HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: joel@cfctech.cfc.com (Joel Lessenberry)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Lycoming engine designations
Summary: if I have an O320-xxx what does xxx mean?
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:20:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: cfctech.1992Apr8.152044.10750
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI


	My cherokee has a lycoming O320-e?? that puts out 150 hp.
	I have read of STC's that take the engine out, do something
	magic to turn it into a 160 hp O320-d?? and put it back.

	Does anyone know what the O320 part designates, and how the
	xxx suffix is decoded??

	joel

 Joel Lessenberry, Distributed Systems | +1 313 948 3342
 joel@cfctech.UUCP                     | Chrysler Financial Corp.
 joel%cfctech.uucp@mailgw.cc.umich.edu | MIS, Technical Services
 {sharkey|mailrus}!cfctech!joel        | 2777 Franklin, Sfld, MI
From: ed@mongo.Canada.Sun.Com (Ed Bryant [Sun Vancouver Sales])
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: 30 Minutes up Front! (Longish)
Date: 15 Apr 92 20:02:36 GMT
Reply-To: ed@mongo.Canada.Sun.Com
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.


not only is the cockpit incredibly sparse, compared to DC-10, 737, etc, but there
is even room for a pull out table between the screens and the pilots, for eating,
working, reading... 

Can't get over the Radio Shack joystick for manual flying though. Apparently the 
hardest transition from right seat to left is that the "stick" is run with the
right hand in the right seat, and the left hand in the left seat.

regards,
Ed.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: Alaska Trip Report (long)
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 21:13:32 GMT

In article <5450016@hplsla.hp.com>, dans@hplsla.hp.com (Dan Siler) writes:

|>     A passport is not needed to cross into Canada; a U.S. driver's
|>     license will do for U.S. citizens.  Also, carry your aircraft log
|>     books.  

I don't mean to pick nits, but a U.S. driver's license is not enough
for entry into Canada.  I learned this the hard way when I tried to
drive into Canada when I was 18 years old. A driver's license only proves
you are licensed to drive in the U.S.  It says nothing about your 
citizenship, which is what you have to be able to prove. You need either
a birth certificat and acceptable picture I.D. (e.g. driver's license),
or a passport, or a voter's registration card plus acceptable picture
I.D.  They don't always ask for it, but if they do you need to be able
to prove citizenship.


-- 

	Jim Burke				
	Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
  	phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
From: dancer@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu (Martha Underwood)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Motion 'Discomfort'...
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:01:53 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

In message <1992Apr6.000056.12477@infonode.ingr.com>, 
 kerl@cmack.b11.ingr.com (Dan Kerl) writes:
>
>Questions:
>
>1. Do I get to look forward to getting this way every time I take a training
>flight, or will this condition pass with experience?

In time, you will grow used to the motions and the motion sickness will no 
longer affect you.

>2. Is medication counterproductive?  My instructor feels it is, and states that
>"I'll get over it after a few flights."

Most medication for Motion Sickness will make you drowsy and long term usage
will do nasty things to your body. However, there are methods that won't do
damage or make you drowsy that might work for you. The motion sickness bands
sold in some catalogs and maybe in a sports shop do work, _for some people_. 
There is an herbal remedy/preventative for nausa: Ginger. Go to a health food
store and buy either the capsules or the NON-ALCOHOLIC extract of Ginger. I'd
start with one capsule (or dropper full) and see if you need more. You need 
to take this ~15 minutes of so before you fly. Trust me, this works with 
most people, though the extract tastes awful. Ginger ale of Ginger beer will
also work, do a much lesser degree.

>3. Are there any tricks (short of not flying) that might help?  My instructor
>also said that not concentrating on objects in the cocpit helps.  I was trying
>to practice doing scans of the surrounding airspace, since I wanted to start
>developing this habit as soon as possible.

Keeping a scan outside can work, also just focusing outside the airplane, 
with a window open can help.

>4. How does one deal with nausea in tight situations?

Not sure what you mean here, I'll assume you mean in confined spaces. You 
learn to come down early, before you get sick. Oh, you should also make 
sure there is a sic sac on board, just in case. Sometimes even 'thousands of 
hours' pilots get sick. 

Another thing, until you are very comfortable in the plane, in all sorts of
turbulence, NEVER fly when you are the least bit sick....it's a fast way to
needing to break out the sac.

Have fun and good luck! Keep us in touch with your progress!

