HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: km11480@medtronic.COM (Keith A. Meisel)
Subject: Re: why not use chains?
Reply-To: km11480@medtronic.COM
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:20:43 GMT


>When I took my Cheetah off leaseback in 1987, one of the first things I
>decided was that I was not going to waste time fumbling with the cheesy
>tiedown ropes my FBO had been using.  I went to the local hardware store and
>bought three 8 foot lengths of heavy, rust-resistant chain and six
>double-ended leash clips.  Three of these clips are used to fasten the
>chains to metal anchors embedded in the ground.  The other three fasten the
>other end of the chains after they've been pulled through the airplane's
>tiedown rings.

The tie-downs at the Cook, MN airport are chain.  The airport manager
showed me a neat way to clip the chains in place.  After passing the chain up
through the tie-down ring on the aircraft, tighten the chain and pass a link 
from the free end of the chain through a link in the tensioned portion
of the chain.  Use the clip as a "pin" to keep the loop from pulling 
back through.  The load on the clip becomes virtually zero, as the tension
on the tie-down is fully supported by the chain links. 

 Putting load on the clip opens up the possibility that the clip hook could
 straighten under load, much as a fish hook straightens when pulled by a large fish.  Failure of the chain link would require tensile failure of the chain material,
since the link is a closed structure.  The latter should take a much
higher load. 



Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: 841613t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Don Tyzuk)
Subject: Re: why not use chains?
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:42:15 GMT

tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett) writes:

>In article <Bzso5x.IDw.2@cs.cmu.edu>, dst+@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) writes:
>> So why does anybody still use tiedown ropes?


>Maybe it is because the rope gives a little in a gusty wind, and this has
>got to be better for the airframe?  Just my opinion...

That's what I was told...
-- 
\                             \           _         ______ |
 \                             \        /   \___-=0`/|0`/__|
  \   don.tyzuk@acadiau.ca      \_______\          / | /    )
  /                             /        `/-==____/__|/__=-|
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 10:38:46 -0500 
From: Jeffrey Dunkle <jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: What to look for in a C172

Excerpts from netnews.rec.aviation.owning: 21-Dec-92 What to look for in
a C172 by "Brian Carr @OFFICE.WANG 
>    I was looking at a 172 for sale the other day and realized I don't
> have a clue what to look at in regards to buying aircraft. This is a 25
> year old 172 with 2600 hour airframe, 120 hours on a Mattituck top end.

Brian:
First off to find a 25 year old airframe with that low a total time is
rather special...thats just 100+hours/year.  

Basically 2 things.  Pay someone to "look" at the plane as if they were
doing an annual....engine and airframe...its bucks...but usually wort
it...especially on a 25 year old plane.

Engine:  All the obvious stuff:  Compression, full visual inspection,
check logs for oil consumption, wiring, baffels, mags, etc.  Engine
mount for cracks, etc, and nose gear supports for integrity.  
Battery/compartment for servicability, corrosion. Exhaust system, heater
for integrity.  Carb heat/intake for integrity.  I.e.  a usual engine
inspection.

Airframe:  Same story. Special items.  Gas tanks for leakage, filler
necks for cracks.  Struts and gear fittings, including saddle blocks for
cracks.  Look under the seats/carpet and deep in the tail cone for
cable, electrical, antenna lead integrity.  On old plane look for cable
fraying and pully integrity.

Fly the plane, including full ils and atc transponder evironment...make
sure all avionics work.  Check ADF if installed...old ones are often
funky.

Pay special attention to nose strut.  Shimmy shows  up most often on
landing more so than takeoff.

Trim the plane for level cruse....see how well it flies hands off.. this
sort of checks rigging.

Pour a bucket of water over the upper edge of the wind shield....check
for leaks inside.  Most old ones do leak or have fair amount of
cracks/crazing.

Most of all....good luck.  Old Hawks in ok shape perform pretty darn
well.  If ok...fly it and enjoy.  Good luck.

Jeff Dunkle
Chmn. Circle W Flying Club (2 Skyhawks and a 152)
Pittsburgh
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: BRIAN.M.CARR@OFFICE.WANG.COM ("Brian Carr    (HARPS)")
Subject: What to look for in a C172
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:45:39 GMT

   I was looking at a 172 for sale the other day and realized I don't
have a clue what to look at in regards to buying aircraft. This is a 25
year old 172 with 2600 hour airframe, 120 hours on a Mattituck top end.
Full IFR: King KX-155, KX-145, Glidescope, Mode C, Apollo Loran 604. They
claim no damage history but I have heard the tail was reworked due to storm
damage several years ago. Last painted in 1985 and looks to be standing up
well. They are looking for either half partner of full sale.

    What is the net wisdom for a ballpark price and what do you look at
when evaluating a Cessna.
Thanks in advance for any info you think to be relevant.

Still trying to figure out if my plane has found me!
Brian
From: lee@deneb.sw.stratus.com (Lee Cooprider)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
Subject: Re: What to look for in a C172
Date: 21 Dec 1992 20:51:49 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: deneb.sw.stratus.com

In article <199212211744.AA24598@tuna.wang.com> BRIAN.M.CARR@OFFICE.WANG.COM ("Brian Carr    (HARPS)") writes:
>    What is the net wisdom for a ballpark price and what do you look at
>when evaluating a Cessna.

The aircraft bluebook is very important for figuring out price.  It isn't
generally available, but if you talk to an insurance agent, they can give you
quotes (or, if they are nice, copies of pages from the book for the aircraft
you are looking at).  Then, of course, you have to add and subtract for things
that aren't included in the evaluation, like interior condition, new
equipment, quality of care, etc.

Also, Aviation Consumer's Used Aircraft Guide (in two volumes now?) has lots
of good info on evaluating all sorts of aircraft.  There are also inexpensive
books available at Norwood (or thru Sporty's and other mailorder places) that
have info on the whole Cessna line.

For a purchase of this size, spending $20 to $50 on books and poring over
them for a few hours is a good use of time and money.
-- 
Lee W. Cooprider				PP-ASEL/IA
Lee_Cooprider@vos.stratus.com			Skylane N2908F "Wiley"
From: bart@asiago.cs.wisc.edu (Bart Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
Subject: Re: why not use chains?
Date: 28 Dec 92 20:12:05 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.

In article <Bzso5x.IDw.2@cs.cmu.edu>, dst+@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky) writes:
> So why does anybody still use tiedown ropes?

In snow country, when the ramp is being plowed, ropes don't mess up the
plow blade.  They might get cut, but won't do any damage.  This is the
same reason why our streets don't typically have those bumps between lanes
on streets.
						--bart miller
						  uw-madison cs dept
						  bart@cs.wisc.edu
						  N738CU TR182
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: mcooper@cuuxb.att.com (~HIGH PERF~Michael A. Cooper~NA~G18~x8716~)
Subject: Looking for radio
Keywords: Got one?
Organization: ATT/NCR-SSD, System Services Division, Lisle, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:44:48 GMT


     Hi,
I lost one of my nav/com's on a flight from North Carolina to
New Jersey (where I keep my aircraft).  It's an old King
Coffee-Grinder model, and therefore probably a classic, but I
would rather get a better, more modern radio than fix it.

     Does anyone out there have a working used nav-com that they
would part with for a reasonable price (i.e. less than you paid
for it but more than a dealer would give you in trade)?  I'm not
looking for any specific functionality (other than the basic
760 channels).  If your radio has (or doesn't have) glideslope,
localizer, and/or DME, I'll still consider it.

     I you have something that fits the bill please email
me with your name, the make/model radio, and a way of getting in
contact with you.  I'll pay for shipping from anywhere in the
US.

     Looking forward to doing business with you,
    -Michael Cooper,  N3545K



Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: slow@ferrari.cray.com (David Slowinski)
Subject: Re: Frost	
Keywords: Frost
Reply-To: slow@ferrari.cray.com (David Slowinski)
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.  Eagan, MN.
Date: 31 Dec 92 11:11:16 CST

In article <C02u32.n1E@oryx.com>, xdejcj@mustang.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (james c janssen) writes:
> The ATP I was with sprayed the plane down with water. 
>
>It seems like I have read somewhere that this is not a good technique
>for removing frost.  Can anyone comment on this.
>
Don't try that trick here in Wisconsin (-7 degrees Farenheit today).  
You would certainly end up with lots of ice.  The airframe and 
controls and passenger doors would be entombed in ice until spring.

David Slowinski
Cray Research Inc.
Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.misc
From: tommc@hpcvusc.cv.hp.com (Tom McFarland)
Subject: Re: One of my "heard on the air" postings in IFR unattributed
Reply-To: tommc@cv.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett Packard UTD-Corvallis
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 16:09:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.003146.8745@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us>, philf@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez) writes:
|> I received and read my January 1993 issue of _IFR_ magazine this week.
|> I was rather surprised when I read the "On The Air" section to find,
|> verbatim, a posting I had made to rec.aviation some months ago.  I had
|> posted this story (about a Cessna who could not understand their
|> squawk code from LA Center) as a "heard on the air" humorous posting
|> here.
|> 
|> The story in IFR Magazine was attributed to "Anonymous."
|> 
|> This doesn't really upset me in a big way, but it was rather
|> disappointing.  There was a discussion on rec.aviation some months ago
|> about this "problem," and at the time, I recall that Paul Bertorelli,
|> editor of IFR, had passed on a commitment to stop printing
|> unauthorized, unattributed material in his magazine obtained from
|> rec.aviation.  Does anyone have recollection of the earlier discussion
|> here, and recall how things sorted out with IFR?

Yes.  IFR had published one of my rec.aviation posts, complete with signiture.
After a short discussion on the net, one of the rec.aviators (Chris Pettus?)
put Paul in contact with me.  Paul apologized profusely and said that they
would change the way they accepted submissions.  He promised not to print
anything without checking with the author first.  Like you, I wasn't
particularly irate over the incident, just annoyed.  For what ever its
worth, Paul did not promise to avoid unattributed material, just unauthorized.
BTW, there was no fee involved with the submitter and since something sent
to the public domain doesn't seem to be protected by copyright laws, no
laws were broken... morality was just a might bent.

I found two things particularly disturbing about the IFR incident.
First, IFR used my letter in a way I hadn't intended.  Second, there
was my letter, jogged off without any particular concern as to style
or accuracy, with my name on it, looking just like every other piece
of material in the mag.  Knowing that I hadn't authorized the letter
and hadn't taken particular care in constructing it made me wonder
about every other letter/article in the mag.  Where had it come from?
Does the author know it is published in this form?  How accurate is it?
The whole magazine became suspect for me.

|> pmf
|> pp-asmel-ia
|> mooney n5632j

Tom McFarland
<tommc@cv.hp.com>
Comanche 5943P
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.misc
From: siegman@EE.Stanford.EDU (Anthony E. Siegman)
Subject: Re: One of my "heard on the air" postings in IFR unattributed
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 02:24:13 GMT

   Certainly don't want to start a flame war here, but let me ask:
given for example the kinds of strict legal restrictions that apply to
reproducing overhead cellular phone conversations and the like, is it
really all that valid to post something "heard on the air" to the net
in the first place?

   To put this in another way, independent of the strict legalities of
the whole thing, if what's posted to the net is really originally
"heard on the air" and hence is "in the public domain" in a sense, and
if it's OK to reproduce that on the net, does the poster then really
acquire more rights in the words than the individual(s) who uttered
them in the first place?  

  Or, if you've reproduced someone else's words without _their_
permission, have you a valid complaint when someone else then
reproduces your (unauthorized) reproduction of their words without
_your_ permission?

   (Not intended as criticism in any way; I enjoy reading those
postings.  But these seem to me fair questions.)

Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.misc
From: philf@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez)
Subject: Re: One of my "heard on the air" postings in IFR unattributed
Organization: Jade and Jett Incorporated
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:28:36 GMT

In article <24504@alice.att.com> ark@alice.UUCP () writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.054358.27332@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us> philf@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez) writes:
>If so, it adds an interesting wrinkle to the "heard on the air" idea.
>If you really did hear it, either it's public domain or you weren't allowed
>to repeat it at all; in either case you don't have much claim against IFR
>Magazine for publishing it.

As I pointed out, I would of course still have a "claim" for the parts
of my posting that weren't a transcript of an ATC conversation, e.g.,
"While on an IFR flight near Santa Barbara."  Admittedly, not very
interesting... 

pmf


Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: xdejcj@mustang.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (james c janssen)
Subject: Frost	
Keywords: Frost
Organization: Oryx Energy, Dallas, Texas.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:40:14 GMT

The other day, while taking care of the preflight inspection of a Cessna
152, I noticed quite a bit of frost buildup and all the horizontal
surfaces.  The ATP I was with sprayed the plane down with water.  I
inspected the plane carefully and all the frost was gone and there is no
sign of any buildup or any other problem.  

It seems like I have read somewhere that this is not a good technique
for removing frost.  Can anyone comment on this.

Jim Janssen
Richardson, TX

Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.misc
From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com
Subject: Re: One of my "heard on the air" postings in IFR unattributed
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 17:09:21 GMT

In article <24504@alice.att.com>, ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig) writes:
> In article <1992Dec28.054358.27332@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us> philf@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez) writes:
> 
>> Also, ATC conversations take place on an open, "party-line"
>> communication channel, which may be freely monitored by anyone owning
>> a $19.95 receiver.
> 
> There's an interesting point here.  Some radio channels, particularly
> (I think) the ham bands, carry with them an FCC regulation prohibiting
> people from divulging what they hear over those channels.  Thus, though
> it is legal to own and use a ham receiver, without any license, my
> understanding is that it violates FCC regulations to tell anyone else
> what you hear on the ham bands.

Actually, it's the other way around. According to the Communications Act
of 1934, the Ham Bands are one of the 'few' places where this prohibition
is not in effect. On most other bands, including Aircraft, this prohibition
is in effect.


> 
> If so, it adds an interesting wrinkle to the "heard on the air" idea.
> If you really did hear it, either it's public domain or you weren't allowed
> to repeat it at all; in either case you don't have much claim against IFR
> Magazine for publishing it.

If IFR Magizine is re-printing it verbaitum, then there is certainly a 
copyright issue involved.

> 
> On the other hand, if you didn't really hear it, and are instead reporting
> it as a work of fiction, then the copyright question becomes much more real.

Most HOTA renderings are annecdotal, thus aren't reported verbaitum (as heard).
Still, if they are then repeated verbaitum (as originally written), copyright
laws apply.

------

John Rice   __|__    K9IJ  |   "Did I say that?" I must have, but It was
     ________(*)________   |    MY opinion only, no one else's...Especially
            o/ \o          |    Not my Employer's....
                           |    ASEL, AMEL, IA         rice@ttd.teradyne.com 


Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.misc
From: philf@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez)
Subject: Re: One of my "heard on the air" postings in IFR unattributed
Organization: Jade and Jett Incorporated
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 19:02:50 GMT


I wanted to follow-up my original post on this topic with a
clarification...

I am not personally upset by the fact that a posting of mine ended up
in IFR attributed to "anonymous".  I like IFR, I've been in touch with
its editor about this issue, and things are cool.

I do, however, think it's in general inappropriate for material from
Usenet to end up in printed publications without permission *or*
attribution.  I figured that by (re-)raising this issue and poking at
it a bit, I might prevent this from happening again real soon, at
least with rec.aviation stuff...

pmf
pp-asmel-ia
mooney n5632j
From: gezelter@rlgsc.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
Subject: Re: BBS FOR THE SSA
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:08:25 GMT
Followup-To: rec.aviation.soaring
Organization: Robert Gezelter Software Consultant, Flushing, NY

In article <mam-141292175058@blottobox.gvg.tek.com>, mam@gvgspd.gvg.tek.com (Mark A. Matthews) writes:
> 
>>[...]                                                           It also
>>has Email capability and a registered domain "ssabbs.org".  This domain
>>is currently being registered so DON'T SEND MAIL TO IT YET. [...]
> 
> Argh!  Is it too late to request "ssa.org"?  Using "ssabbs.org" seems like
> an invitation to further maintenance headaches  The bbs portion of the name
> seems like too much information is the organization name.
> 
> -Mark
-- 
Mark, 
 
I partially concur. I would like to suggest that the domain be 
"ssa.org" and that the BBS be "bbs.ssa.org". The administrative 
system could then be either "hq.ssa.org" or "admin.ssa.org". This 
would seem to be more compatible with the standard conventions on 
hierarchies.
 
- Bob
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Robert "Bob" Gezelter                       E-Mail:  gezelter@rlgsc.com  |
| Robert Gezelter Software Consultant         Voice:   +1 718 463 1079     |
| 35-20 167th Street, Suite 215               Fax:       (on Request)      |
| Flushing, New York  11358-1731                                           |
| United States of America                                                 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
From: guy.byars@ssa.org (Guy Byars) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
Subject: WANTED: 1-26 TOW HOOK
Date: 24 Dec 92 01:09:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Soaring Society of America's BBS (513)-871-7720
Reply-To: guy.byars@ssa.org (Guy Byars) 


  I am posting this for a friend:

   WANTED:  Center of Gravity (GC) Tow hook assembly for a 1-26.

   Contact:  Herald Buck
             Box 868
             Columbus GA  31902
             (706)-322-1314
                                                
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring,rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: jeffk@dosXX.med.utah.edu (Jeff Knell)
Subject: Re: Info on American Spirit glider kit.
Organization: Department of Genetics, University of Utah
Date: 21 Dec 92 13:26:18

Henrik Klagges (German pilot) writes:

   > 475+ pounds ...
   Seems slightly on the heavy side. Given the trickyness of resins
   I'd rather have another look at the new Czech/Polish gliders, which
   are very good performance & price/performance.

==========================================================

Most 15m ships listed in the SSA Sailplane Directory
weigh right around 500 lbs.  Advanced Soaring Concepts,
the producer of the American Spirit kit, now estimates
finished kit weight between 450 and 475 lbs.  

It is my understanding that the Polish ships refered
to are a bit lighter.  Not a problem, but there is 
some question about where they saved the weight.

Also, there is absolutely no glass work in putting
together this kit.  All required adhesives are 
included with the kit, and it is my understanding 
that none of them are resins.

It might not make sense for a pilot in Germany to 
purchase an American Spirit kit, but from everything
I've learned it is a great way to go for American
pilots that have the time to build and/or can't 
afford the outrageous prices of new glass.  And the 
molds (duplicated and in separate buildings) are in 
Camarillo CA, in the event that you need a new wing.  

In my opinion we are seeing the first real attack on 
the European monoply in high-performance glass.  
About damn time.  The Spirit is, of course, an 'untested' 
glider, and only time will tell.  But, I have talked with 
a pilot that has flown the proto, and he was impressed 
enough to buy a kit.  I have also had several conversations
with Tor Jensen--president of ASC--and I am convinced that
these guy have done it right.

The proto will be in Seattle, and they anticipate that
several kits will be flying this summer.  ASC also has
plans for a flapped version of the Spirit, as well as
a two-place kit.  This is no garage-based operation;
these guys plan on being around for a while.  I hope
they succeed.



jeff

feitctaj
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
From: will@wa4phy (Will Wilson)
Subject: paraplanes?
Summary: Is this the group for paraplanes?
Keywords: paraplanes
Organization: none
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 03:55:09 GMT

I am interested in possibly purchasing a paraplane.  These have
become popular in my area mainly due to one person's business in
which he trains people to fly them, and then rents or sells them.
My questions are:
   1.  Is this the right group to find out about them? If not
       please direct me to the correct one.

   2.  Assuming this is the correct group, is there any magazine
       or newsletter,etc. devoted to these.  I would like to buy
       one, but the price (around $7K I think) seems a little too
       steep.  
Thanks for any info.


-- 
Will Wilson      Amateur Radio KC4GSS    U 
3823 Wright Reese RD Warrenton, Ga 30828  S
                                           A
uucp:      gatech!dogwood!wa4phy!will
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
Subject: Re: The Soaring List lives again!
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 03:07:10 GMT

Just in case anyone wanted the address of the hang gliding 
mailing list (we don't exile paraglider pilots either) it
follows in my .signature:

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                  Illiterate?  Write for FREE help...