HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pilla@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (michael.a.pilla)
Subject: Re: paint spray guns
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:25:18 GMT

In article <leftwich-081092145004@leftwich.ucs.indiana.edu> leftwich@indiana.edu (Brad Leftwich) writes:
>I'm in the market for a paint spray gun. I'd like to hear from anyone who's
>had good or bad experiences with any particular product.
>
>A friend says he's heard good things about the Croix systems, which use
>lower pressure and heated air. The advantages, supposedly, are that with
>lower pressure you blow more paint on your surface and less into the
>atmosphere; and with heated air the paint dries faster, running less risk
>of temperature/humidity related problems like blushing and runs. Has anyone
>used one of these? Thanks,

Yes, I have used a Croix system and was quite satisfied;
although I did not paint a plane with the system.

Before "being allowed" to start my RV-4 project, my wife wanted
the kitchen cabinets resurfaced/refinished/...  They were
basically sound, but she wanted the European *white* look.  I
pulled as many off the walls as I could, sanded, ...  I rented
one of the Croix systems (I was surprised, there were three
places in my suburban area that had them for rent.)  After I
had to run solvent to clean out the paint feed because of a lack
of cleaning by the previous renter, I found that the entire
experience was almost pleasurable 1/2 :-)

The definite lack of overspray also made it easy to paint the
remaining cabinets in the kitchen with very little need to
protect the surrounding areas.  I was even able to paint the
insides with the Croix system without the typical blizzard of
paint blasting out of all the openings.

The high-volume, low-pressure, is a definite improvement over
conventional high-pressure systems.  I had no problems with runs.
The paint definitely seemed to cure better (shot oil base
interior paint) and the surface is virtually like glass.
The only minor problem was that I had to wear gloves because the
gun handle gets quite warm because of the warm air.

I would also like to recommend the Docken spray gun if you only
have a few small items to paint.  It is basically a regular
hi-pressure spray gun but it uses paper cups which are
disposable to contain the paint; a handy mixing/spraying system.
The paint flows through just a small plastic tube, so cleanup is
very easy.

When I get to the painting stage on my RV-4, I'll either rent the
Croix system again, or try to convince the local chapter to buy
one for member use.

Mike Pilla
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: geo@netcom.com (George Pontis)
Subject: Re: Subaru Power??
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 05:28:44 GMT

eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:

>>>The problem is that it can't tell how many molecules it "counts"
>>>are oxygen, and how many are nitrogen.
>>
>>
>>That's not a problem; 21% of the molecules that it counts are going to be
>>oxygen. The nitrogen/oxygen ratio does not change with altitude.
>>

>I beleive it does. The heavier (MW of O2= 32 AMU) tends to stay in the
>lower atmosphere more than the lighter (N2=28 AMU) nitrogen molecules.

I can't argue with you on a technical basis; there probably are some small
effects with altitude. ( For what it's worth, the USAF teaches their folks
that, as far as humans go, the oxygen starvation effects are completely
due to altitude and not at all a change in the ratio. Probably over-
simplified. ) It would be nice to have some real data, against which we
could check our theories.
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Wednesday, 14 Oct 1992 12:00:32 EDT
From: robert eric beckwith <IO20081@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Seawind

A friend of mine got the info package from Seawind and gave it
to me to look at for awhile.  About the tail engine structure:

'The tail and engine mount structure has undergone finite-element analysis
and test-to-destruction of both tail and mount.  In the areas of the tail,
we actually used a standard twice the FAR requriements to ensure there would
be absolutely no doubt of its integrity.  It was designed to a loading of
15 g's vertical which is 2.5 times the requirement for aerobatic and proof-
tested to ensure it met this standard'

This was taken from the literature,  The Seawind does have some respectible
specifications, If anyone is interested the address is:
      S.N.A. inc., Box 607, Kimberton, Pennsylvania 19442-0607
         (215)983-3377  (fax 933-3335)
current total for the kit 39,900 w/o engine avionics, etc...

       ROBERT BECKWITH                lake driver
   IO20081@MAINE.MAINE.EDU               __|__
         P.O. BOX 71                      -O-
   W.BOOTHBAY HBR, ME 04575      --O-----((0))-----O--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - / \ / / \ / \ / / \ / / \ / /
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: cstone@nodecg.ncc.telecomwa.oz.au (Charlie Stone 4915162)
Subject: Re: Advantages to radial engines?
Organization: Network Computer Centre, Telecom, Perth
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 05:56:33 GMT
Keywords: Radials, 

>Somebody at work here made it down to the Salinas airshow (I had to stay in 
>town, sniff) and was talking about the the Wilga that was there.  The question
>came up as to what the advantages are to a radial engine.   I have no idea.  Are

I think that they are lighter for a given cubic capacity than an inline
engine and at the expense of frontal area there is more even cooling for
the cylinders than is possible with an aircooled inline or opposed engine.

Charlie Stone


********************************************************************************


       \--------------------------(^)--------------------------/
                                ___|___   
                                 
              For my next (and possibly last) manoevre !!

C. Stone.
Perth, Australia.
********************************************************************************
From: larry@qedinc.com (Larry Johnson)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Kit Plane phone number?
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:49:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Quantum Effect Design

I've been looking for Kit Plane magazine since all you guys keep referring
to it, but alas, no luck.

So,
1) Does anyone have a phone number/address so I can subscribe?
2) Is this the best one, or are there other options?

Thanks

Larry D. Johnson
UUCP: larry@qedinc.com
USPS: Quantum Effect Design, 2670 Seeley Road, San Jose, CA 95134
MA BELL: (408) 456-2365                 FAX:     (408) 944-2069


-- 

Larry D. Johnson
UUCP: larry@qedinc.com
USPS: Quantum Effect Design, 2670 Seeley Road, San Jose, CA 95134
From: prang@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Opening up Engine Clearances (was Re: auto engines)
Keywords: CAM100
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:24:38 GMT
Organization: Boeing Defense and Space Group, Seattle WA

In article <1992Oct9.114735.1057@cbnews.cb.att.com>, adh@cbnews.cb.att.com (andrew.d.hay) writes:
> In article <1992Oct8.174317.21849@selway.umt.edu> cap@selway.umt.edu (Charles A. Smith) writes:
> >
> >Anyway, one nice piece on info buried in the CAM100 promo is the fact that
> >the typical clearances between parts in the remanufactured Honda engine
> >are "opened up" from factory clearances for the auto application... it was
> > somewhat counter-intuitive to think that aircraft engines need loose fits
> >(to be good).
> 
> Race engines have larger clearances too.  It _is_ directly because the
> pistons et al grow more at higher power...

Interesting point as to the CAM100... one of the factors that caused
Canadian Airmotive to chose the Honda Civic engine was its racing
history.  There are cases where race-Hondas haven't needed to be 
disassembled for an entire racing season.  The engine is "fully girdled",
which increases reliablity at high power and it one of the reasons its
popular in racing circles (and WHILE racing in circles :-)).

I posted my impressions on the CAM100 to the net about ten months ago;
they've invited me back to fly their new Honda-powered RANS.  Film at 11.

                                          Ron Wanttaja
					  prang@ssc-bee
					  ...rutgers!uw-beaver!ssc-bee!prang
                                          prang@ssc-bee.boeing.com
From: laird@stable.ecn.purdue.edu (Kyler Laird)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: ultralight rotorcraft?
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:52:29 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

I've been toying with the idea of commuting to work (farm) via
aircraft.  I'm about 35 minutes away by (illegally fast) car,
and I figure it should be about 30 miles by air.  (Where's my
sectional...)  I could finish up my private pilot license fairly
quickly if I'd stick to it, but flying an ultralight has a great
appeal.

I don't know much about ultralights, and have never read about
anyone who doesn't land them at the same place they took off so
my idea may be way out of line.  Are the engines up to daily use
of ~1 hour?  for how long?  Also, what is the limit on max. load?
I'd like to be able to carry some tools with me, and being able
to do some spraying would be great.  

Using a gyro would be especially desireable for STOL abilities,
but I didn't think they could be classified as ultralights.  I
was reading an ad in Kitplanes earlier today and saw a gyro that
was called "ultralight", but then it gave specs on an             
experimental version - don't know if "ultralight" was a reference
to size or class.

Is an ultralight allowed to take-off/land more places than other
aircraft?  Situation:  I need to pick up some parts at our not-
so-local Massey Furguson dealer.  Can I just get permission to
use his back lot, and legally fly in?

Oh, yeah, last question (really...):  can cellular phones be used
(legally) while flying an ultralight? 

Mostly curious for now...but thanks for any good insight!

--kyler
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Subject: Re: Cost of owning
Reply-To: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown NJ
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 16:28:21 GMT

In article <archie.718590349@cory.Berkeley.EDU> archie@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Archie Cobbs) writes:
>
>BTW, I don't intend to deemphasize the generally agreed upon principle
>that one should buy a kitplane primarily because one wants to build
>a plane, not just because one wants to own that plane, or that financial
>concerns are primary... just investigating various aspects of the idea.
>

It is oft spoken but not generally agreed upon principle that one should 
buy a kitplane primarily to build and not just because one wants to own a 
plane. This thing keeps coming up again and again and is an 
over-simplification of the decision process.

1. If you want to just own a plane, can afford an used certified plane and happy
with the peformance of planes affordable to you, you should definitely buy one.

2. If you just want to build a plane and enjoy your work regardless of cost,
convenience and performance and have a strong will, you should definitely 
build one.

In between, there are various factors that should be taken into account to make
that decision. One may not have a choice in many cases. What if you want to
*own* a plane like a Glasair or a Flybaby? Buying finished experimentals is 
usually not an easy option. What if you want to build one but there is no
experimental that will satisfy your flying needs?

Most homebuilt projects are not completed *not* because the builders just 
wanted to own a plane but because they didn't have a *realistic* expectation
of what it takes to build one.

The best way is to decide what you want in a plane that you would like to 
own *and* fly, select candidates (certified or kit) to satisfy the needs, 
get a realistic picture of both the price *as well as* the effort required 
to build a kit (visiting your local builders/EAA chapter will help) and 
*then* decide if the motivation to own *a specific* plane is worth the 
price/effort.

venky
From: dale@ntg.com (Dale Luck)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Any LanceAir Builders out there??...
Keywords: lancair, homebuild, aircraft
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:04:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: ntg.1992Oct9.210422.12009
Organization: New Technologies Group, Inc.  Palo Alto CA

In bruceh@cray.com (Bruce T. Hill) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.000244.6232@ntg.com> dale@ntg.com (Dale Luck) writes:
>>see a liquid cooled engine that might be a drop in replacement
>>with the same HP but lighter and more efficient.
>
>Is this one of those Voyager series engines?  I thought of this too.

No, I was looking at an ad in Oct '92 of 'Flying' page 47.
From RAM Aircraft Corporation. Liquid Cooled 350 HP TSIOL-550
engines from Teledyne. TBO of 2000 hours, increased power at
altitude. Elimination of shock cooling. 1-800-445-9713

I am not affiliated with the Ram Aircraft Corporation. I just
read their ad.

Dale Luck
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: Mini Max 
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:56:20 GMT

Saw that kit plane in the latest Kit Plane magazine (where else?).
As low as $2995, useful load 260 lbs, cruise speed 70 to 80 mph,
250 to 400 hours to build.  Looks that something that every pilot
who can afford to learn to fly should be able to get one.  What do
y'say, what do y'say?

A cheap way to put in a few thousand hours flying on weekend?  I admit
the picture they shown (low-wind, open cockpit) looks like a grown-up
in a kiddie car.  Can imagine going back into SJC GA terminal with
the guys giving you the business (hey Earl, give the thing back to the poor 
kid; hey Earl, 152 too much for you to handle?; hey Earl, my kid needs
a playing pal, you interested?)

Jokes aside, do aviation authority frown on small planes like this one?
I mean if I were to keep a Mini Max at SJC, would the airport folks
like say (informally if not official) that gee, wish you wouldn't *play*
with that thing around here, kind of make SJC International looks like
SJC Municipal.  

p.s. Apologies to all pilots named Earl and all who own Mini Max.  Wish
     I own one myself right now, and probably will if I cannot afford
     higher performance plane in the near future. 


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: archie@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Archie Cobbs)
Subject: Cost of owning
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:25:49 GMT

There has been a thread in rec.aviation.owner talking about the costs
of ownership of an airplane .. you know, the usual stuff: fixed costs
(annual, insurance, etc) plus hourly costs (fuel, maintenance reserve,
etc.).

So my question is: how do the costs of owning a homebuilt differ from
the costs of owning a production plane?

For example, maintenance should be lower, since you can do more stuff
yourself.  But insurance may be higher...(?)  Who knows some specifics?
Also, how do homebuilts stand in the eyes of the accountant?  It's nice
to know that if you buy a 1970 Cessna, you can sell it later for around
the same price.  What about a decently put together Glasair II?

 [ Flame retardant follows... ]

BTW, I don't intend to deemphasize the generally agreed upon principle
that one should buy a kitplane primarily because one wants to build
a plane, not just because one wants to own that plane, or that financial
concerns are primary... just investigating various aspects of the idea.

-Archie

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: bruceh@cray.com (Bruce T. Hill)
Subject: Re: Any LanceAir Builders out there??...
Keywords: lancair, homebuild, aircraft
Organization: Cray Research Superservers Inc., San Diego CA, USA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:17:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.000244.6232@ntg.com> dale@ntg.com (Dale Luck) writes:
>I can watch others build and go through the birthing stage.
>Maybe come up with some better ideas or new options. I already
>see a liquid cooled engine that might be a drop in replacement
>with the same HP but lighter and more efficient.

Is this one of those Voyager series engines?  I thought of this too.
After reading the original article in Sport Aviation about the IV's
overheating problems at high altitudes, I wondered if a liquid cooled 
engine would be the way to go.  I would imagine that the engine is
much more reliable and quieter also.  Someday (if I win the lottery!)
I would like to build a IV too.  What a way to travel!  300+ knots,
pressurized, way up in the Flight Levels.  Of course by the time you
finish it and add up the costs, it would probably be cheaper to go
and buy a used Malibu.  You would even have more seats!

-- 
Bruce T. Hill @ Cray Research Superservers, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA
Email: bruceh@cray.com  Phone: (619) 625-3746  FAX: (619) 625-0641
Humorous quotation:  Nobody looks good wearing _brown_lipstick_. --Frank Zappa
From: baldwin@cps.msu.edu (Reid A Baldwin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Glue
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:06:23 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University

Hello,

I recently started construction of a Fisher Aero Corp. Celebrity,
which is a two-place open cockpit biplane. The construction is
all-wood frame covered with fabric (a metal frame is available for the
fuselage, but I chose the all-wood option). I have built the rib jig
and am just beginning to build wing ribs.

The glue that came with the kit is T-88 epoxy, which is a 2 part
system. Part A and part B need to be mixed in equal volumes. I will
usually need pretty small amounts of glue per session. Does anyone
have suggestions on mixing the glue in small quantities to minimize
waste? The directions weren't very detailed about how precise the
proportions had to be in order to get a strong bond. It just said that
using extra hardener would not accelerate the drying time. How
precisely do I need to measure?

I haven't actually begun glueing yet, so maybe these answers will
become self-evident with a little experimentation. I do plan to make
sample joints with each batch and break them to test bond quality.

Reid Baldwin
baldwin@cps.msu.edu

P.S. when I have a little more time, I will post about my experiences
in phase 1 of the project - selecting a design and convincing my wife
I should do it.
From: alumni101@camins.camosun.bc.ca
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: WAR (where'd they go?)
Date: 16 Oct 92 05:30:20 GMT
Organization: Camosun College

Anyone know what happened to WAR, the company that designed quite a few 1/2
scale replicas of famous WWII aircraft.

I know that It wasn't long after the P-51 started to have problems that they
just seemed to disapear from magazines etc.

thanx..
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: laforce@xenon.arc.nasa.gov (Soren LaForce)
Subject: Re: auto engines
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: CAM100
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:43:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.174317.21849@selway.umt.edu>, cap@selway.umt.edu (Charles A. Smith) writes...

stuff deleted

> 
>Anyway, one nice piece on info buried in the CAM100 promo is the fact that
>the typical clearances between parts in the remanufactured Honda engine
>are "opened up" from factory clearances for the auto application.  That is,
>the clearances are larger for the CAM version (designed for aircraft use)
>than for the original Honda engine.
> 
>The reason for this change is that auto engines are not designed for 
>continous duty at full power.  At full power, more clearance is needed, 
>because the parts "grow" more.  Well, you know what I mean...
> 
>I thought this was nice to know, because I was brought up with the 
>"car mentality" that engines need to be assembled to tight tolerances
>in order to go fast, (and therefore be "good").  So, it was somewhat
>counter-intuitive to think that aircraft engines need loose fits
>(to be good).
>-- 

I think this depends on the engine.  Some manufacturers select the 
piston/cylinder materials so that there is similar thermal expansion
and one may obtain the best of both worlds.  The Porsche 911 engine
is a good example.  Typical setup piston-cylinder clearance is .0015"
and a piston-cylinder set is considered worn out at about .004"-.005",
which is the set-up tollerance for some engines.  The lifetime of the
911 engine seems to be determined largely by rpm, with the high rpm
engines producing significantly more than stock power.  Make that
rpm and oil temp!

Just curious, has anyone heard of a 911 engine used in an aircraft?
Other than the Mooney (whose porsche engine is a 911 derivitive).


--Soren            laforce@xenon.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild)
Subject: Re: What Constitutes "Cross Country"
Organization: The MITRE Corp
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:01:44 GMT

In article <9210121418.AA05291@ncr-fc.FtCollins.NCR.COM> bobw@ncr-fc.ftcollins.NCR.COM (Bob Waldron) writes:
>
>When I was building x-country time for my instrument rating I
>understood the requirement was a flight greater than 50nm from
>your point of origin plus a landing at that distant airport.
>
>[Couldn't land at end of >50 nm flight and returned home]...
>Upon returning to Ft. Collins I told
>my instructor of the non-landing, however, he said go ahead and
>log that time as x-country.
>
>...  Also, if you fly a perfectly wonderful
>and very technical 49nm x-country in which you gained valuable
>experience you can in good a conscious call this a x-country.

Agree with first part but the second can lead to problems with some 
examiners who know the distance between certain airport pairs that
are close to but are not cross country and disqualify these entries.

Be sure you have the required times and distances without counting any
"questionable" trips.  Far 61.65(e)(1) calls for 50 hours of cross
country with "landings at a point more than 50 nautical miles from
the original departure point."  No one but you and your safety pilot
knows how many squeeks were heard on the "landing".  Let your
conscience and FAR 61.59 be your guide.

If you have 55 hours of such cross country time logged and one is a 
questionable 49 mile flight, the examiner might "discount" it but you 
would still have over 50 hours with the remaining flights.  

Besides, you can use some of your hood time (without expensive 
instructor but with a safety pilot) to work on cross country navigation 
and shoot approaches at those 55 mile distant airports logging both 
hood and cross country time.  Kill two birds with one stone, as they 
say.