Martha Underwood PP-ASEL (working on Instrument and Commercial)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dream Dancer                                dancer@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
aka                                         dancer@acm.rpi.edu
Martha Underwood                             Four cats and a
                                             burmese python
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: davea@col.hp.com (David E Allen)
Subject: Re: GPS -- A Potentially Dangerous Technology
Originator: davea@hpcsqa1.col.hp.com
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:41:35 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

>From: jbos@mswe1.ms.philips.nl
I have no access to the net so I'm mailing this to you. You might want to
put it to the net for me. (?)

Quoting from "DoD/DoT policy and plans for the future radionavigation
systems mix, 1990-1992":
<start quote>
GPS: GPS is a DoD developed, worldwide, satellite-based radionavigation
system that will be the DoD's primary radionavigation system well into the
next century. The constellation will ultimately exist of 24 operational
satellites (21 plus 3 operating spares). The DoD will declare the GPS
constellation fully operational when 21 operational (Block II) satellites
are functioning in their assigned orbits. This is expected to occur in 1993.
Users are cautioned that the system is under development, and signal
availability and accuracy are subject to change without warning at the
discretion of the DoD. Therefore, until the system is declared operational,
any use of the system is at the user's own risk.

ILS, MLS: ILS is the standard civil landing system in the U.S. and abroad,
and is protected by ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization)
agreement to January 1, 1998. ICAO has selected the MLS as the international
standard precision approach system, with implementation for 1998. MLS is
expected to gradually replace ILS in national and international civil
aviation. The FAA plans to have MLS colocated with ILS to minimize the
transition impact.

DoD operated ILSs are expected to be replaced by MLS by the year 2004.
<end quote>

Some remarks:
- As you can see it's not exactly a matter of the FAA not accepting GPS: the
system REALY isn't operational yet. That does not mean you can't use it: you
just can not RELY on it for the moment.
- When declared operational by the DoD it will be a matter of time before
FAA and FAA-alike organisations abroad will accept the system for
operational use. It's not that the FAA is 'against' it.
- To use GPS for precision approaches is another matter. GPS in itself is
not accurate enough for that. This requires differential GPS (you know: with
a ground based receiver that very accurately knows it's own position,
compares that with the GPS-reported position, and makes the difference
available as an error compensation signal to others). Now differential GPS
is relatively new; experiments are going on and are very promising. But no
standards have been agreed upon yet to my knowledge, so that's future for
now.
- I guess for the time being ICAO doesn't like depending on ONLY ONE
worldwide system for precision approaches for airliner operations, and will
go on with implementation of MLS (for the moment).

Hope this helps, regards, Jan Bos.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: Re: Landing a Skylane
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 20:46:41 GMT

In article <6APR199210440026@misvax.mis.arizona.edu> smithcap@misvax.mis.arizona.edu (Cap Smith) writes:
>
>Well, I've got about 50 hours now in my new-to-me C-182, and I haven't
>been able to replicate this "don't mess with the power" philosophy.

Nobody every said that "don't mess with the power" would work for
every single engine Cessna, I hope.  In the nose-heavy, higher powered
Cessna's (182, 206, 210), you gotta mess with the power if you want
to be graceful.

>So what's the secret, Skylane drivers?  How do you land a
>Skylane with *panache*? 

Try this:
1.  Pull back the power at midfield downwind to slow to the max flap
    extension speed (top of white arc).  This is usually a pretty 
    substantial decrease in power (like from 21 in MP to 12).

2.  Drop the first 10 degrees of flap as you are about to turn base.
    (Note that Skylanes generally work well turning a base which 
    yields a 1/2 mile final--substantially closer in than a 172 would
    turn base.  No low and slow a mile out, please...)

3.  When established on base, drop the next 10 degrees of flap and
    slow to 80 kts.

4.  Turning final, drop the last 10 degrees of flap, slow to 70kts
    and then add power back in to maintain 70kts.

5.  Over the threshhold, cut the power, slow to 60kts and then 
    steadily add in nose-up trim and back pressure on the yoke.
    As the nose is rising and the speed falls through 55 kts you will
    squeak it on with panache. :-)

I am currently making about 350 landings a year using this technique
(2 a day) and it yields good results about 90% of the time.

If you *must* do a power off 182 landing, be aware that the glideslope
on final will probably be in excess of 5 degrees, and you may feel a
bit like the Space Shuttle coming in:  Steps 1 and 2 above, but then
keep the flaps at 10 degrees and the power at 12-15 in MP.  When you
absolutely have the field made, dump all of the flaps and chop the
power. Push the nose down to hold 60 kts, and flare vigorously to
get the nose back up quickly.  No power needed to be added back, but
no panache, either :-).

Dan Masys
masys@lhc.nlm.nih.gov


Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre)
Subject: Re: VFR on top
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:54:57 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.203503.1460@debisa>, n6vbg@debisa (Javier Henderson) writes:

|> Incidentally, Thermal's field elevation is -117. Is this the only airport in
|> the US below MSL?

According to the airports.nav database that I retrieved not too long
ago from cica.indiana.edu, here are the airports with an elevation
less than 0 (elevation is the fourth colon-separated field):

6L1:CALEXICO, CA:JOHNSON BROTHERS:-2:-13:0:32:40.4:115:33.5::PHOENIX
BWC:BRAWLEY, CA:BRAWLEY MUNI:-128:-13:0:32:59.4:115:31.0:122.900:PHOENIX
CLR:CALIPATRIA, CA:CALIPATRIA MUNI:-180:-13:0:33:7.8:115:31.3:122.900:PHOENIX
IPL:IMPERIAL, CA:IMPERIAL COUNTY:-56:-13:0:32:50.2:115:34.5:123.600:PHOENIX
L03:BRAWLEY, CA:OCONNELL BROTHERS:-100:-13:0:32:57.8:115:32.5::PHOENIX
L06:DEATH VALLEY NATL MONUMENT, CA:DEATH VALLEY:-211:-14:0:36:27.8:116:52.8:122.800:LAS VEGAS
LA09:CUT OFF, LA:CLOVELLY:-3:-03:0:29:32.5:90:18.6::NEW ORLEANS
NJK:EL CENTRO, CA:NAF EL CENTRO:-43:-13:0:32:49.0:115:40.0::PHOENIX
SAS:SALTON CITY, CA:SALTON SEA:-85:-13:0:33:14.5:115:57.1:122.800:LOS ANGELES
TRM:THERMAL, CA:THERMAL:-117:-13:0:33:37.6:116:9.8:123.600:LOS ANGELES

Incidentally, there are a few that show up in the database with elevation 0.
One is clearly as a seaplane base, but I don't know about the others:

2Q2:WALNUT GROVE, CA:SPEZIA:0:-16:0:38:13.0:121:32.0::SAN FRANCISCO
63CA:NORTH SHORE, CA:DESERT AIR SKY RANCH:0:-13:0:33:28.9:115:52.4::PHOENIX
65LA:BELLE CHASSE, LA:SOUTHERN SEAPLANE:0:-03:0:29:52.0:90:1.3::NEW ORLEANS
83LA:CUT OFF, LA:LEDET AIRFIELD:0:-03:0:29:33.3:90:19.8::HOUSTON
CXL:CALEXICO, CA:CALEXICO INTL:0:-13:0:32:40.2:115:30.8:122.800:PHOENIX
SXP:SHELDON POINT, AK:SHELDONS POINT:0:-17:0:62:32.1:164:50.4:122.900:BETHEL


		William LeFebvre
		Computing Facilities Manager and Analyst
		Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
		Northwestern University
		<phil@eecs.nwu.edu>
From: scott@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Scott Turner)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 17:13:12 GMT
Subject: Hartzell Prop AD Modified
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

One of the most pervasive AD's in GA has just undergone a modification.
The dreaded Hartzell "Y" series prop AD, affecting virtually every
Hartzell constant speed prop used in light aircraft has been changed
from requiring a mandatory teardown and inspection every 2000 Hrs or 5
years whichever comes first (cost typically about $1000-$1500), to a
mandatory inspection every *12,000* hours with no time constraints!
Quite a modification!

AOPA is currently recommending compliance with a Feb '92 Hartzell
service bulletin which advises an inspection/rebuild interval of 2000
hours with no time limit.  Unlike the AD, which was supposed to check
for cracks, the service bulletin is apparently intended to detect
possible corrosion in the prop hub.

The guy I talked to at AOPA claims that *no cracks* have ever been found
as a result of the original AD.  He also claims that AOPA supplied
compelling evidence of this to the FAA *3 years ago* and the feds have
refused to act until recently.

Why do I sound so pleased?  Guess who's prop was scheduled for
inspection this month due to the 5 year limit!  I'll still probably have
the prop done as per the Hartzell service bulletin at 2000 hours, but
that'll be a few years yet.  I think this is the first time in the two
years I've owned the plane that I haven't ended up spending money that
I'd planned to spend.  It usually works the other way around!

BTW, it's AD# 77-12-06 for those of you with Hartzell CS props.


Scott Turner  scott@hpisla.LVLD.HP.COM
HP VXI Systems Division  <-- Third name change in 6 months!
Turbo Arrow N2134N  "Baby"
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Uh-oh...I'm infected....
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:36:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr6.203638.24480
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center

In article <1266@curly.UUCP>, rdj@adpgate.UUCP (Richard Johnson) writes:
|> In article <1992Mar30.185759.29802@news.arc.nasa.gov>, doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay) writes:
|> > ... go and visit the factory...
|> > ... One place was so bad I left very sure I wanted nothing to do with 
|> > those people. At the other I was very sure that I trusted the people ...
|> > but that the plane was not quite what I wanted....
|> 
|> So who were they?
|> 
|> Please give us some details; names, dates, your overall impressions.
|> I understand that we might like to hedge our bets a little when offering
|> critical opinions, but these seem like _important_ opinions.
|>

OK, I tried to be nice, but I couldn't decide at the time if the whole
story was worth it. 

The place I decided to never go near again was the original Air Shark, at
 Merritt Island, Fla. They were really Bozos, no professionalism at all. They
did go out of business, but one of the builders picked it up. I have had no
 dealings with the new owners, so my experiance may no longer apply. 

The person I was very impressed with was Rex Taylor. He had some health problems
that led to the loss of his business, and I think it was Mosler that bought
his company from him.

David		doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: kls@ditka.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Subject: Re: Comet at Ohare
Organization: Chicago Software Works
Distribution: rec.aviation
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 08:29:22 GMT

In article <ku419hINN4ub@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Tricky Gnosis) writes:
>In article <CKD.92Apr1171041@loiosh.eff.org> ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:

>>I might start an airliner-fans mailing list or something... it's tempting.

>Great idea!

Too bad the bystanders won't let it be a newsgroup.  :-(

>>Last time I was in western Washington I visited Boeing-Everett, and the
>>first 747 was sitting on the line there.  Apparently it is going to wind
>>up at the Museum of Flight (the 367-80 is headed for NASM, no?).

Yes, the 367-80 is bound for the NASM once it has been refurbished by
Boeing.  747 LN 1 was donated by Boeing to the Museum of Flight but
has been leased back for flight testing of the 777 engines.  The test
engines will be mounted in the #2 position for a month-long program.
The PW 4084 will be first in August, 1993, with the Rolls-Royce Trent
884 being flown during June of 1994.  (GE will be flight testing the
GE90 on their own 747 testbed.)

-- 
Karl Swartz		|INet	kls@ditka.chicago.com
1-415/854-3409		|UUCP	uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls
			|Snail	2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025
"YOU try supporting 80 users on a steam-powered abacus!" (Alan Kaplan)
From: bills@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bill Standerfer)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 14:33:32 GMT
Subject: Re: ILS approach to subminimum conditions
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In article <1207@seqp4.sequoia.com>, cantrell@seqp4.sequoia.com (Paul
Cantrell) writes:
>The limitation on shooting the approach if RVR is below minimums reminds
>me of an old pilot's trick I was told about. Under Part 135, you can't
>start the final approach segment unless the reported weather conditions
>meet the requirements of the approach.  [...]

And that reminds me of a trick an airline friend relates.  This pilot used to
fly Twin Otters for Frontier into Sidney, NE and overnight there.  In the
morning they would have an early departure, often influenced by ground fog.
Sidney had a "cooperative" FSS at the time.  They could sometimes taxi out
with visibility reported below Part 121 takeoff minimums.  A call to FSS for
an airport advisory might go something like this:

"Sidney radio, Frontier xxx taxiing out for takeoff.  What are you showing for
visibility now?"

Frontier xxx, Sidney radio, visibility reported [something below takeoff
minimums].  What do you need??"

"Frontier xxx, we need a half mile visibility for takeoff."

<some short time delay>

"Frontier xxx, Sidney radio, we just had a new observation and the current
visibility is reported one half mile in fog."

Sometimes even the Feds play games to help out...

Bill

Bill Standerfer - KF0DJ - Baron N1746W - CFI-A, II, MEI
bills@hpisla.lvld.hp.com
Hewlett Packard Measurement Software Division
PO Box 301, Loveland, CO  80539 -- 303-679-2378
From: jstar@tbd2.brl.mil (John J. Starkenberg )
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Delayed Reaction
Date: 10 Apr 92 11:38:34 GMT
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.

In article <122140090@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> jle@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jer/ Eberhard) 
writes:

<Now is the time to learn about the rest of the system.
<Please file a NASA ARC Form 277, "Aviation Safety Reporting Program (ASRP).
<
<These forms are available from:
<
<1.  Any FAA facility, including FSSs.
<
<2.  NASA ASRS
<    Post Office Box 189
<    Moffett Field, California  94035
<
<3.  Request by telephone from AOPA 800 USA-AOPA.

The form isn't entirely necessary.  I filed an ASRS report several years ago
on plain paper without even knowing what the form looked like.  Just put
down all the pertinent data I could think of.  This was quite acceptable to
NASA as far as I could see.

!  _________|_________  Dr. John Starkenberg			jstar@brl.mil !
!         \(*)/		Explosive Effects/Terminal Ballistics		      !
!          ) (		US Army Ballistic Research Laboratory		      !
!	   O O		Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005      (410) 278-6214 !
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: gersh@aplpy.jhuapl.edu (John R. Gersh)
Subject: Re: Air Usenet patches now shipping!
Summary: Lower case!
Organization: Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 19:14:50 GMT


Here's my theory:

Bret was being perhaps a little too subtle in his original reply. The
original questioner asked if there was any significance to that 
reversed letter "N," Bret replied that, yes there was signifcance to 
the letter "n" there. Note the case!

Unlike the rest of the patch's text, the word "usenet" on the patch is written,
per convention, in lower case. At least, I guess, it's the closest 
approximation to lower case that the embroidery machines could achieve.

The letter in question is not
		   
   |   /|
   |  / |
   | /  |
   |/   |,
		
but		
      ___
   | /   |
   |/    |
   |     |
   |     |,

though they are ease to confuse, given the resolution of the embroidery.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
John Gersh                                     gersh@aplpy.jhuapl.edu
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
Johns Hopkins Rd., Laurel, MD 20723		       (301) 953-5503
From: reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Delayed Reaction
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:11:59 GMT
Reply-To: reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack)
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)


In article <1992Apr9.053926.21632@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, peltz@cerl.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) wrote:
|>I had an "interesting"
|>encounter with an airplane last year. Flying straight and almost level in
|>a glider, I spotted an airplane about a mile away, slightly to my left,
|>nearly head-on. I waggled my wings to see if he saw me (if he had, I would
|>have had no problem with turning slightly to the right to avoid him, as he
|>would see that and turn slightly to his right to avoid me).

Something else for y'all to think about when head-on, especially when you're
in an aircraft with a very small cross-section.

Recently I was returning to GAI from my student long X-C flight. I was
tired, and the lowering sun made things a bit hazy. I was receiving VFR
Flight Following from BWI, and overheard a Rutan Long-EZ take off from
GAI and request Flight Following from BWI as well.

Shortly thereafter, BWI called us as traffic for each other, 3 miles, at
12 o'clock. We both announced that we were looking, but neither saw the
other. As BWI counted down the separation at an amazing closure rate (I was
doing 110kts...does anyone know what a Long-EZ does?), I got increasingly
nervous. When the separation reached a mile, I announced that I was making
a left turn, both for avoidence and to set up my approach to GAI. A moment
after I banked, the Long-EZ called visual contact.

I never saw the Long-EZ, although once I began the turn I didn't expect to.
I'd seen this plane on the ground before I took off that morning, and I knew
it'd be hard to spot. On the other hand, I was flying a Warrior, and had the
wingtip strobes, collision strobe, landing light, and position lights on, and
I expected the other pilot to be able to see me long before he did.

The lesson that was reinforced that day was that airplanes are hard to
spot head-on. By presenting the Warrior's belly to the other plane, I made
myself about 10 times more visible. As far as I'm concerned, unless I've
heard someone announce visual contact, or the aircraft makes an obvious
avoidence manuver, I assume I haven't been seen.

--
Reece R. Pollack
Senior Software Engineer
The Wollongong Group, Inc.