HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Be nice to your engine
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:18:13 GMT
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501

In article <1992Aug31.131357.5000@nlm.nih.gov> masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys) writes:
>
>It may not be nicer to the engine to run at low power levels.  When I
>picked up a factory reman Lycoming at Carter Aviation in Tennessee, I
>asked the flambouyant Bobby Carter what I should do to be sure to make
>it to TBO.  "Son", he said, "don't baby it.  Just run it hard and often."
>Since Bobby has heard the stories that went along with several tens of
>thousands of engine exchanges, I think he's likely to be right.

This is purely opinion, but I believe a lot of engine-life and TBO is
related to engine temperatures.  On an O-something Lycoming with
sodium filled valves, its tough to get the high temperatures even at
75% power.  I like operating Cont. TSIO-360s at 65% power 'cuz I've had
CHTs over 410 and peak EGTs near 1600 F at 75% power.  Too high and
too much fuel for me.

I guess I don't consider 65% power as 'babying' it.

For us "normal" pilots, I'm not sure if high/low power is going to
make that much difference (provided you don't abuse the engine) since
many TBO schedules are predicated on at least 50 hours/month.  I
certainly agree that it's disuse that reduces TBO.

Kerry
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: earlb@ssd.intel.com (Earl Brabandt)
Subject: Re: Osprey Gear Failure (was Re: Glass Goose)
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division, Intel Corp.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:38:54 GMT

In article <5541@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.boeing.com> prang@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja) writes:
>
>Supposedly, the Sea Hawker's vortex generators solve the flow separation 
>problem.  The interesting thing is that the prototype never had a speck of
>trouble...
>
I visited Garry LeGarre (Sea Hawker designer) in Mojave several years ago. 
My impressions are that Garry was never entirely frank about the poor
performance of the aircraft with the prop that he was running at the 
time.  It was not until much later when builders tried other props to improve
performance that the flow separation became an issue, or at least publicly
known.

I still have the original information package on the Sea Hawk and, to be
polite about it, I'd have to say the performance numbers quoted and flight
capabilities described are quite optimistic--all too common in the kitplane 
business.

Earl Brabandt, RV-6 builder
From: jac@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM (Judy Cadmus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Logging time for the Inst
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:14:13 GMT
Organization: Unisys Corporation, Devon Engineering Offices

In article <1992Sep1.203058.15913@eco.twg.com> reece@eco.twg.com (Reece R. Pollack) writes:
>|>training.  Far more than VFR, if there's a hole in your training, it's a
>|>potential killer...  There's far less margin when you're solo and ATC
>|>starts vectoring you around the sky near cumulogranite when you're on
>|>the gages.
>|>
>|>FWIW, I had about 11 hrs. of actual before I did my checkride, and some
>|>of that was hard! IFR.  But since then, I've never had a moment of
>|>saying "What the heck am I doing up here!" when shooting NDBs to minima.
>
>I have to agree with Dick on the importance of proper and complete IFR
>training. When I read about people getting their -IA rating with little
>or no actual IMC experience, I cringe. Most people (myself included)

I agree - don't skimp on the IFR training.  One thing you can also do when 
you're an instrument student that will help with your training is to volunteer
to be safety pilot for other IFR pilots.  You can really learn alot this way. 

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Judy Cadmus  PP-ASEL, Instrument Student
Skylane N42202                                  jac@asns.tredydev.unisys.com
From: kinsell@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Dave Kinsell)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:32:36 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Locked on the Controls (was GLiding instruction)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In rec.aviation, carlson@linac.fnal.gov (Kermit Carlson) writes:

> 
>     I hope that I never have to findout what the most effective method
> really is to unlock a student from the controls.....But, the person
> who signed off my endorsement to take the CFI ride suggested covering
> a person's eyes or hitting above their knee. When I asked if it worked
> for him he told me that the worst  he had encountered was in an AT-6
> during his days as an Army instructor, with no option but to wrestle
> the stick.... maybe that MAGLITE flashlight idea isnt so far off the
> mark...
>      Any other thoughts or experiences?
>                                                    Kermit  
>                                                    Cessna N51411

A glider instructor who used to give wave orientation flights downwind of
Pikes Peak tells a story of a student who froze on the stick after hitting
some rotor.  Instructor leans forward and bops the guy on the ears with
his fists.  Student grabs his ears, freeing the stick, and instructor yells
at him to just sit there and let him do the flying. 

Said instructor is somewhat short in stature (ie vertically challenged), so
I would suspect he had to loosen the straps to perform the maneuver.  This
would make me nervous in rotor. 

Dave Kinsell
kinsell@hpfcmb.fc.hp.com
From: rick@crowbar.aux.apple.com (Rick Auricchio)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: What do you do during long boring flights?
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:35:28 GMT

lihan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Bruce G. Bostwick) writes:

>_Flying_ had an article one time about a Beech Bonanza (forget which
>model) owned by Jon Bongiovi, whose fame stems from a band with a
>similar-sounding name.  Apparently he had had the firewall and
>interior paneling thoroughly sound-insulated and all the squeak
>sources traced and removed, then had an EXTREMELY efficient and quiet
>prop installed (rumor had it that you could get cuts on your fingers
>checking the trailing edge for nicks) and the engine balanced to very
>fine tolerances.  This cut the interior noise down to about 70-75 dBA.

>Then he installed a 200W car stereo, converted to run on 24VDC.
	I believe it was Jon's brother Tony (a record producer)
	and it was, I think, a twin comanche.  Rumor was that he
	was going to see if any of his soundproofing ideas could
	be adapted for aftermarket kits.  Never heard anything
	after that article, though.
--
--
Rick Auricchio       rick@apple.com        A/UX Engineering     Mooney N894AR
Apple Computer Inc, 10500 N.DeAnza Blvd MS35VK Cupertino CA 95014 408-974-4227
My opinion? If Apple knew I HAD one, they'd watch me closely. (Just my opinion)
From: cantrell@seqp4.sequoia.com (Paul Cantrell)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Building your own (dirt) runway?
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:44:51 GMT
Organization: Sequoia Computer Systems

In article <8#bndrj.hchong@netcom.com>, hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:
> Any one has any idea/knowledge/experience of building your own (dirt)
> runway, to be used only by you (maybe a 152 or a 172)?
> 
> What are the regulations?
> What length is required?
> 100%-flat land?
> Cost?
> Time?
> Landing lights?  Home-make maybe?  (no, please no dropping flares from
> airplane, cannot do that day in and day out) 
> 
> Or can I just land any damn where I like?

Well, as far as I know there are two parts to this question:

1)	Can I just cut a dirt strip and land on it, or are there some
	minimum criteria for landing areas

2)	What's require to get a strip *registered* as a runway?

As for question #1, I know of no regulation limiting where an airplane may
takeoff or land from, assuming the pilot uses reasonable prudence.
Certainly a dirt strip on your own property (or on property you have
permission to use) should be fine. FBOs that rent you a plane may not
allow you to operate from such a strip, but if you own your aircraft
this should not be a problem.

How long and flat should it be? Long and flat enough to be safe for the
particular aircraft you plan on operating from it.

One thing to check into is whether the town/city/county has any ordinances
against landing aircraft. If they do, they may be binding, and a lawyer
will be required to tell for sure. If they don't, you're home free.

Regarding question #2, I believe it is fairly easy and inexpensive to get
a strip registered as an airport. The local FSDO has the form you need.
People I know who have done it just found another person who had already
done it, and just copied their materials. Generally, a sketch or
photograph of the area is required, and a simple form must be filled out.
The fee is minimal ($25 or so).

I doubt there are any restrictions on length or flatness as I've seen some
extremely short runways, and some extremely steep runways (one grass
runway was so steep, I couldn't see how the planes could develop enough
power to taxi up - I had a hard time walking up the slope).

There is a large advantage to registering your strip. It grandfathers you
if the town/city/county should decide subsequently to prohibit aircraft
from operating within their jurisdiction. This has happened to several
people I know, so don't take it lightly.

Normally, you register the airport as a private strip which doesn't even
show up on a sectional, so you won't suddenly have a bunch of airplanes
landing on your runway (unless you want them to! :-)

					Paul Cantrell

--
cantrell@sequoia.com
-- 
cantrell@sequoia.com
From: rmt@pioneer.uucp (Richard Tweedie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: This toxic waste controversy
Keywords: DEQ, USFS, lobbying
Date: 27 Aug 92 20:24:43 GMT
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies

Margerets response cleared up some misconceptions I had on her earlier
posting--perhaps others misunderstood as well.  Anyway, it was a

thoughtful, well reasoned response.  My own sensitivity in this area
is because of Sierra Club (used to be a neat organiztion) and others
working to kill GA!  Examples--forcing the state of Idaho to remove
the tie downs and picnic tables at the sawtooth airstrips.  The 
tiedowns were below ground and covered when not in use, no harm to
anyone.  They have been stridently trying to *CLOSE* those strips
permanently.  My first flights to these strips (Warm springs creek,
Cold Meadows, Chamberlain Basin, Big Creek, Mooses Creek, Johnson
Creek, etc.) was over 25 years ago.  They are wonderful refuges for
backpacking and camping.  Many are much to far for normal backpacking
or other activities (one year at Cold Meadows I ran into a ranger--
he said I was the first person he had seen since being flown in 
during the early spring -- it was late summer).

Further examples--trying to close other airports all over the 
country for "environmental" reasons. Putting ever more severe
restrictions on where and how high you can fly.  My Father belonged
to the Sierra club when it was to foster caring for the mountains 
and parks.  He left when it became a loose cannon pointed in
ever more diverse directions.  For those who feel the above
statement is inaccurate--it is my opinion, and I am sure others
have a differing one.  It is interesting to read Margerets 
postings, even though I disagree with some of them.  While I 
am very opposed to most clear cutting, and want to see the forests
survive, it seems that there should be some accomodation for the
loggers as well--people need lumber and loggers need jobs.

An example of the environmental group run amuck is the famous 
alon controversy about apples a few years ago--from what I 
remember, many people lost their orchards or at least that years 
work when the Hype was at its highest.  Few of the environmental
fanatics that I have met would cry over losing G.A.  On a few
occasions I have been attacked for using up the worlds resouces
for frivolous reasons, creating noise and air pollution (What! no
catalytic converters on those toy airplanes!  Those Piper cubs
should be banned from the sky, etc).  Around the south bay, some of
them even want *cars* banned or seriously restriced (except for their
own of course) and their views on Reid Hillview are not even 
printable.

Sorry for the soapbox, but I do love flying, and the Idaho primitive
area..........

Rich Tweedie
Super-Stinson N175C
e-mail to rmt@net.com
From: verhulst@raven.aosg.gsf.dec.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Certificate Change of Address
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:53:56 GMT
Organization: AOSG

>Not unless you sent them $2 for issuing the new one.  Otherwise, they
>simply change your mailing address in their files (so you will receive
>FAA circulars, etc.) but you keep the old certificate with the wrong
>address.  Go figure.

Like the poster who got a new unsolicited certificate when she changed her name,
I go a new one when I became a US citizen.  No payment was requested.

Tony V.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin)
Subject: Re: Hawker Siddeley Vulcan
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 00:35:54 GMT

In article <bakc.112.714980629@giraffe.ru.ac.za>, bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za (MR KR COMAN) writes:
|> >So, come on, all you rec.aviators!  dig deep and let's collectively buy 
|> > a Vulcan... lots of room to camp under its wings at Oshkosh...
|> 
|> Aah yes, but wouldn't this end up like the problem facing the dog that 
|> chased the bus?   Once he caught it, he didn't know what to do with it!!
|> 
|> Keith

FLY IT!!!!!!!!

:-)

I saw one of these fly at Shearwater Airshow in Nova Scotia during the mid
'80s.  Awesome.  A flying football pitch, as the denizens of its homeland
would say.  Its fuel bill must make that for a P-51 look like small
change, though...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Corvin 	      PP-ASEL, PP-G		zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com
just another spaced rocket scientist at    Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============    My views, not Martin Marietta's   ========================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com (Dick Harrigill)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Comparing Tach and Hobbs rates?
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:49:16 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle

In article <1992Sep1.060528.20934@peck.com> geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) writes:
>Ah, the perennial tach vs. Hobbs rate question.
>> IMHO, Tach rates are a much fairer way to charge than pure Hobbs.
>Well, yes and no....

OK - Here it is - the Fair Formula For Funding Flying (FFFFF or 5F):

The Formual uses the following Preset Rates (examples rates based on
Cessna 172):

 H = Hobbs rate in $/Hour
     (e.g. $20/hour)
 T = Tach rate in $/Hour   
     (e.g. $22/hour)
TG = Flat fee per Touch & Go
     (e.g. $1.00)
FS = Flat fee per Full Stop Landing
     (e.g. $2.00) (minimum one)
ST = Flat fee per Stall
     (e.g. 25 cents intentional, $100 whoops)
SS = Flat fee per flight Student Surcharge
     (e.g. $5.00)
ME = Mixture/Mag Error in $/hour that mixture is
     improperly leaned or Mag not on both
     (e.g. $50/hour)
PS = Flat fee per flight per Passenger Surcharge
     (e.g. $1.00 - Pilot & Club instructors no charge)

Cost = (H x Hobbs hours)
      +(T x Tach Hours)
      +(TG x #TGo's)
      +(FS x #Full Stops)
      +(ST x #Stalls)
      + SS  if applicable
      +(ME x #Hours) if applicable
      +(PS x #Passengers)
     =====
     FFFFF

So, my flight last night went as follows:

     H x 2.2 = 44.00
     T x 1.8 = 39.60
    TG x 2   =  2.00
    FS x 1   =  2.00
    ST x 0   =  0
    SS x 0   =  0
    ME x 0.1 =  5.00
    PS x 2   =  2.00
 --------------------
       FFFFF = 94.60 (plus tax!)

Now is that fair or what?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!    . .
                                             |
                                            (-

There is an extended version of the 5F, which includes things like
mike button presses, radio frequency changes and transponder replies,
but that one is too hard to use.

-- 
Dick Harrigill, an independent voice from:     Boeing Commercial Airplanes 
M/S 9R-49  PO BOX 3707                       Renton Avionics/Flight Systems
Seattle, WA  91824                                  Computing Support
(206) 393-9539    rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com    CDP, PP-ASEL
From: beede@sctc.com (Mike Beede)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Me. 163 aerodynamics
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:41:11 GMT
Organization: SCTC

dt@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Ryan Williams) writes:

>I got a question. The Messerschmitt 163, used in World War II, was a plane
>that had no elevators. My question is, how did it control pitch? Anyone have a
>clue?

My diagram shows two sets of movable surfaces on the Me163.  My first
guess is the inboard ones are elevators and the outboard ones are
ruddervators.  Barring that, the inner ones are flaps and the outer
ones function as rudders, elevators, _and_ ailerons.  I'm not going to
attempt a term for _that_.

Ruddervators are thingies on, e.g., the B-35.  They split for drag to
act as rudders and move in one directon for ailerons.  If you added
the ability to move them the same way, too, you'd get rudlevators, or
whatever they're called.  I imagine the linkages would be a mechanical
engineer's dream (or nightmare).  Much easier to control digitally,
but this was pretty much out of the question in Germany in 194X.

	Mike

P.S., My understanding is that the extremely short moment arm for the
elevators on a flying wing is why the B-35 had such low wing loading
-- during takeoffs and landings there was a great deal of downforce
necessary to maintain the angle of attack.  This lead to an
inefficiently low loading at cruise.  Sure was cool, though.  I'll
never forgive them for breaking them _all_ up.





-- 
Mike Beede         Secure Computing
beede@sctc.com     1210 W. County Rd E, Suite 100           
------------------ Arden Hills, MN  55112
                    (612) 482-7420
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Shackleton (was Re: Hawker Siddeley Vulcan)
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 16:16:13 GMT

John Little - Nihon Sun Repair Depot writes
>I also remember being disappointed  when the "Lancaster" I 
> thought  I'd spotted on static display turned out to be a 
> Shackleton.  Does  anyone know if the Shackleton is still 
> in use as a search-and-rescue bird by the RAF?  It must be 
> getting quite long in the tooth now.
> 

The Shaks were all retired earlier this year after the E-# AWACS  
('sentry' in the RAF) entered service.
--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu
Subject: LCFI - Proposal
Organization: Pomona College
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:09:41 PDT

Okay, so September 19th is not a good day for a reason or two. So how about
the following...

Proposed Net fly in:

		Where: Oceano Co.
		When:  October 10th (Saturday)
		Why:   Because

This airport has a number of restaurants within walking distance, plus the
beach, and a campground for those who'd like to stay overnight. Also, it
seems to be more or less half way between San Diego and San Francisco.

Before we make it official, how about posting your opinions on the date and
place?

______________________________________________________________________________
Javier Henderson, N6VBG         | Beat the 55mph limit (legally):
jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu | Learn to fly!
From: rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: "Andrew" takes WWII planes (fwd)
Date: 28 Aug 92 03:03:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota

In article <1992Aug28.020547.4473@odin.corp.sgi.com> eds@aero.esd.sgi.com (Edward Schreyer) writes:
>I was at Oshkosh this year and viewed Kermit's Mosquito in the Eagle hangar.  I'm assuming it wasn't moved back to Florida and is therefore intact.  The signage near the plane indicated that it was to remain at the Eagle hangar for another few months.

I had heard (third hand, of course) that it was moved back to Florida.
HOWEVER, that source I wouldn't trust 100% unless confirmed.  I hope the
information was incorrect and the Mosquito stayed in Oshkosh.

This is one reason I'm hoping someone has a pipeline into Weeks Air
Museum and can get a rundown of what occurred...

-- 
Robert J. Granvin                                       School of Statistics
rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu                             University of Minnesota
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: sims@sauron.msfc.nasa.gov (Herb Sims)
Subject: Re: Oops, the throttle came off!
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date: 26 Aug 92 12:40:35 GMT

venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh) writes:

>In article <JCRAWFOR.92Aug25161932@chseq.oracle.com> jcrawfor@oracle.com (John Crawford) writes:
>>
>>After takeoff/climbout, he pulled back on the throttle only to find
>>no resistance and no power reduction.
>>
>>...began a gradual descent into a long, low final approach.  The low 
>>approach obviously minimized speed increases due to the descent just 
>>before touchdown.   Upon landing at around 100, he simply turned off
>>the ignition and braked to a stop.

>Would anyone else in this position have chosen to turn the ignition off
>once the field was made and made a dead-stick landing? I can't decide
>whether one is necessarily better than the other. There are trade-offs 
>involved in either choice. Any comments?

>venky
The best procedure I have heard about is to set the pitch of the plane up
so that alt is neither gained or lost.  Then make it back to the field.
After you have the field in sight I was told to pull the mixture setting 
to full lean - yes kill the engine.  You don't want to turn the ignition
off because if you have to restart the engine the is fuel in the exhaust
which, when ignited, would couse considerable damage.  However if you find
that you need to restart the engine all you have to do is enrichen the
mixture with no catastrophic results.

Hope this helps in the future.

Herb
From: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: What do you do during long boring flights?
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:45:15 GMT
Reply-To: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.  Engineering

In article <ritter.715270580@claude>, ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger 
Ritter) writes:
> Let's see now, I check my position on the chart, look for obvious
> landmarks on the ground, check for traffic, look ahead for my next
> checkpoint, check my compass course, check for traffic, look at
> the engine gauges, note en-route timing, check for traffic, check
> my position on the chart ...

I vote for this one!!!


Tom Pickett 
tpickett@auspex.com
SHO  GOZE
From: john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Hawker Siddeley Vulcan
Date: 30 Aug 92 17:27:02 GMT
Organization: Newave Communications, Ltd, Lake Wobegon, MN

In <2510480@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM> bills@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bill Standerfer):
> In article <1992Aug22.214805.26274@wixer.cactus.org>, will@wixer.cactus.org
> > I was watching an old James Bond film and found one
> > of the aircraft portrayed rather interesting. It was
> > a Hawker Siddeley Vulcan.

> BTW, there is an example of the type at the Castle Air Museum at Merced, CA.

In addition, there are two other Vulcans in the US:
- SAC museum, Offit AFB, Nebraska (just south of Omaha)
- 8th Airforce Museum, Shreveport, Louisana (soon to open to the public)

-john-

-- 
==============================================================================
John A. Weeks III		(612) 942-6969		    john@newave.mn.org
Newave Communications, Ltd.			    ..!uunet!tcnet!newave!john
Newsgroups: rec.aviation