HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: prange@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Henry Prange)
Subject: Re: Seeking recommendations: Sporty car for tall people?
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:22:31 GMT

Though I am barely 6'1", I always seem to have trouble fitting into cars. I
have found several solutions: Lean the seat back (as already mentioned) but this
often requires an "arms outstretched" driving position and may leave on sliding
forward in the seat. If the seat bottom does not adjust, I have been able to unbolt the seat and, with the use of longer bolts and washers, shim the front of
the seat up. This give support under the legs as well. It works better to shim
between the seat and the tracks, rather than between the tracks and the floor.

Also, avoid a sun roof. These devices are real head-room theives. I have never
liked them anyway, the driver can't see out of them and they are noisy and
hot. Why bother?

Anyway, these techniques have made my a lot more comfortable in my RX-7's.

Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: rll@frieda.mitre.org (Roberto L. Landrau)
Subject: Re: Wanna be disgusted?
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:06:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.123020.28685@bmerh85.bnr.ca> seymour@bnr.ca (Jeffrey Seymour) writes:
>Hello Networld.  Here is some trully agravating info 4 U. 
>
>Those of us in Canada have been getting reamed with taxes lately- especially if you reside in Ontario.  Starting October 1st Ontario is not going to believe you when you try to get a second hand car registered - with respect to the purchase price.  On this date new legislation goes into affect whereby the tax paid on licencing will be computed on the sales agreement price or a value in some bullshit book -which ever is more.  I'm serious.
>
>I think thats enough for me. Time to start looking into that transfer to the U.S..
>
>bitch bitch bitch


I always wondered what happened to Mike Dukakis after he left
--
The opinions stated above are not necessarily my employer's.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto L. Landrau    KC1YP    landrau@mitre.org  rll@linus.mitre.org
The MITRE Corporation  Bedford, MA 01730          rll@linus.UUCP
Newsgroups: rec.autos,rec.autos.driving
From: jbn@photon.com (Joe Naiman)
Subject: Re: NJ's Guv Jim says no to 65, was Re: speed limit
Organization: Photon Research Associates, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:02:12 GMT

I'd have the bill passed out of the state legislature by the Republican
houses, let Gov. Florio veto it, and let whoever is running against him
in 1993 add the speed limit bill to the albatrosses on Florio's neck.

The real task now belongs to the Republican Party of New Jersey; can
they nominate a pro-65 candidate in the primary who has a chance of
beating Florio in November?

Joe Naiman

Newsgroups: rec.autos
From: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA (Andreas  Tovornik)
Subject: Re: is this a problem with the backup light sw
Reply-To: atovorni@engr.UVic.CA
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 20:53:32 GMT

In article 15435@cc.gatech.edu, louise@pravda.cc.gatech.edu (FA)  writes:
>
>The backup lights on my car are exhibiting strange behavior.
>They don't work when the car is in Reverse.  If I move the gear
>selector from Reverse to Neutral, the backup lights flash just as
>the selector is moving from Reverse.  If I move the selector from
>Neutral to Reverse, nothing.  I suspect the backup light switch.
>Any other suggestions?
 
 Try adjusting your shifter linkage. This worked for me on a
Hyundai and on a Buick.

>If it is the backup light switch, can these things be cleaned?
>I'm going to drop the transmission fluid pan and change the oil
>and gasket, so I want to do whatever is necessary to the switch
>at the same time.
 
While you're under the car rule out the possibility of a loose linkage,
if that doesn't cure the problem, then attack the switch by replacing it.
It should not cost more than ten dollars.

Andy.
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: n
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:01:41 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Sep28.171140.6052@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> dpaper@nyx.cs.du.edu (David Paper) writes:
>
>My 87;s mustang GT is a RWD
>
>hmm most good sports cars are RWD..
>mustang, firebird *i think* camaro, vette, etc..
>
>-dave
hmm...the only *good* sports car you mentioned is the vette, *i think*  :)
From: mikeb@nowaksg.chem.nd.edu (Michael George Buening)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: '92 FORD paint flaking (Explorer)
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:00:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Notre Dame

