>>private chopper across the US.  His answer was why don't you fly it.
>>My thinking was the same as yours -- WHAT?  It cost a zillion dollars
>>to make the trip flying.  So how do you do it? 
>
>Either you just do it, or you take the main rotor off and trailer it.
>Dick Smith (of Dick Smith Electronics, in Australia) once flew a Bell
>jet ranger around the world solo.  So x-country trips ARE possible.
>I think it cost him a zillion dollars.

The answer just floated by my office window.  It's simple ... put in
on top of your yacht! :-) Seriously, I just saw the beautiful yacht
Attessa (looked like 100 or 120 feet long, modern, a serious party
boat) float up the ship canal into Lake Union.  Instead of a dinghy,
they had a helicopter on the back.  Couldn't be sure (the front half
was under a tarp), but it looked like a smallish JetRanger.  Color
coordinated, of course, in cream and burgundy attire.

Erik
From: rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com (Dick Harrigill)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: More _Legend_and_Legacy_
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:13:07 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle

In article <87330001@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> mtc@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Mark Cousins) writes:
>This next one is, so far, my favorite of them all.

Mine too!

>"Another early 707 was involved in an incident that might be termed the Great
>Boeing Air Raid...  

And we've been "one-upping" them ever since!!!   :-)

The world just isn't the same anymore.  No one would even consider
such a stunt today.  

However, a few things never change - like the press.
-- 
Dick Harrigill, an independent voice from:     Boeing Commercial Airplanes 
M/S 9R-49  PO BOX 3707                       Renton Avionics/Flight Systems
Seattle, WA  91824                                  Computing Support
(206) 393-9539    rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com    CDP, PP-ASEL
From: berry@athos.pei.com (Berry Kercheval)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: FAQ ABOUT ULTRALIGHTS
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:47:25 GMT
	<1687EBDBB.GRUNLOH@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu> <7150@transfer.stratus.com>
	<1687F7BC4.GRUNLOH@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu> <1bem9vINNkan@topaz.bds.com>
	<16880AEA7.GRUNLOH@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>
Reply-To: berry@pei.com
Organization: Protocol Engines, Inc., Mt. View, California

>>>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:25:05 GMT, GRUNLOH@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu said:
GRUNLOH> ..... The ultimate maximum altitude you could achieve in an ultralight
GRUNLOH> is limited by the permitted fuel capacity ( 5 gal in the USA )


Actually, the fuel capacity probably has nothing to do with the
maximum altitude.  Think of them as gliders: shut down the engine and
soar.  Isn't the glider altitude record something over 45,000 feet?

The ultimate max altitude is probably constrained by how much oxygen
you can carry.

  --berry

--
Berry Kercheval :: berry@pei.com :: Protocol Engines, Inc.  Mt. View, CA
From: schoen@.slcs.slb.com (Eric Schoen)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Question for Atlanta area rec.aviators
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:36:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Schlumberger Laboratory for Computer Science
Originator: schoen@sigmet

I'm considering a trip to Atlanta during the first week of December. Can
someone tell me how low the freezing level can get around that time of year?
Ballpark estimate...worst you've seen...etc.

Email to me please.

Thanks,
Eric

-- 
Eric Schoen
Schlumberger Laboratory for Computer Science 
Internet: schoen@slcs.slb.com   In the air: N201DR
USMail: P.O. Box 200015, Austin, TX, 78720-0015
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: cklee@iastate.edu ()
Subject: Wanted: GIF or JPG files of Commercial Airplanes!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:42:17 GMT

Hi! I will appreciate if someone can tell me where I can find GIF or JPG
files of commercial airplanes such as Boeing 747, 767, etc. I have seen many
military planes, but never found commercial planes.
Thanks.

Chulkyu Lee

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: jesse@eye.com (Jesse Lackey)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: UltraLight info wanted
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 17:04:53 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: 3D/EYE, Inc.  Ithaca, NY

Hello, I am interested in Ultralight aircraft.  However, there doesn't seem
to be much discussion in any rec.aviation.xxx group!  Can anyone point me to
a mailing list or recommend a book??

Also, I tried subscribing to the ultralight mailing list that was posted
in rec.aviation a week or two ago, but nothing happened.  Is it still active?

thanks in advance.

-- 
Jesse Lackey; internet: jesse@eye.com   Please Note:  I DON'T speak for 3D/Eye!
3D/EYE, Inc., 2359 N. Triphammer Rd., Ithaca, NY  14850   voice: (607) 257-1381
   "She moved so easily  all I could think of was sun-light"   - Paul Simon
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation
From: jkf@Franz.COM (Sean Foderaro)
Subject: Where are the chopper x-countries?
Organization: Franz Inc., Berkeley, CA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 15:53:07 GMT




 I've done a number of extended trips by GA airplane and the procedure
is generally the same at each airport: land, fill plane's tanks, empty 
my tanks, call flight service, pay for gas and take off.   I've seen many 
other pilots doing the same ritual.  But I've *never* seen a helicopter 
pilot land and come into the FBO with his charts looking for a phone
to check the weather on this next leg.   This issue was brought to 
mind by the person who asked how you get helicopters from, say, the 
east to west coast.   If they are flown cross country then maybe they 
only come out at night :-).

 So why aren't there more people using helicopters for personal  long
distance transportation (I'm assuming that there *are* some helicopters being
used in this way but that there are so few that I haven't sampled enough 
airports yet to find any).   Sure they are more expensive than a simple fixed
wing aircraft but certainly less expensive than some of the cabin-class twins
that I see being flow for personal use.   Also for some people money really 
isn't a factor.   I know that if I ever won the lottery I'd like to get
a helicopter and fly it cross country (has anyone every done barnstorming
in a copter? (i.e. stop at little towns across the country and offer rides 
to the folks for money or food)).

-sean

 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: q1hl@jupiter.sun.csd.unb.ca (Nameless CS Student)
Subject: Re: Unfamiliar phraseologies
Organization: University of New Brunswick
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:33:26 GMT

phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
>Does anyone else out there, when checking with the airline on the status
>of a commercial flight, say something like "what is the status of united
>four-one-seven"?

jerrys@btree.uucp (Jerry Samsen) writes:
>Except that standard phrasiology for air carrier flights is "United four
>seventeen"

phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
>Well, I haven't piloted very many air carrier flights.  :-)
>I know almost nothing about commercial operations, but the only 
>exception to the single-digit-enumeration rule that I have come across
>is Victor airways.  That's the only one that I remember seeing
>listed.  For everything else that I've seen (i.e.: tail numbers, wind,
>etc.), standard phraseology is to enumerate every digit singly
>(four-one-seven).

I was taught that wind direction and speed are to be expressed
to the nearest 10 dregrees and 5 knots; the speed only to be
expressed in group form.  Flight numbers *MAY* be expressed in
group form, but I often don't.  Altitudes are expressed as individual
digits of thousands, the word thousands, and the number of hundreds.
Altimeter settings are four digits, without the "decimal", and
airways always use separate digits.

Wind direction and speed:	wind three two zero at fifteen

Flight numbers:			eight eight eight one
	or			eighty-eight eighty-one
	or occasionally		triple-eight one

Altitudes:			one six thousand five hundred

Altimeter:			yyyy altimeter three zero two zero

Airways:			victor three one zero

Naturally, the readback I get from the pilot is almost always
totally grouped, as in:
"8881 cleared to the yyyy VOR at sixteen-point-five via
victor three-ten, check three-oh-one-oh on the meter."
-- 
Chris Rasley.  Pilot.  Controller.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation
From: dougnews@access.digex.com (Doug Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Where are the chopper x-countries?
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 21:20:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.054256.12275@netcom.com> hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:
>From article <kaufman.718752330@Xenon.Stanford.EDU>, by kaufman@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman):
>> Besides, even the smallest heli costs
>> about $100/hr to operate, so there aren't many ab initio students doing
>> their cross country flights in them.
>
>Okie, I asked someone on this net last time how to transport a small
>private chopper across the US.  His answer was why don't you fly it.
>My thinking was the same as yours -- WHAT?  It cost a zillion dollars
>to make the trip flying.  So how do you do it? 

Ship it truck freight; any small chopper will fit on a flatbed
truck, rotors off of course ;-)  I do not recommend rail freight
for airframes and such, since the railroads don't protect much
against damage from clearence problems, rocks thrown by kids, 
etc.  You ought to be able to ship it for a couple of grand at
the most, and maybe less if they can stack some more cargo on
there with it (weight is not the issue, just bulk).

>What do you think of that kit chopper Exec 90?  I saw some where it
>is $50,000.  Could that be true?  Does it really cost $100 per hour to
>operate a chopper like Exec 90?  How last will the thing last if I 
>operate it 3 hours per weekday?  (you know what I wanna do)  Oh, Exec 90
>has about the same spec you mentioned (100mph, 2 hour fuel 17 gal.) 

I think that maintenance is the crucial thing here; make sure that
you put your annual and all that into the "how much to operate it"
equation.  Transmissions take a beating (no pun intended) on a 
chopper.  

Doug
From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: FAQ ABOUT ULTRALIGHTS
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:39:07 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.



In article <1687BB313.GRUNLOH@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>, GRUNLOH@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> **FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ) ABOUT ULTRALIGHT AIRCRAFT**
>   by: grunloh@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu  (Dan Grunloh)   10-10-92

(most of interesting and informative FAQ deleted)

> -------------------------------------------------------
> Question -2- Are there any regulations on these things?
>  
> Yes!  Aside from the vehicle definition (see question 1) there are
> strict operating limitations (USA) designed to limit the dangers to the
> non-particpant. (You are permitted to risk your own neck.)

 ...  
> 4. No flying in controlled airspace (major airports) without explicit
>    permission from Air Traffic Control (unlikely).
 ...

The above statement is somewhat contradictory, and is incorrect.  "Major 
airports" (and the associated controlled airspace surrounding them) take up 
only a very small proportion of all airspace in most areas of the country.  
On the other hand, "controlled airspace" includes a vastly larger percentage
of all airspace.  In fact, in much of the country most or all airspace above 
700 or 1200 feet above ground level is controlled.  I don't have a copy of 
the FARs here with me, but I believe the "controlled airspace" statement in 
the FAQ is incorrect.

-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
From: ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: FAQ ABOUT ULTRALIGHTS
Date: 13 Oct 1992 14:26:07 GMT
Organization: BDS Systems
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.bds.com

>  No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within an airport traffic
> area, control zone, terminal control area, or positive control area
                                                !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> unless that person has prior authorization from the air traffic control
> facility having jurisdiction over that airspace.

Zow!  Lets fit an oxygen bottle on this thing and take it up to 18,000.
I better put on my long underwear.

-Ron
From: jerrys@btree.uucp (Jerry Samsen)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Unfamiliar phraseologies
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:50:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: btree.1992Oct12.235057.18837
Organization: Brooktree Corporation

Instead of bikering over what is proper, why don't y'all just look it up
in the AIM and quote FACTS versus "I don't THINK it says that..".  

AIM, BTW, indicates proper phrasiology is

UNITED FOUR SEVENTEEN


Jerry Samsen, CFII AMEL
MYF,SDM,SEE,CRQ
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: gary@maestro.mitre.org (Gary Bisaga)
Subject: Re: CHARTER: rec.aviation.owning
Reply-To: gbisaga@mitre.org
Organization: The Mitre Corporation, McLean Virginia
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:07:22 GMT

Might I suggest that a special FAQ for this sub-group be kept?  I
respectfully volunteer to keep track of the information; all I ask
is that people mail me any information they want added to the FAQ,
as (at least recently) I have been travelling quite a bit and our
news server wastes articles if they're not read right away.

In particular, I'd appreciate any information people have received
on insurance, loans, etc. thus far, as this is the first article
I've been able to read (out of the 20 so far posted to the group).

-- 
Gary Bisaga (gbisaga@mitre.org)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: GRUNLOH@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: FAQ ABOUT ULTRALIGHTS
Organization: C.C.S.O.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:29:24 GMT

In article <7119@transfer.stratus.com>
spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker) writes:
 
>
>In article <1687BB313.GRUNLOH@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>, GRUNLOH@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> **FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ) ABOUT ULTRALIGHT AIRCRAFT**
>
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> Question -2- Are there any regulations on these things?
>>
>> Yes!  Aside from the vehicle definition (see question 1) there are
>
> ...
>> 4. No flying in controlled airspace (major airports) without explicit
>>    permission from Air Traffic Control (unlikely).
> ...
>
>The above statement is somewhat contradictory, and is incorrect.  "Major
>airports" (and the associated controlled airspace surrounding them) take up
>only a very small proportion of all airspace in most areas of the country.
>On the other hand, "controlled airspace" includes a vastly larger percentage
>of all airspace.  In fact, in much of the country most or all airspace above
>700 or 1200 feet above ground level is controlled.  I don't have a copy of
>the FARs here with me, but I believe the "controlled airspace" statement in
>the FAQ is incorrect.
>
>--
>     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL
>
>     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
 
Thanks Steve, You are absolutely correct!  I often use the term
controlled airspace when talking to newcomers to aviation and forget
it has a specific meaning in general aviation.  Here is my corrected
response:
 
-------------------------------
Question -2- Are there any regulations on these things?
 
Yes!
 
4. No flying in controlled airspace (major airports) without explicit
   permission from Air Traffic Control (unlikely).
 
should actually read:
 
4. No flying in any Airport Traffic Area or Control Zone without
   explicit permission from the controlling agency.
---------------------------------
 
This usually means no flying within 5 miles of a control tower
and you must stay below (usually) 2000 MSL within 10 miles.
In any case, no flying anywhere inside the inverted wedding
cake that sits on top of every operating control tower.
Incidently, I suggest all ultralights stay below 2000 MSL at
least 15 miles out in the above example.  I have often seen
commercial airliners at the bottom of the layer they intend
to enter while still well outside the ATA.
---------------------------------------------------------
 
Dan Grunloh - Research Specialist in Life Sciences at the
Univ. of ILL. - Rm 222  An Sci Lab  phone (217) 333-2583
Internet: grunloh@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation