HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: daviess@gov.on.ca (Stephen Davies)
Subject: Re: Kitfox XL
Keywords: Kitfox
Organization: Government of Ontario
Distribution: ?
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:49:02 GMT

In <fazio.726337163@ash41> fazio@rtsg.mot.com (Michael F. Fazio) writes:


>    I recieved an advertisement from Skystar regarding the
>new(??) Kitfox XL.  So what is the difference between the
>Model IV and the XL.  The advertisement did not mention
>any new features or gadgets.  Anybody have an idea?

I've never heard of a kitfox XL but there is a new larger experimental
kit for sale by the kitfox people which is designed to take certified
(read 4 stroke) aircraft engines.  BTW I think this beast is called a
Vixen and has tricycle gear (not a conventional landing gear
arrangement).
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Subject: Re: Velocity factory visit report
Reply-To: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown NJ
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 18:27:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan04.010319.1976@microsoft.com> jimharr@microsoft.com (Jim Harriger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.193407.3775@walter.bellcore.com> I wrote:
>>
>>A 235hp 6-cylinder inline Subaru engine conversion is ready and will be put 
>>in the Big Orange for testing as soon as they receive the prop reduction unit
>
>	i don't think this is an inline engine. unless subaru has something up
>their sleeves that i'm unaware of, this is the engine from the SVX sports car.
>it is an OHC (DOHC?) opposed six cylinder, water cooled, fuel injected engine.

You are right. I meant to say flat engine.

>
>i'll be interested to hear how this works, i've always thought that this would
>make a spectacular ~200hp engine.

Who I can trust for the overhauls? Would you trust your neighborhood Subaru 
dealer/ local mechanic if you don't feel like doing the overhaul yourself?

A bunch of people asked about the kit price. Here are the numbers from the
info package along with the company's estimate for completion:

		STD/FG		STD/RG		173/FG		173/RG
KIT COST	19,500		23,000		20,500		24,000

Crating charges: 		$400
Shipping costs: 		varies
Lyc. IO360 used average price :	$8500
Lord mounts, prop extension
bolts, alternator:		$780
Wood fixed pitch prop:		$750
Electrical switches, wire, etc: $200
Plumbing - fuel, oil, vacuum:	$175
Fuel pump (for injected engines:$389
Oil cooler:			$395
Engine controls:		$70
Upholstery:			$1295
Paint, primer, etc:		$680   (I assume a do-it-yourself job)
Avionics:			$6000
Flight Instruments:		$1350
Miscellaneous:			$500

Totals		40,984		44,484		41,984		45,484

venky
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Subject: Re: Cozy MK IV - the cheaper alternative to the Velocity
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:09:24 GMT

Thanks to Venky for posting re: CozyIV v.s. Velocity.

While the writer feels that the difference is primarily $$$ v.s. time,
and that the extra performance of the Cozy gives it an advantage, and
that he is encouraged because Bert Rutan "endorsed" the Cozy, I'll
just comment that I see it just a tiny bit different.

wrt Bert endorsing the Cozy, I think it is more accurate to state that Nat
Puffer pays royalties to Bert for basing these planes on the EZs. I had not
heard that Bert had stuck his neck out for Nat. 

wrt the extra performance of the Cozy, on the top end this is true, but
the pilot pays for it at the slower flight speeds. This trade-off is not
an unusual one, but one too many pilots forget. The Velocity was designed 
to be flown by relatively low-time pilots. This is the case even more with
the Velicity 173. With the 173 you give up about 10 mph at the top to get 
about 15 mph on the bottom (if my memory is with me today). My opinion is
that once I am going anything close to 200 mph, to go 10 or 20 mph slower
is no big deal. If it takes me an extra 15 minutes to get to San Diego 
from San Jose, then that is 15 minutes that I get to spend FLYING :-).
your attitude may be different. When it comes time to land, 15 mph is
a very big deal to me. Remember that the energy goes as the velocity squared,
so if you should have a problem and roll into a ball, you want to be going
SLOW when you do it.

I certianly agree that there is a big advantage to buying parts on an as-needed
basis. I've got money every month, but the big lump sum is tougher. And if 
something should happen that means that I cannot finish the project, then at
least I have been "educated" by the dollars spent building, rather than having
many $$$ locked up in parts I have never touched. (remember that the FAA lets
us build these things for educational reasons, not so that there are more planes
in the air)

Build because you love it

David		doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

The thought police insist I tell you:
my thoughts, not NASA's
From: jhayward@neumann.une.edu.au (Jason Hayward)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Self Propelled
Date: 6 Jan 93 01:08:24 GMT


  Recently a friend showed me an article on a pedal powered airplane. 
Supposedly this ultralight was flown across
the English channel. The whole thing looks like an elaborate joke, but 
I was wondering if it is possible to sustain flight by muscle power 
alone??
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: conover@nuchat.sccsi.com (Mark Allen Conover)
Subject: Kitfox
Organization: South Coast Computing Services, Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:37:18 GMT

Anyone out there have any experience with a Kitfox?  Perhaps I can save
myself ten bucks before I send for the information packet.

Thanks.

Mark Conover // conover@nuchat.sccsi.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Subject: Re: Velocity Ride
Reply-To: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown NJ
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 20:34:44 GMT

In article <C0DvCH.886@agora.rain.com> richard@agora.rain.com (Richard Johnson) writes:
>....tells of his wonderful experience test-driving
>the Velcity "Big Orange". 

A correction. I "test-drove" the fixed-gear 173 not the "Big Orange" which is 
the standard Velocity.

>Only one question in my mind:
>
>still have qualms?  How do you now feel about letting down (assuming
>you're going IFR), in turbulence, near minimums, in the mountains, 
>near a TCA, and have to change frequencies?  Is the Velocity _that_
>stable, that you would remove your hand from the stick for two or three
>seconds and change the radio, or would you rather reach across with
>your left hand?

Trimmed up correctly, the 173 seems like a hands-off or two fingers only
plane (which is how Duane likes to fly).

As long as you are not flying in a condition/configuration that requires trim 
changes (due to power changes), you don't need to hang on to the stick.
I asked him the above question. His facetious answer was to fly from the 
right seat all the time. While flying right seat, he just switches to the
right hand on the stick and uses the left hand to reach across for the 
throttles and speed brake switch. It isn't ideal but it isn't awkward either.

He says he does the opposite while in the left seat. Switches to the left 
hand for the stick and uses the right hand to fiddle with the avionics. I
think this is a little easier to do without disturbing the scan than reaching 
with the left hand for the avionics.

>....Oh, and thanks for the info and vicarious thrill of losing a prop
>on downwind.

Didn't really lose a prop! Just pieces of the fiberglass laminate on the prop 
blades.

venky
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: doug@alliant.com (Doug Bloomberg)
Subject: Re: Self Propelled
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems Corp.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:12:23 GMT

In article <2776@grivel.une.edu.au> jhayward@neumann.une.edu.au (Jason Hayward) writes:
>
>  Recently a friend showed me an article on a pedal powered airplane. 
>Supposedly this ultralight was flown across
>the English channel. The whole thing looks like an elaborate joke, but 
>I was wondering if it is possible to sustain flight by muscle power 
>alone??

	Yep, done years ago, mid 80's. The first man powered plane to complete
	a 1 mile figure 8 circuit, the "Gossimer Condor" is in the Smithsonian
	hall of firsts. Some time after another plane flew from England (UK)
	to France, on pedal power alone. Interesting tidbit, they had to
	cut a hole in the canopy of the Gossimer Condor to allow cooling air
	for the pilot/peddlers legs. He tired and couldn't get the sustained
	power needed until that was done. BTW they built the plane to meet
	the requirements for a $50,000 prize put up by a London Newspaper.

	Doug

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: laird@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird)
Subject: info about gyro in Popular Science?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: 12 Jan 93 19:21:46 GMT

I don't have it in front of me, but I just saw a gyro in Popular
Science that looks quite interesting.  They gave the name of the
designers, but not an address/phone number.

Anyone have more info?

--kyler
From: ovrskeek@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (I am the OVER-skeek!)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Mini 500 Heli
Date: 12 Jan 1993 10:29:55 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu


I recently read an article in KitPlanes magazine about a kit-built
helicopter called the Mini-500. It looked very interesting, but I 
had a few questions about it.

Revolution (the builder) claims a 2000 hour TBO on everything but
the engine (including main and tail rotors). Does this sound realistic?
I had thought that a 500 TBO on main rotors was more common. Is it
possible to build a rotor that is this good, or are these figures
way out?