In article <1992Sep24.185007.19488@unvax.union.edu> romansks@unvax.union.edu (Steve Romanski) writes:
>I missed the origional article but if your 92 ford has paint chipping
>that isn't your problem it should be the dealers.  
>
>
I missed the original article also but I read in some car rag, I
don't remember which one, recently that Ford had a whole batch of
trucks in '92 with bad paint and they know all about it.  They, of
course, don't want you to know about it so you have to bitch before
anything comes about.  I don't remember Explorer being named 
specifically but all the F series trucks were included.
Newsgroups: rec.autos,rec.autos.tech
From: sankar@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Sriram Sankar)
Subject: What do you think of Turtle Wax's Clear Guard?
Originator: sankar@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:32:02 GMT


I have a bottle of Clear Guard by Turtle Wax and have been using it
without any problems on my older cars.  I want to know if there are
any problems with this product before I start using it on a newer car.
From spraying a bit on my fingers, it seemed like Armorall and
Son-of-a-gun were quite similar.  Clear Guard says it has no water,
and it does have an oily texture.

Sriram.
From: summ50@cse.unl.edu
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: downforce and cornering g's (was which car handles the best?
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:20:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: unlinfo.1992Sep29.212053.4615
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln

jpd3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JEFFERY PAUL DILLMAN) writes:

>In article <8199@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>, sourlas@babbage.seas.ucla.edu (Dennis Sourl
>as) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep28.133110.20448@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> dpaper@nyx.cs.du.edu (D
>avid Paper) writes:
>>
>>before the F40 there was another exotic car that featured net positive
>>downforce.  anybody remembers which one it is ?
>>
>>dennis / ucla /
>>
>  The 1965 Shelby Cobra 427 S/C  pulled 1.2g's on the skidpad - as tested by
>  Motor Trend Magazine in 1967.   Of course, it also did 0-60 in 4.2 sec and
>  0-100-0 in 13.9 sec.  The Cobra was the quickest production car ever made
>  until 1990, when a Porsche finally bet it with a 4.0 0-60 time.  Yes, this
>  was an American-made car with rear wheel drive, not an all wheel drive
>  system like the Porsche, nor did it use unnatural-aspiration.

	Of course, the Porsche used a small flat-6 engine (albeit it
	turbo-charged) while the Cobra used a huge V-8...  

	:)  :)  :)  :)  :)  


                                                                   __
/-----------------------------+---------------+-------------------///-------\  
|    ___  __   ___  __   __   |               | Multitasking __  ///        |
|   |    |  | |    |__   __|  |  Unsafe at    | my life      \\\///  Amiga  |
|   |___ |__| |     __| |__|  |  any speed... | away !!!      \XX/   3000   |
|-----------------------------+---------------+-----------------------------| 
|    Eric Elliott            summ50@cse.unl.edu         GEnie: E.ELLIOTT7   |
\---------------------------------------------------------------------------/

--
From: ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: gear-down check
Date: 27 Sep 1992 21:33:52 GMT
Organization: BDS Systems
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.bds.com
Keywords: gear-down, FAA

> 	Instead of having ATC ask gear down, a CFI used to know had a different
> way of going about it.  His insurance company requires he say 'three in the 
> green' when accepting the landing clearance, so that it is on the tape in case
> anything happens. 

This is the stupidest thing I've heard of in a long time.  What the hell is
ATC supposed to do with someone who replies to instructions with "three in
the green."  What good does it do to have somehting like that "on the tape?"
How long before "three in the green" becomes a cursory thing to say like
"roger" without anything else happening?  What happens when you get cleared
to land 4 miles from the ASCII International and also asked to keep your
speed up?  Do you delay acknowledging the controller while you drop the
gear?  Do you dirty it up 4 miles out anyway?

-Ron
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Info on Aviation Software
From: Mark.Penney@comp.vuw.ac.nz
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 04:24:08 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., Victoria Uni. of Wellington, New Zealand.
Originator: mpenney@cantina.comp.vuw.ac.nz


  Hello fellow aviators, I am interested in any info about software
related to the aviation industry.  Down here in New Zealand there is
close to nothing available, and what is available has usually been
imported privately from the USA.

  I am interested in anything that is specifically designed for use by
companies in the aviation industry, ranging from databases to flight
simulators etc...

  Any info on company names, FTP sites (yes I have seen the FAQ), or
shareware titles would be appreciated.

  If possible please email replies to:

mpenney@comp.vuw.ac.nz


Thanks in advance

Mark.
From: davehyde@TECNET1.JCTE.JCS.MIL
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Stay off the rudder!
Date: 1 Oct 92 13:28:04 GMT

More thoughts on rudder in turbulence:

In article <92266.215322VPN1@psuvm.psu.edu> <VPN1@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>I just read a new idea (to me), passed along by
>Greg Travis:  If you get into strong turbulence,
>IFR, stay off the rudder and you won't get into a spin.

OK, so we know Greg didn't advocate this.  That's clear now.  Anyway, it seems
to me that the spin in turbulence would be the result of a problem, not the
problem in and of itself.  What's the problem?  That the turbulence can cause a

"severe disturbance in attitude".  Think of wake turbulence.  If you keep of
the rudder when you hit a vortex, maybe you won't spin.  So what?  You're still

inverted 100 ft off the deck.  The same principle applies in turbulence (but
with more altitude, I know).  So you don't spin.  You're still IMC, inverted,
nose low, speed approaching redline, and scared spitless.  I was taught (as
were others) to maintain attitude above all in turbulence.  I'll use whatever
control is necessary to maintain attitude, including rudder.  It seems to me
that regardless of what controls are used that an overstress is much more
likely that a departure and spin in severe turbulence.

David Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil

So I said to the Navy, "Get your own opinions, these are mine."

Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Subject: Re: Seawinds Sea Plane Kit
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:08:07 GMT

.... the question was: Why put the engine there?....

Probably two reasons:
1) it is very normal in single engine sea planes to put the engine high
	to keep the prop away from water spray
2) if it faces forward you can use an off-the-shelf constant speed prop

David		doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

The thought police insist I tell you:
my thoughts, not NASA's
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.student
From: bills@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bill Standerfer)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Re: New Denver TCA NPRM Published (overflying TCA's really)
Date: 24 Sep 92 14:03:16 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO

In article <3400262@hpcc01.corp.hp.com>, mtc@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Mark Cousins)
writes:
>This TCA design business is interesting.  [...]
>
>I just wonder at the need for all of this difference.  LA has some of the
>busiest airspace in the country (4 of the 10 busiest airports in the country
>are located there) and yet the TCA seems to take up only that which it needs.
>Contrast this with Atlanta, another busy airport to be sure, but surrounded by
>a postively immense TCA.  Sigh.

First, while FAA can mandate standard TCAs, it cannot mandate standard
environments in which to put them.  For example, the place they tested the
"standard" circular ARSA concept was, I believe, Columbus, Ohio.  It worked
fine there with no other major airports around and no terrain features to get
in the way.  Unfortunately, that's probably the only place on Earth the
"standard" ARSA would work.  Everywhere else, there are other airports, TCAs,
mountains, and other restrictions that dictate something other than the cookie
cutter approach to the design.

Secondly, other factors are requiring additional changes to the standard TCA
design.  In Denver, for example, the new TCA goes out 30 miles in wedges to
the north and south.  This feature is required to accommodate parallel
simultaneous triple ILS approaches that are only recently becoming possible.
Also, FAA is taking user comments to heart (at least in some cases) to design
TCAs and ARSAs so they can be navigated by visual references when practical.
Our new TCA, for example, has interstate or other major highways as boundaries
in some places, making it easier to find your way around underneath.

Now, whether places like Atlanta or San Diego can really justify such large or
complex designs is a subject of debate.  I'll leave that to the locals in those
areas.

Bill Standerfer
From: lee@bluefuzz.sw.stratus.com (Lee Cooprider)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Air Lifeline experience
Date: 30 Sep 92 21:37:34 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

A while back I posted a note about my first Air Lifeline flight, and it
started a discussion about whether it was appropriate to use LIFEGUARD on such
flights.

I just got a newsletter from them that had a paragraph on this topic.  The
bottom line is, as folks suggested, that AirLifeline wants LIFEGUARD to be
used only if the condition of the passenger or cargo requires expedited
handling by ATC.  The fact that the paragraph was there, and its tone,
suggested to me that people may have been using it too often.
-- 
Lee W. Cooprider				PP-ASEL/IA
Lee_Cooprider@vos.stratus.com			Skylane N2908F "Wiley"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Simultaneous Use (Re: Long Runway -- No Taxiway)
Keywords: landing, taxi, aircraft
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 09:06:50 GMT

In article <1CE00001.oumrud@lemoore.UUCP> Kevin@lemoore.ati.com writes:
>same thing. However, it was rather uncomfortable watching aircraft
>landing infront of me. Most had stopped and turned off onto the intersecting
>runway. A few others, such as me, rolled out beside me. Question,
>what is the general procedure in this case? Is there an FAA policy
>that gives an answer?

Speaking of which: isn't there an FAR which prohibits unauthorized
simultaneous use of a runway?  I.e., only one airplane at a time?  
I could've sworn I read this one some time, but haven't been able to
dig it up in part 91 or the AIM, on several occasions...




---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.student
From: gaynier@elec.uq.oz.au (Ron Gaynier)
Subject: Re: Solo Rites
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 00:24:10 GMT


At my gliding club it is customary to shout everyone a 
drink at the club house bar after soloing. They're usually
sitting around the bar well before you even land. In fact, 
just about ANY accomplishment is followed that evening by
buying everyone drinks. 

Losing a shirt would have cost me less.

Ron Gaynier
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In article <Lyon_Jim-220992105402@130.252.132.127>, Lyon_Jim@Tandem.Com (Jim
Lyon) writes:
>In January of 1990, Fairbanks, Alaska, reported a record of 181 degrees
>below zero (Fahrenheit), and an altimeter setting of 31.82.  This yields
>a sea-level density altitude of about -11,000 feet (!).

Seems like those temperatures would give a whole new meaning to "a thousand
parts flying in close formation", with contraction taking its toll.  Even if
you could take advantage of such density altitudes, who would want to do the
preflight?  :-}

I survived a measly -50F one morning in Maine and sure didn't want to be out
trying to preflight an airplane.

Bill Standerfer
From: jont@harlqn.co.uk (Jon Thackray)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Too hot to fly?!?!
Date: 2 Oct 92 12:48:26 GMT
Organization: Harlequin Limited, Cambridge, England

In article <38223@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> kprashan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (hyderabadi) writes:

   So here I am, last Saturday night, taking the red-eye to Newark,
   NJ. The Boeing 737 is on the ground at Phoenix Airport scheduled
   to depart at 10:30pm. The plane is full, and I mean *full*, every
   seat is taken (around 145 seats). 

   And the pilot says that the the temperature outside is too high
   for take-off. Thats the first time I ever heard that line used. 
   We waited on the ground for 50 mins before the "temperature was
   down".

   I don't get it. Does somebody have an explanation for not taking
   off in 'hot weather'??



   _______________________________________________________
   | Prashanth                    |                      |
   | U. of California @ San Diego | prash@raman.ucsd.edu |
   #######################################################

It's very simple really. An aircraft requires a minimum amount of
performance (from engines, wings etc) in order to take off. How much
performance is available is dependent on many things, most of which
are fixed such as engine size, maximum total weight allowed, wing
shape, but some of which are variable, such as air density. Air
density affects performance in two main ways, firstly through the
wings in terms of the amount of lift they will generate, and secondly
through the volumetric efficiency of the engines. So hot air reduces
aircraft performance in two ways as both the above mentioned reduce
with reducing air density. Also the available distance for take off
affects the amount of performance required, eg short runways with
high trees near the end require more performance from the aircraft
than long runways on open country. Another factor which comes in is
the altitude of the airport, since air of the same temperature at a
higher altitude will be less dense than at a lower altitude. The pilot
will feed all this info into some performance graphs or whatever for
his aircraft, including airport altitude, temperature, head wind, and
come up with a safe take off distance for the prevailing conditions.
If it turns out that the airport does not provide this distance then
he must stay on the ground until something changes to bring the take
off distance inside that provided by the airport, eg he will wait for
the temperature to go down. Since you are talking about commercial
operations here, they won't be doing the calculations each time, they
will simply have worked out something to relate take off head wind and
air temperature for the airport into a go/no go decision.
--

Jon Thackray                    jont@uk.co.harlqn       44 223 872522 (voice)
Harlequin Ltd.                  jgt1@uk.ac.cam.phx      44 223 872519 (fax)
Barrington Hall
Barrington
Cambridge CB2 5RG
England
From: lmiller@aero.org (Lawrence H. Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: gear-down check
Date: 29 Sep 1992 18:50:37 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: palomar.aero.org
Keywords: gear-down, FAA

In article <BvAyuG.CM7@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> steve@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges) writes:
>
>Was the FAA ever sued for failure to provide proper traffic 
>separation in the crash involving the PSA B-727 and the Archer over
>Cerritos, ...

	Oh yes.  The FAA was and is a party to the settlements 
	in this case, and has accepted partial responsibility.
	(In truth, the FAA is going to pay out most of the 
	damages because the Archer pilot had rather modest
	insurance coverage.)

	The FAA was held responsible on at least two counts:
	failure to provide adequate separation to the AeroMexico
	727, and also failure to maintain the radar.  (I'm writing
	from memory here--my copy of the NTSB accident report on
	this is stored away.)
-- 
Larry Miller		The Aerospace Corporation
lmiller@aero.org	PO Box 92957		
310-336-5597		LA, CA 90009-2957
Xref: sparky rec.aviation:16392 rec.aviation.homebuilt:44
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Seawinds Sea Plane Kit
Date: 5 Oct 92 11:55:22 GMT
 <1992Oct2.163743.18871@SSD.intel.com>  
 <1992Oct2.170753.6591@news.nd.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Oct2.170753.6591@news.nd.edu>
jim@stargate.helios.nd.edu (Jim McCusker) writes:

> If anyone is interested in further info I can
> dig up their number.

I, for one, would like to know why the aircraft was designed like that.
 I read about the airplane when it was first introduced by the original
designer and understand that he went through engineering Hell to get
the tail strong enough to hold the engine there and be able to
withstand flight loads, but why do it?  Is there some advantage to
having the engine sticking out from the front of the vertical
stabalizer?

Corky (curious) Scott

Corky Scott
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: richard@agora.rain.com (Richard Johnson)
Subject: Re: aviation.gif files
Summary: Preferred formats?
Organization: Open Communications Forum
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 15:11:15 GMT


I wrote (from a different node):
I don't know about any archive sites for aviation art.  Anyone else
actually know something?  (And no, I didn't see this in the FAQ for some
reason.  -- Hint, Geoff.) :=)

And William LeFebvre responds:
>I have started archiving pictures on the gopher at "av.eecs.nwu.edu"
>(the semi-official rec.aviation gopher) under "Pictures".  These are
>mostly GIF files and show up with the recently-adopted gopher type "I".

Uhm.. Do we have a consensus on the preferred binary format?  Do we want:
*.GIF, *.jpg, *.xbm, or something else?

I don't have any kind of gopher capability, so I'll be limited to using 
alt.binaries.pictures.misc.  I'll probably post there and let you grab
the uuencodes.


>I adopted a basic rule of thumb to prevent overwhelming myself with
>tons of pictures:  the picture should be related somehow to a
>rec.aviator (either taken by one or of one or of one's plane, etc.)
>I've just been storing what I find on alt.binaries.pictures.misc.
>There's only three there right now (including the Air Usenet patch).
>If I ever get around to digitizing the Dayton fly-in picture, that
>will go there too.
>
>No these are not (yet) available via anonymous FTP.
>
>Suggestions are welcome.

Thanks for the archive.  Here's my policy for the pictures I will post:
1) They will be taken by me.  (I don't own a plane yet)
2) I will prefer to put in pictures of rec.aviation stuff *if I can
   find it*.
3) (exception to rule 1)  I might get one of the Mahers to send me a
   spiffy Velocity picture with permission to post it -- just because
   I love that airplane.  :=)

So what do people want to see?  Warbirds or airshow stuff?
-- 
Richard Johnson      richard@agora.rain.com
When you were born, you cried and the world rejoiced.  Strive so that when 
you leave this world, you rejoice and the world cries.  --- Indian proverb