HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rosinski@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski)
Subject: (naive?) Buyer enters used plane market
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 21:32:08 GMT


The time has come.  I'm tired of renting, and have decided to take the
plunge to seriously consider outright purchase of a used 4 place,
single engine, fixed gear airplane.  The rest of this posting
describes the "narrowing down" criteria I've already selected, and the
rationale behind each decision.  Comments and criticisms of these
choices, as well as recommendations on items I may have overlooked are
welcome.  Also, if you know of a plane for sale which falls within the
guidelines I outline, I'd love to hear about it.

1) Number of seats: 4.  I want to take the plane on long trips.
Therefore I need room for at least 2 people and a fair amount of gear.

2) Cost.  < $30K.  Wish I could, but I cannot afford to spend more.

3) Fixed vs. retractable gear.  Forget retractables.  In addition to
the higher initial cost, maintenance and insurance costs will likewise
be higher.

4) Engine: Forget anything with the Continental O-300 or the Lycoming
O-320 H2AD engine.  There's nothing "wrong" with the old Continentals
per se.  They've just been out of production too long, (read: higher
maintenance cost) and can have serious problems if fed too much 100LL
avgas.  The H2AD was a lemon from day 1.  The last thing I need is an
engine that decides to self-destruct over the Colorado mountains.  The
Lycoming O-320 E series engine, on the other hand, has the reputation
of being "the most bullet-proof engine around".

5) VFR vs. IFR.  I wouldn't rule out a minimally IFR-capable aircraft,
but sure hate the idea of spending extra money on something I'm not
going to use.  If I want to go for an instrument rating some time in
the future, I can always buy the latest, greatest radios then.

6) Airframe condition.  High time doesn't bother me so much.
Corrosion does.  Is it reasonable to restrict consideration to only
those aircraft with *zero* corrosion?

7) Type of flying.  Mainly long trips, and forays into the local
mountains.  Aerobatic and other types of "afternoon fun" flying can
still be accomplished by renting appropriate aircraft from the local
FBO. 

General conclusions: Cessna 172 or 182 would seem to come closest to
meeting the above criteria.  182 burns alot more fuel and is much more
expensive to maintain/overhaul however.  Grumman Tiger is alot faster
than a 172, and has the advantage of being currently in production
(the perceived advantage is parts availability, no way can I offord a
new one).  But its altitude capability is marginal at best for the
western mountains.  Some of the Piper aircraft are perhaps worth
consideration, but I've never piloted them and know next to nothing
about them.  Perhaps a 172 with 180-hp conversion is the best bet.
The resultant ceiling increase and speed enhancement would be most
welcome.  I read with interest the recent thread here on 180-hp
conversions, and most people seemed happy with it.

Again, comments/criticisms are welcome.


Jim Rosinski
rosinski@ncar.ucar.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: abbadon@nuchat.sccsi.com (David Neal)
Subject: Re: aircraft rental insurance
Organization: /etc/organization
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:30:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.182016.5937@news.arc.nasa.gov> doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay) writes:
>When I was renting towards my provate, I bought a renter's policy from
>AVEMCO. it was $75 or $100 per year. Helped me sleep better.
>

As soon as I saw your message, I called them and picked up the
same sort of coverage. Talk about a big hickey if I bang up a plane!

>When I bought a plane and leased it to the flight school, I became aware
>of the fact that every time a student or other renter dinged my plane, the FBO
>would charge them for the deductable (sometimes the whole repair) AND the 
>down-time. It seems that they paid 
>and kept quiet, perhaps to keep thier FAA record clean, who knows.
>


My FBO (Fletcher Aviation, HOU) charges the deductible ($1000)
if you bang up the plane. Some student landed hard just last week
and munged the front wheel and nose pretty good. No prop strike,
but he had to pay the $1k. Of course I grease onto the runway like
snot on a doorknob (:-) so no worry there. But you never know.


>Having been on both sides, I would strongly recomend the AVEMCO policy.
>
>David		doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov


-- 
David Neal - Unix Consultant at large (713) 578-3972
abbadon@nuchat.sccsi.com
abbadon%nuchat@uunet
From: twilson@alfred.carleton.ca (Tom Wilson)
Subject: Re: I thought I saw a F86
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 14:07:52 GMT

No, but he originally said the rudder control surfaces were at the top
of the rudder. On the T-33 the stab was at the bottom. I'll stick by
saying it was a T-37.

Tom
From: woof@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Steve Wolf)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Re: How NOT to get your IFR rating :-)
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:21:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpfcmgw.1540292
Organization: HP Fort Collins, CO

My instrument rating stats look much better than my private ticket ones.

For my private ticket:

	Jan 1989:  3 flights		Sep 1989:  4 flights
	Feb 1989:  3 flights		Oct 1989:  3 flights
	Mar 1989:  2 flights		Nov 1989:  1 flight
	Apr 1989:  2 flights		Dec 1989:  2 flights
	May 1989:  4 flights		Jan 1990:  2 flights
	Jun 1989:  6 flights		Feb 1990:  9 flights
	Jul 1989:  4 flights		Mar 1990:  8 flights
	Aug 1989:  1 flight		Apr 1990:  2 flights + checkride

	Total: 56 flights in 16 months; Average: 3.5 flights/month

For my instrument rating:

	Jan 1991:  8 flights		Apr 1991:  2 flights
	Feb 1991:  6 flights		May 1991:  1 flight
	Mar 1991:  9 flights		Jun 1991:  8 flights

	Total: 34 flights in 6 months; Average: 5.7 flights/month

During April and May, my instructor's schedule and mine didn't match up
so good...  If you don't count those two months, I averaged 7.8
flights/month.

--
Steve Wolf
Hewlett-Packard				UUCP: hplabs!fc.hp.com!woof
Fort Collins, CO			ARPA: woof@fc.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: mikec@tabasco.lcs.mit.edu (Mike Ciholas)
Subject: Re: GPS -- A Potentially Dangerous Technology
Keywords: GPS, Navigation, Defense
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:30:25 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.070612.1131@sics.se> lhe@sics.se
	(Lars-Henrik Eriksson) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.153402.23474@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, mikec@tabasco
	(Mike Ciholas) writes:
[deleted]
>>I agree that the system needs to be thoroughly tested.  But, there are
>>many checks and balances built into the GPS system that other systems
>>don't have.  For example, on final approach, typically you are
>>depending on one localizer and one glideslope transmitter.  You can't
>>really monitor the signals very well since you can't place a receiver
>>in the glide path!
>
>But you do! There are monitors for both localiser and glideslope. You
>also have the glide path check altitude when you cross the outer
>marker.
>(There are also monitors for VORs).
>Lars-Henrik Eriksson				Internet: lhe@sics.se

Yes, there are monitors, but they CANNOT monitor the signal that the
airplane is detecting, they can only test the signal at some other
point that is generally not on the glide slope.  The localizer and
glide slope carry the position information by emitting a spatially
dependent signal.  That is, the signal left of the runway is different
than the signal to the right.  In other words, it depends on the
antenna orientation for information.  In GPS, the signal from a
particular satelite is essentially the same at all receiving sites
(only difference is the delay).  If I monitor a particular GPS
satelite signal at the airport, I can then be pretty sure that any
airplane within 20 miles is getting the same signal (some exceptions
exist, mainly due to ionospheric fluctuations which have about +/- 1
meter effect over 100 miles or so).  Such a monitor would be a natural
place to calculate correction factors that would allow precision
approaches (down to about 1 to 2 meters in accuracy).  These
correction factors would then be broadcast to the airplane.  Of
course, a monitor for this is necessary as well (a stationary device
continuously using the correction factors and the GPS info to
calculate its position, if it differs by more than a set amount, shut
down the emission of the correction factors and revert to
non-precision approaches).

Mike Ciholas
mikec@lcs.mit.edu

Flame pilot light: Can we adopt the metric system for aviation?  Are
there reasons to keep the english units besides the conversion costs?
From: mpucket@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Margaret Puckette)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Ode to Ice
Summary: poem about a flight through ice
Keywords: ice
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:26:58 GMT
Followup-To: rec.aviation
Organization: CS Dept. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.


                     O D E   T O   I C E


Warm great ocean air lifts above our sharp volcanic ranges
And tall peaks hat themselves in clouds of blue and grey
Shower veils bathe the earth in water, snow, and changes
Our once kind sky into a darkened place to pray.

My wing-ed steed drones on through sheets of grizzled hoary ice
Her wings white-whiskered as the face of an old unshaven man
We feel the slap of freezing rain like bullets, they entice
Us down down down to warmer softer looking land.

But land is just a roiling sea of rocky jaws that bite!
With teeth of ancient stumps that chew and grind
Small icy birds like mine who fall from flight
Are but a mess of shards and scrap upon the ground to find.

Five flying machines are eaten by these hills each year
Like me, they venture out in March across a frontal zone
And reckon they can cross this 100 miles without a fear
Until those veils of ice, like nets, come drag them deadly down.

This time my roaring bird found passage through, and wore
Her sparkling coat of ice like diamonds to an airborne ball
This time, capricious ice did test my mettle, and bore
A frozen somber message to remember, once and for all.


************************************************************************
Margaret "the ice plane cometh" Puckette
AOPA Archer N1939G
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: schayne@acs.ucalgary.ca (Stephen Hayne)
Subject: Re: Canadian airspace question, aerobatics
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:44:12 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <1992Apr15.214115.15463@watmath.waterloo.edu> gamiddle@watmath.waterloo.edu (Guy Middleton) writes:
>As far as I can tell, aerobatics is allowed only in uncontrolled airspace.
>Aerobatics is (I assume) always VFR, and VFR is uncontrolled in Class D
>airspace.
>
>So, is aerobatics allowed in Class D airspace, or only in Class E?
>


Well, all I know is that I departed YBW (Springbank, AB) runway
25 this morning bound for the NW practise area and was advised by
the tower that the "aerobatics box is active - proceed west
until...".  This fellow was pulling -4,+5 (I checked his 'g'
meter afterwards) at 7:30am, right inside the YBW control zone.
ATIS reported that "all traffic should remain clear of xxxx from
3000 asl to 6000 asl".

BTW, you should see the mountains west of Calgary one a CAVOK
morning ... makes one almost beleive in God.


-- 
Stephen C. Hayne, Assistant Professor, MIS, University of Calgary
        __!__         (403)220-7161
    _____(_)_____     "I love to fly - my banker will verify."
From: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Bogus localizer indication experience
Date: 1 Apr 92 21:41:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: mwunix.jcmorris.702164470
Organization: The MITRE Corporation

wisch@Apple.COM (Ed Wischmeyer) writes:

>Regarding the 30 degree signal "unreliable", I don't have my AIM here,
>but I think you may be referring to signal *availability,* not reliability.
>If I can receive a signal strong enough to hide the Off flag, and can
>receive a positive ID, that signal had better be usable for navigation.

The reference in the AIM paragraph 12 identifies the localizer-valid
sectors, and in section 6 warns:

  (6) Unreliable signals may be received outside these areas.

In a previous posting I may have come across a little stronger than
I intended in referring to erroneous indications as you fly well off
the approach course, but the incorrect displays aren't unknown.  Something
to recall is that unlike a VOR signal, the localizer is an *audio frequency*
comparative-strength mechanism, which is why (a) you can't affect it by
rotating the OBS, and (b) some of the el cheapo nav receivers are
marked (where you normally can't see them easily) for use with VOR signals
only.

If I recall notes about the localizer from too many years ago, the
signal to the left of centerline (as seen by a bird on the approach)
is modulated at 90 Hz; the signal to the right at 150 Hz.  The localizer
needle is driven by running the audio signals through tight notch
filters at these frequencies; it will be centered when the *audio*
level of the two frequencies is the same.  (Sorta like a slightly
modernized range approach.)  RF power isn't directly the issue
here.

The sensitivity of an ILS to interference is reflected (sorry for the pun)
in the almost religious protection given to the "ILS Protected Area"
on airport property.

At TYS where I was once based a railroad ran between the approach
light piers; the controllers swore that they could watch jets using
coupled approaches make a quite visible dip if a train was on the tracks.

OTOH, it's been a while since I saw any engineering analysis of ILS
systems.  Can someone with more recent info support or dispute this?

Joe Morris
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: ROGER.RITTER@OFFICE.WANG.COM ("Roger D. Ritter")
Subject: Re: St. Elmo's Fire
Organization: Mail to News Gateway
Date: 09 Apr 92 14:50:30 EST

Yep, St. Elmo's fire is neat stuff.  I've seen it once, on a night
refueling mission in a KC-135 (one of the perks we sometimes get in
the CAP).  (No, they don't refuel *us*, but sometimes they let us ride
along).  After the mission was over, and we were descending in the
clouds, we noticed a blue glow around the windshield frames.  It got
brighter, and occasionally a spark would *crawl* down the windshield --
looking just like a miniature lightning bolt, but on the windshield's
surface, and taking one or two seconds to move from top to bottom.
Very nifty, but we didn't think to try to distract it with a fingertip.

Earlier, we were in the clouds refueling a couple of FB-111s.  (Visibility
was about half a mile; the -111s would use their radar to get in close
enough to acquire the tanker visually).  As the first one was hooking
up, we started getting sparks about a foot long between the tip of the
boom and the fuselage of the FB-111.  They were big enough that the
boomer commented on them, and the -111 jock said he could hear them.
(The refueling receptacle on an FB-111 is a couple of feet behind the
cockpit capsule, so the sparks were hitting a few feet behind the
pilot's head.)  An impressive example of how much static can build up
on an airplane when flying in the soup!

Roger Ritter (Roger.Ritter@OFFICE.Wang.com) PP-ASEL, AGI         Ham: N1FZZ
Luscombe 8A N71983 "Rocky"
Ha!  This is FUN!                                 CAP: Profile 49 (NH Wing)
From: stadler@Apple.COM (Andy Stadler)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Working on the instrument instrument rating
Date: 17 Apr 92 06:10:32 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <9204150008.AA06528@mammoth.Berkeley.EDU>
 PJERN@CHGVMIC1.VNET.IBM.COM writes:
>
>The way I figure it, $77/hr is about the rate one pays for dual
>in a 172 most places.  I haven't agreed completely to the deal,
>but I figure having 50 hours of multi time wouldn't hurt later on.
>It's certainly a hard deal to pass up.  I'm just looking for opinions
>(and I *know* I'll get them here.... :))

It sounds to me like something you shouldn't pass up!  Make sure you are at
least becoming comfortable flying the twin VFR before you start worrying
about the IFR part.  Remember the twin is not just two engines, it's also 
what we used to call "complex" (flaps + gear + CS props) and each of those
is a step in itself.  Also, it seems reasonable to do most of the training
in the twin, but be sure you get some dual time in a single.  Finally, you'll
be taking (eventually) a number of checkrides, be sure to stagger them so
you don't get overwhelmed trying to do it "all in a day."

>Phil Jern (pjern@chgvmic1.vnet.ibm.com) OS/2 Evangelist.
                                        ^^^^^^

Oh, you REALLY don't want my opinion about that!   :-)

--Andy    stadler @ APPLE .com
From: aharding@ravel.udel.edu (Allison S Harding)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Help!
Keywords: Looking for a friend.
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:24:11 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

A friend of mine used to work at Lee Airport in Edgewater (near
Annapolis), Maryland as a flying instructor.  He just left there
last week, and I am trying to catch up with him.

His name is Hans Dijkman, 24 years old, and is from Holland.
Apparently, he is headed back to Delaware - I am assuming to
Dawn Aeronautics at New Castle Co. Airport in Wilmington, DE.

If you happen to see him, would you please ask him to get in
touch with me, or get his phone number so I could call him?
Your help would be GREATLY appreciated, as he was my 
instructor and is a good friend of mine.

Thanks for your help in advance.

Allison Harding

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
aharding@ravel.udel.edu           OR            ajc01537@udelvm.udel.edu

U of Delaware address:  1405 Christiana West, Newark,DE 19717;  302-837-1777

Home address:  248 Berrywood Dr, Severna Park, MD 21146;   410-544-6234

      or leave a message with my Dad at Kuranda, USA   1-800-752-5308
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From: prang@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Do-it-yourself airplanes
Summary: Liability
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:10:08 GMT
Organization: Boeing Defense and Space Group, Seattle WA

In article <1918@transfer.stratus.com>, spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker) writes:
> In article <1992Apr3.164624.143@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu>, ajkavie@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu writes:
> > 
> > P.S.  I like all this talk about homebuilts.  I think they will be the 
> > next wave of general aviation aircraft.
> 
> What do you mean "will be?"  They already are! :-)
> It sure will be nice to start seeing factory-built RV's, Glasairs, Kitfoxes
> and others (as long as they don't stop selling kits.)  I just wonder what 
> will happen when the personal-injury vultures find them.

We had the marketing director of Stoddard-Hamilton talk at an EAA meeting
in February, and someone asked about product liability.

He said their main defense was to remain poor... not give a juicy target
for product liability suits.  So while they sell a lot of Glasair, they
plow the profits back in to the company instead of expanding or otherwise
flaunting their income.  S-H has spun-off a lot of companies in promising
areas.  Not to mention that Stoddard-Hamilton is employee-owned.  *And*
doesn't have permanent title to its buildings/land.

A few years ago, I was told (by an aviation lawyer) that no homebuilt 
designer/manufacturer has ever lost a suit.  I dunno how good this guy was...
he wasn't aware of the Quickie suit; but of course the company EVENTUALLY
got the case thrown out.  By that time, they were out of money due to legal
fees and had to declare bankruptcy.

BTW, the Quickie suit was a prime example of an idiotic court case.  The
builder crashed his plane and suffered injuries.  Reason for crash:  Metal
chips in the oil.  Reason for metal chips:  Owner drilled a hole in the
case to install oil gauge, and didn't bother to clean up.  Plaintiff's
claim:  Quickie claimed the aircraft was "easy to build and easy to fly"
and it obviously wasn't since the builder crashed and was injured.  The
plaintiff won the jury trial....


                                          Ron Wanttaja
					  prang@ssc-bee
					  ...rutgers!uw-beaver!ssc-bee!prang
                                          prang@ssc-bee.boeing.com
From: prang@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Aussie AIR USENET Patches
Date: 11 Apr 92 08:37:31 GMT
Organization: Boeing Defense and Space Group, Seattle WA

In article <1992Apr10.040545.10237@marlin.jcu.edu.au>, ccrdb@marlin.jcu.edu.au writes:
> Brett,
> 	the patches are better than we expected! Can't believe the
> colors - beaut!!!  thank-you for that. Australia is somewhere on the
> other side of the patch, right? No they're great, just kidding!

Just wear the patch upside down :-)

                                |"Hmmm... Captain Cook University?  Was
                               _|_/ it named after the Hawaian delicacy?"
                 	      /(_)\                       
                      -------:==^==:-------      
                           [[|  o  |]]             
  -----------------__________\_____/__________-----------------
                          _  /     \  _
                         T T/_______\T T      Ron Wanttaja 
			 | |         | |      prang@ssc-bee 
			 """         """      prang@ssc-bee.boeing.com
From: rick@franck.uchicago.edu (Rick Ernst)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: taildragger transition: correction
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:52:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago

In a previous posting on taildragger instruction, I mentioned the name of a
particular airport where such instruction is given.  As it turns out, the
actual instruction is not given at that airport, for various legal reasons.
The instructor I mentioned merely bases his airplanes there.  Anyone who is
still interested in taildragger instruction in the northern Illinois area
should just e-mail me, I'll give you the instructor's telephone number, and
you can get further information from him.  I apologize for any confusion, most
of which was on my part.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Ernst                             Department of Physics
rick@control.uchicago.edu          The University of Chicago
From: westbrook-jeffery@CS.YALE.EDU (Jeffery Westbrook)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Units of measurement
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:59:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr10.195938.6628
	<1992Apr10.134823.3149@sics.se>
Organization: /homes/theory/westbroo/.organization

In article <1992Apr10.134823.3149@sics.se> lhe@sics.se 

   Mark Ferraretto writes:
     An advantage of measuring distances in nautical miles is that it is a 
     'natural' distance.  Ie 1nm = 1 minute of latitude.

 Lars-Henrik Eriksson responds:
   This problem would disappear if we also adopted angular units that
   were 1/400 of a circle.... 

But 360 is such a nice number! For example, it is divisible by
every number between 1 and 12 (except 7 and 11) and also 15 and 18.
Try that with 400. That's why the Sumerians did time (and everything
else) base 60.

-- Jeff
Newsgroups: rec.aviation