The Mini-500 is powered by a Rotax-582, which makes a claimed 67
HP. Is this really enough for a Heli? I was under the impression
that Rotax's were not the most reliable of power plants (Maybe they
don't need parts, but they just quit running). How do you helicopter
pilots feel about flying with this engine?

Would it be possible to fit a BRS to the helicopter? I wouldn't care if I
came down upside-down/nose-first/whatever, but what do you do if a
catastrophic failure occurs?

Any ideas/guesses would be well appreciated!

Thanks!

ovrskeek@matt.ksu.ksu.edu

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: sheinfel@ssd.comm.mot.com (Aviad Sheinfeld)
Subject: Deaf piloting
Organization: Motorola
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:17:52 GMT

Hi all,

Can a deaf person get a private pilot's certificate?  Is there
a non-audio alternative to communications?

Thanks,
Aviad
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: marquis@ll.mit.edu (Doug Marquis)
Subject: Re: Ski Resorts
Reply-To: marquis@ll.mit.edu
Date: Mon,  4 Jan 93 08:31:54 -0500
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA25836; Mon, 4 Jan 93 05:34:57 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA08363; Mon, 4 Jan 93 05:34:55 -0800
X-Received: by ll.mit.edu (4.1/LL-1.3) id AA19628; Mon, 4 Jan 93 08:31:56 EST
X-To: rec.aviation.ifr.usenet
X-In-Reply-To: jle@fc.hp.com's message of Sun, 3 Jan 1993 22:20:14 GMT


New England Ski Resorts with airports close by:
(Non-inclusive list)

Bethel ME (0B1) -- No IAP -- Sunday River is 5 miles away.
Carrabasset ME (B21) -- No IAP -- Sugarloaf is 2 miles away.
Morrisville VT (MVL) -- IAP -- Stowe (Mt Mansfield) is 8 miles away.
Springfield VT (VSF) -- IAP -- Okemo is ~10 miles away.
Warren Sugarbush VT (0B7) -- No IAP -- Sugarbush is a few miles away
   (caution: 0B7 not always cleared in Winter -- Montpelier is alternate)
West Dover VT (4V8) -- IAP -- Mt Snow is (unknown distance) away


Rutland VT may be fairly close to Killington, I'm not sure.


Please feel free to fill out my list.  Maybe starting a list of
reliable ground transportation with phone numbers would also be of
use.
From: jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Dunkle)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Whats Latest on IFR/GPS
Date: 6 Jan 93 04:58:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.MfGjCWe00UzxM1WHkN
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Topic is IFR/GPS..."today's status".  I know there has been considerable
dialog about GPS on the net...and some of it before the holidays
described/speculated on the hardware side of things.  Questions:

1.  When will there be ifr enroute approval of gps?

2.  When will there be approval of non-precision approach use of gps?

3.  When will approved...or approvable receivers for 1 & 2 above be available?

4.  When available...about how much will they cost?

Jeff Dunkle
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Subject: Re: Interesting Navaid:  ANDREW NDB
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 21:34:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.041008.17438@netcom.com> rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan) writes:
   1.  I would not be particularly comfortable navigating
   an NDB airway in actual IFR in busy airspace.  I just 
   do not trust the accuracy.  Why replace a VOR with an
   NDB?

The worse accuracy of the NDB would have been taken into account by
the appropriate administration (such as the FAA in the US) when
designing the airspace, so it should not concern you. A NDB is
substantially cheaper and simpler and thus more reliable than a VOR.
If you don't need the utility and accuracy of a VOR, it could make
sense to replace it with an NDB.

   2.  How common are NDB/DMEs?  I have never encountered
   one before.  Is the distance to the old Biscayne VOR/DME
   or to a new ANDREW DME?

I don't know about the U.S., but in Europe you occasionally see
NDB/DMEs as approach aids, or an NDB colocated with a TACAN. The
distance you read on your aircraft DME equipment cannot be to any
point other than the DME itself. It could be, however, that the DME is
calibrated to read zero at some distance from the DME station. In that
case, the DME will not indicate the distance to a point, but to a
circle around the station. I know of several approach DMEs located at
midfield of an airport and calibrated to read zero at the runway
tresholds.
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson                            Internet: lhe@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science           Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263                                        Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28  KISTA, SWEDEN                         Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: olsen@HING.LCS.MIT.EDU (James Olsen)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: GPS vs DGPS info needed
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:50:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
NNTP-Posting-Host: hing.ai.mit.edu

In article <1993Jan12.014925.16271@rwwa.COM>, witr@rwwa.com writes:
>1) For enroute use, is GPS with SA accurate enough?
>2) What standards apply to the above?
>3) For approach use, is GPS with SA accurate enough for *any* approach?

There are two separate questions in navaid certification: accuracy and
integrity.

For enroute use and non-precision approaches, GPS/SA accuracy is more
than good enough.  The standard for non-precision approaches is 0.3 NM
accuracy, and enroute is even easier.  GPS with SA can give around
0.05 NM accuracy.

The sticking point is not accuracy, but integrity.  Will a GPS signal
be reliable enough, and will a pilot be warned quickly enough if it
fails?  GPS shows great promise, but it's on the bottom of the navaid
seniority list, and integrity can only be demonstrated by a track record
of successful use.

For example, there are two types of enroute use: 'supplemental' and
'sole-means'.  A sole-means navaid, by itself, is legally sufficient
for IFR flight.  A supplemental navaid can only be used when a
sole-means navaid is available for backup.  VOR is approved as a
sole-means navaid.  Loran is approved as a supplemental enroute
navaid, but not (as far as I am aware) as sole-means.  The difference
is not any superior accuracy of the VOR, but rather its integrity,
demonstrated over more than 30 years of use.

GPS will most likely be approved as a supplemental enroute navaid very
quickly.  It will also, IMHO, be approved as a sole-means navaid, but
only after several years of service have demonstrated its integrity,
and perhaps only in a DGPS system, which provides integrity monitoring as
well as increased accuracy.

As I said, the non-precision approach accuracy standard is 0.3 NM.
The corresponding integrity requirement is to warn the pilot within 30
seconds after a navaid failure.  (An NDB does this by shutting itself
down.)  The FAA will initially provide GPS approach integrity monitoring
by use of 'overlay' approaches, where an existing VOR or NDB approach can
be used for cross-checking.  Eventually, DGPS and/or perhaps RAIM (remote
autonomous integrity monitoring, that is, internal cross-checking) will
likely be used to assure the needed signal integrity.

>References to technical documents would be appreciated...

One basic reference is FAA handbook 8260.3B, U.S. Standard for
Terminal Approach Procedures (TERPS).  Note particularly paragraphs
1500-1599 (RNAV approaches, including LORAN and GPS), and paragraphs
1700-1799 (enroute criteria).  Also, you could look through back
issues of _Journal_of_Navigation_ and _Navigation_, which have a
number of research papers on this topic and related ones.
-- 
Jim Olsen   olsen@cag.lcs.mit.edu   "Tache d'etre heureux." -- St-Exupery
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: Robert Noel
Subject: Re: GPS and IFR Approache
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:44:18 GMT

In article <401.185.uupcb@ssr.com> dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
writes:

stuff deleted.


>O> .4. what I meant to get across was:  I lot of what I read about GPS (of
> > .any flavor) gushes about the accuracy (usually under ideal conditions)
> > .and completely ignores the other requirements that must be met
> > .by precision approach systems.
>
>Talk to anyone that's got a GPS unit in their aircraft now.  I know of
>several people that have pulled their LORANs in favor of GPS.  That's
>under real-world, current conditions, without the full constellation of
>SVs up.  GPS at its worst is better than LORAN at its best.
>

present experience of the current GPS used in VFR is not applicable to
requirements for IFR precision approaches, such as integrity.



stuff deleted

>There's no question that the GPS environment has the potential to
>completely replace the current VOR/DME environment as the primary
>enroute nav. source.  

true

>There's also no question that it can be used
>for CAT-I approaches.  

not true.  Note: I'm _not_ saying that GPS absolutely _cannot_ handle
precision approaches.  I'm disagreeing with the "no question" part.
There _are_ questions, and various folks are researching how to 
address/overcome them.

>There are no apparent issues preventing its use
>for CAT-III approaches.  (This includes both integrity and availability
>issues...)  

not true.  Note: I'm _not_ saying that GPS absolutely _cannot_ handle
precision approaches.  I'm disagreeing with the "no apparent issues" part.


>Expect to see LOTS of movement from the FAA towards GPS in the near
>future.  It's happening...

_If_ GPS works, I look forward to getting a DGPS receiver for my plane
(when I finally get a plane) and chucking the other radios.

Bob Noel
my views are my own, not MITRE's
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: jeremy@cs.swarthmore.edu (Jeremy Brest)
Subject: Re: New VOR approach to Moffett Field
Organization: Swarthmore College
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:21:04 GMT

cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus) writes:

>>(I think Moffett already has a TACAN approach; why do they need a VOR
>>approach?)

>Probably so that NASA doesn't have to maintain the TACAN once the Navy
>leaves.

And how about so those of us without TACAN can shoot the Moffett
approach and take a straight-in to Palo Alto instead of having to use
San Jose or Hayward?  Does a non-civilian field allow this sort of
use?

Jeremy
From: greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis)
Subject: Re: GPS and IFR Approaches
Organization: Data Parallel Systems, Inc
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:51:57 GMT

In <1993Jan4.201207.13436@oakhill.sps.mot.com> mpaton@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Mike Paton) writes:

>If the aircraft is on the
>glideslope at all times, then the DH can be determined theoretically anyway
>by distance in a horizontal or vertical direction. For the Cat 1 ILS it is
>determined by a barometric altitude which is required to be tested every 2
>years to a standard I don't have handy, and can be checked by the pilot on
>the ground before flight as being within +- 75 ft. I have been ASSUMING all
>along (and please correct me of course) that the DH on a DGPS approach
>equivalent in category to the ILS Cat 1 would have the DH determined by the
>DGPS itself and would not use the barometric altimeter.
> 
>My point is that the overall SYSTEM accuracy of the Cat 1 ILS is degraded by
>the method used to determine DH whereas I assume that a DGPS approach would
>not have any degrade as the DH would be determined with the same accuracy
>as would the glideslope. I agree that +- 75 ft is a huge error, but it is the
>current standard for Cat 1.

Yes, but consider that there are often one to three "backups" to the altimeter
determination of DH:

1.  Using a LOC/DME, DH can be determined by DME distance to the localizer
    antenna.
2.  Using the middle marker as a reference, DH can be determined by activation
    of the middle marker light*.
3.  Using a radar altimeter, DH can often be determined by radar altitude
    above terrain**.

In a typical CAT-I ILS, I would tend to value the information from #1 above
the most highly.

*#2 suffers because: a) MM transmitters are often, but not always, co-located
with GS DH intercept, b)  The size of the MM beam also makes EXACT DH
determination difficult, AND c) MM in most countries (the USA included) are
going away.

**#3 is very good for approaches in which the terrain at DH is the same
elevation as the runway threshold elevation.  Obviously an approach to a
runway whose threshold began abruptly atop a 300' cliff would be a poor
candidate for DH determination via radar altimeter.  But, if I knew I
were making a tight approach into a airport on land as flat as a pooltable,
I think I would rather use the RA to determine DH over all else.  Certainly
if my RA said I was at DH and my GPS told me otherwise, I would go with the
RA.

greg

--
Gregory Reed Travis				D  P  S  I
Data Parallel Systems Incorporated   greg@dpsi.com (For MX mailers only!)
Bloomington, IN			     greg@indiana.edu (For the others)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: mikec@ginger.lcs.mit.edu (Mike Ciholas)
Subject: Re: GPS and IFR Approaches
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:15:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec31.133312.12126@linus.mitre.org> Bob Noel writes:
>In article <barnett.725771194@convex.convex.com> barnett@convex.com (Paul
>Barnett) writes:

>>>If one assesses the accuracy of the ground installation combined
>>>with the airborne equipment, does the DGPS and full constellation
>>>not then come out ahead?

>not exactly.  At the DH, the vertical accuracy of DGPS and ILS 
>are just about the same (close enough not to make any real difference).  
>Actually, MLS is more accurate than ILS, but, again, it's not a 
>real big difference.

A particular implementation of DGPS may have the same vertical
accuracy as ILS.  You can provide finer correction factors and better
front end electronics to improve the DGPS results.  It appears that
there is a particular DGPS setup being discussed (maybe defined by the
FAA?).  Differential GPS (as opposed to something that may be labeled
"DGPS") could be very accurate in the vertical dimension, possibly as
high as 5 feet accuracy.

It should also be noted that DGPS accuracy is uniform, whereas ILS
accuracy depends on the distance to the runway (improving as you get
closer).

Mike Ciholas
mikec@lcs.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr