HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Osprey GP-4
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:40:55 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <BvHssC.D4q@waterloo.hp.com>, enns@waterloo.hp.com (Roger Enns) writes:
> This Osprey GP-4 you refer to, was it previously known as the
> Pierria (sp?) GP-4?  I have an article from an old Sport Av. that
> describes the new design (at that time, ~10 years ago?) in
> detail.  If this is indeed the same aircraft, I can get you
> copies of the article.  E-mail me if interested.

Yup, these are the same airplane.  George Perreira (sp?) is the designer and
runs the company.  He also designed the Osprey -1 and -2 amphibs.  

There was also an article in Sport Pilot several years ago about the GP-4,
which I remember as being quite complimentary of the airplane (this coming
from a writer who is not afraid to point out deficiencies).  I don't 
remember the issue, but I'm sure I still have it- send e-mail.

According to my memory, the plane cruised around 240 mph on 200 hp.  
Quite nice handling, rather hot but no unusual qualities.  

There were approx. 3 GP-4s at Oshkosh this year.  One was the prototype, 
I assume the others were plans built.  I don't remember seeing any GP-4s
the previous 2 years.  So it looks like very few of them are flying, a 
reflection of the huge building effort and *perhaps* level of support.
I'd be very interested in hearing reports of other builders if you get in
touch with any of them.
-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: dlm@unislc.uucp (Dennis McCurdy)
Subject: Re: Advantages to radial engines?
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:16:03 GMT

Ross Oliver (rosso@roscoe.csd.sgi.com) wrote:
: Is high oil consumption an artifact of a radial configuration, or caused by
: the fact that the design and materials are 50+ years old? Would it be possible
: to build a modern radial engine that did not have high oil consumption?

The main problem (with a "good" engine) is one of gravity. When the engine is
just sitting there oil seeps past the rings and into the combustion chamber
of the lower cylinders. This is why when you start a radial it belches lots
of smoke and the amount of smoke gradually lessens as it burns away the excess
oil in the lower jugs. This is why you see guys "pull it through" before they
start a radial (or at least one reason). They want as much of the oil to get
pumped out the valves as possible before starting. I was always told 6 turns
of the prop was sufficient.

Personally, I would enjoy seeing some radials used in homebuilts. Anyone seen
something like this? Yow!

: Ross Oliver

-- 
Dennis L. McCurdy          |
  PP-ASEL A&P              |
 dlm@unislc                |
 dlm@unislc.slc.unisys.com |
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Subject: Velocity kit builders
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:17:25 GMT


This is a reposting of something I requested before we had our own forum:

I would like to make contact with Velocity builders, especially those that
are within easy flight distance (a few hours at about 100 kts) of the San Jose 
area. I am considering plunging into a Velocity project, and would like feedback 
from those either in the middle or even done. If you are close enough I would like
to come and see your project, and if you are too far I would like your opinions
via eMail.

Thanks

David		doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

The thought police insist I tell you:
my thoughts, not NASA's
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: carr@convex.com (Rob Carruthers)
Subject: Re: QuestAir Venture
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:23:08 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

Michael Corvin writes:

>Are there any rec.avaitors who can comment on the flying qualities of the
>Venture or the Spirit?  How about handling and performance comparisons to
>similar aircraft such as the two-seat Lancairs, the RV-6, etc?
>Comparisons in construction effort?


I flew 62V a few years ago at the Southwest EAA flyin in Kerrville. With 2
aboard, and full fuel, no bags, we initially climbed out at 2500FPM up to
12500' for some airwork. Seems like we were indicating about 130kias in the
climb.  At 12500, we leveled off and the speed climbed to around 230 ktas
at 75% power. The venture is _very_ stable in pitch and roll. I was able to
easily fly it in a 30 degree bank hands off. When disturbed in pitch, it
would return to level flight in 2 or 3 oscillations. Hard IFR should be no
problem with the venture. Stalls were gentle, much like an Archer. One big
gripe I have is that the plane has yet to be spin tested.

To decend, we put the gear down, and desended at an ear busting 4000FPM, at
around 140 kias, and 17" MP. In the pattern the downwind is flown at 80
kias. Final is around 70, with 65 over the fence. 

On a related subject, before buying any homebuilt, I would suggest a review
of the NTSB accident records. A lot of these fast kits have been crashed
early in the test flight stage by builders, many with fatal results. Most
problems causing the crashes are builder goofs during construction. Next
comes pilot proficiency in type. Go get some dual in type before your test
flight!


Rob Carruthers
CFI IA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: doug@alliant.com (Doug Bloomberg)
Subject: Re: Subaru Power??
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems Corp.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:03:23 GMT

>In article <BvHzr6.Ftw@waterloo.hp.com> enns@waterloo.hp.com (Roger Enns) writes:
>> I am looking for a more
>> reliable and durable powerplant, in the range of 75 to 90 hp.
>> With our present 1835 VW, climb rate at gross on a hot day is
>> marginal at best.  Rather than hop the sh%t out of the poor VW,
>> and risk crank failures, etc, I am hoping to install a very near
>> stock Subaru.  At OSHKOSH, the gyro guys seemed to love the
>> powerplant, with many flying examples on hand.
>
	I don't know if I would ever put a Subaru engine into an airplane.
	My Experiance:   Driving a 1982 Subaru 1600cc on the interstate,
	at 65-70 All of a sudden, the car is sliding , the front wheels
	are locked up, I throw in the clutch, coast to the side of the
	road. After I get the car home and tear the engine down, I found
	that the valve seat for an exhaust valve has come out of it's
	seat, and locked the engine up solid.

	Just because the engine is horizonally opposed does't qualify it
	for aircraft usage.

	I feel that there is a much better alternative to Lycoming and
	Continental. But, it isn't available yet, in fact I do not know 
	if it is even designed yet.  But, I do know that the only engine
	that will better (over all, HP vs weight vs reliability) will
	have to be designed from the oil drain plug up, as an aircraft
	engine.

	A good test for a auto engine if you want to put it into an
	airplane. Is to take the car, with proposed engine, select a gear
	ie 2nd or 3rd and drive the car that way. At 65mph keep it
	in the low gear. Put a tach on the engine, make sure it is running
	at 4500 rpm or better, keep it there. Make some long trips, change
	oil at 50 hrs periods. Note even at 4500 rpm, the engine will be
	developing only 20% of rated power, vs 65-75% rated power you will
	be developing in an aircraft.  How long will the engine last???

	
	Thanks for putting up with my $.02...

	Doug Bloomberg
	Littleton, CO

	RV-6 Builder, EAA Member, "Wing Nut"



Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: Re: QuestAir Venture
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 17:10:57 GMT

In article <1afc18INNaiq@early-bird.think.com> laird@think.com (Laird Popkin) writes:
>I worked for about two years for QuestAir, a manufacturer of a homebuilt
>airplane called the Venture.  That was a while ago, and I've fallen out of
>touch with QuestAir, but seeing this new group made me curious as to
>whether anyone here has flown in one or heard any news about the place.

Bret, you out there??

One of the most poignant series of articles posted to the net in the past
several years was _The rise and fall of N3VD_, a Questair Venture built
by netter Bret Marquis.  After several years of painstaking construction
and unanticipated frustration and expense, the Venture flew earlier this
year.  It crashed and was destroyed in the first few tens of hours of its
birdlife.  Luckily, Bret wasn't in the plane and his partner who was
survived with modest injuries.  (Bret's crash karma also downed his
Mooney 231 and JetRanger, none of which happened with him present).

Dan Masys
masys@nlm.nih.gov
From: enns@waterloo.hp.com (Roger Enns)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Popular Mechanics Article
Date: 2 Oct 92 20:14:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: HP Panacom Div Waterloo ON Canada
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

I believe thats the Berkut, a canard wing tandem-seated,
composite constructed kitplane.  I saw it during construction in
Dave Ronnenberg's hangar just outside LA.  Dave built at least
half a dozen of the Rutan designs (Long-EZ and Vari-EZ) before
going off on his own.  The Berkut is loosely based on the Long-EZ
design.  It sports higher horsepower, retractable gear, and
separate canopies.  It was featured in a past KitPlanes issue.

--
Roger Enns (enns@waterloo.hp.com) Panacom Automation Division, HP
C-GIIV Dragonfly, 1979 RX7 13B, 1985 Colt
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin)
Subject: Re: Popular Mechanics Article
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:35:06 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.174105.4218@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>, crawford@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (James E Crawford) writes:

|> A few months ago, there was an article on homebuilt aircraft in Popular
|> Mechanics. Among the aircraft profiled was a very futuristic-looking model
|> with a rear mounted engine and front canards. I have since lost my copy of
|> the issue in which this appeared, and I was hoping that someone out there in
|> net-land could tell me the model name that I am describing. It carried two
|> passengers and cargo.

I believe that was the Berkut.  It is an improved derivative of the Long-EZ
with a larger, more comfortable fuselage.  They had a cover article about
it in Plane&Pilot a few months ago.  A very sharp looking plane with quite
impressive performance (once you're off the ground...).  A far as I know,
the builder's prototype is the only one flying.  Handling qualities are
said to be very close to its Long-EZ parentage.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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   ========================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello)
Subject: Re: Subaru Power??
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 23:54:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.233105.12907@leland.Stanford.EDU> eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.095615.25245@actrix.gen.nz> Bruce.Hoult@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.014336.14004@leland.Stanford.EDU> 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 would only matter if the proportion of O2 to N2 (well, to the
>>total composition, really) varied with altitude.
>>
>>Does it?
>>
>>I wouldn't have thought so, since O2 and N2 are such similar molecules
>>with only a 14% difference in molecular weight and therefore a 7% difference
>>in molecular velocities.
>>-- 
>
>I know of at least one auto manufacturer who thought it was significant.
>They put a small altimeter on a MAF equipt FI engine to compensate for
>oxygen depletion in high altitude driving.
>

Might also add: Modern cars are on the ragged edge of lean destruction
(for emissions regs), aircraft are not. 

Also, the aircraft should have some kinda mixture trim. 


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt,eunet.aviation
From: wd@cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Diestelkamp)
Subject: Could it be a Questair Venture ?
Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 09:44:50 GMT


Hi all,

yesterday I saw a funny thing flying overhead, about 10 miles
from Berlin. It was a somewhat egg-shaped, red little aircraft,
resembling the shape of the Venture that I saw in a magazine
once, passing by pretty fast.
Does anyone have any info as to whether there are any of these a/c
flying in Germany, and if so, where they are based ?
-- 
Wolfgang Diestelkamp
wd@cs.tu-berlin.de
wolfgang@first.gmd.de

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: rosso@roscoe.csd.sgi.com (Ross Oliver)
Subject: Re: Advantages to radial engines?
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:41:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.163528.11550@unislc.uucp>, dlm@unislc.uucp (Dennis McCurdy) writes:
|> As I remember it (this is really going back) cooling is better on a radial
|> engine and you get a power burst every 40 degrees of prop travel. On opposed
|> engines you get a power burst every 60 degrees. One of the disadvantages
|> of radials is they use copius quantities of oil and are rather expensive to
|> overhaul. I'm sure there are others.


Is high oil consumption an artifact of a radial configuration, or caused by
the fact that the design and materials are 50+ years old?  Would it be possible
to build a modern radial engine that did not have high oil consumption?

Just curious,
Ross Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Cthulu for President.  Why choose a lesser evil?

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: dworden@cwis.unomaha.edu (David Paul Worden)
Subject: kits
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:12:39 GMT

I would like any and all information regarding the purchase, plans, and 
construction of aircraft kits, especially rotorcraft.  Also if anyone knows
any of the FAA regs. regarding these kits, please send that as well.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David P. Worden                                        dworden@cwis.unomaha.edu

ALWAYS A MAN AHEAD OF HIS TIME.  At his Highland Park, Michigan auto plant, 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: freytag@seas.gwu.edu (Richard Freytag)
Subject: ground-effect aircraft
Followup-To: freytag@seas.gwu.edu
Summary: Looking for Avia. Engr. in Ground-Effect Aircraft
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 21:07:17 GMT

I have been looking for expertise in the area of Ground-Effect aircraft
(aircraft that are not designed to fly out of ground effect).  Is there
anyone on the net that either has experience/knowledge of this nature or
can point me to a person(s) that do?  

One craft of this type is called a Flarecraft sold out of Westport, CT.  
The Russians built a couple to serve as assault ships to carry troops to
a shore landing called the "Caspian Sea Monster." 

Please email me with your comments.

Thanks
Richard Freytag
From: prang@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: kits
Summary: A shameless plug...
Date: 3 Oct 92 01:51:27 GMT
Organization: Boeing Defense and Space Group, Seattle WA

In article <1992Oct1.201039.18401@news.arc.nasa.gov>, doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay) writes:
>>>I would like any and all information regarding the purchase, plans, and 
>>>construction of aircraft kits, especially rotorcraft.  Also if anyone knows
>>>any of the FAA regs. regarding these kits, please send that as well.
>> 
>> Ditto!  (That means "me too").
> 
> For such a broad and general overview you should prob join the EAA and/or
> buy one of the books for sale on the subject (some written by a frequent
> poster ... if he would care to identify himself and shamelessly plug his
> book, so be it)    :^)

A straight line if I ever heard one.  Now, where is that book-plug file
of mine... ah, here we go:

Might I suggest my book, _Kitplane Construction_?  It's designed as an
entry-level guide into kit aircraft, including details on the types of
construction and basic techniques, engines, workshops, and workmanship
basics.  It's published by the TAB division of McGraw Hill, and is 400
pages long with 240 pictures and illustrations.

Some B. Daltons carry it on the shelves, but any bookstore would be able to
order it for you.  Here's the details:

Title:      _Kitplane Construction_
Author:      Wanttaja, Ron
Publisher:   McGraw Hill (TAB division)
ISBN:        ISBN 0-8306-3565-3
Price:       $19.95 (softcover) $29.95 (hardback)

This should be enough info for any bookstore.  It's also available direct
from TAB, but they tack on a $3 shipping fee:

TAB number:  1-800-822-8158
TAB catalog #: 3565

One good mail-order source is the Aero Book Club in Lynwood Washington.
Call Red at (206) 368-0198, or write to P.O. Box 146, Lynnwood WA 98036.

Another good book is _Choosing Your Homebuilt_, by Ken Armstrong.  While
his and my books have about a 25% overlap, I emphasize coonstruction and he
covers the flight characteristics of a number of homebuilt designs.  If
your worries are about the building process, get my book.  If you want
excellent summaries of handling and performance by a professional test
pilot, get Ken's.  Oh, heck, get both. :-)

_Choosing Your Homebuilt_ is available from Butterfield Press, 990 Winery
Canyon Road, Templeton, CA 93465, 1-800-648-6601.  Or call up Red at the
Aero Book Club... he carries it, too.  $19.95.


                                          Ron Wanttaja
					  prang@ssc-bee
					  ...rutgers!uw-beaver!ssc-bee!prang
                                          prang@ssc-bee.boeing.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: enns@waterloo.hp.com (Roger Enns)
Subject: Re: Osprey GP-4
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 11:48:12 GMT
Organization: HP Panacom Div Waterloo ON Canada
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

This Osprey GP-4 you refer to, was it previously known as the
Pierria (sp?) GP-4?  I have an article from an old Sport Av. that
describes the new design (at that time, ~10 years ago?) in
detail.  If this is indeed the same aircraft, I can get you
copies of the article.  E-mail me if interested.
--
Roger Enns (enns@waterloo.hp.com) Panacom Automation Division, HP
C-GIIV Dragonfly, 1979 RX7 13B, 1985 Colt
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: magnus@athena.mit.edu (Daniel R Risacher)
Subject: VW engines
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:17:03 GMT

Can someone give me a rundown on the characteristics and suitabilty
for flight of VW engines, such as from a bug?

Thanks.

--
                                    Until Elsewhen,
                                    D. R. Risacher

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: dreeves@ese.ogi.edu (Doug Reeves)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Where is Joe Merchant?
Keywords: Jimmy Buffett, seaplanes
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:14:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: ogicse.43279
Distribution: na
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute - Department of Env. Science and Eng.

In article <1992Sep28.072822.1@ducvax.auburn.edu> dmcleod@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
>I went to see Jimmy Buffett the other night in Atlanta where he was
>promoting his new book _Where_is_Joe_Merchant?_  The book is chock
>full of seaplane flying and pirate adventures and is quite good.
>However, net.trivia experts should find it interesting that there
>are plans to make the book into a movie and Buffett is going to do
>all his own flying.  Some guys get all the luck; a bestselling book
>and free flight time!

Well, about 6 weeks ago, Senior Buffett flew into Portland in a
most unusual way:  He landed a flying boat on the Wilamette River
in the middle of downtown.  Quite a feat, since the bridges there
are spaced about every half mile or so.  Didn't get to see him
do it, and wasn't sure that he was PIC.  Looked like fun
on the news clip though ... :-)

>- David McLeod
>- dmcleod@ducvax.auburn.edu

D. Reeves

--
|B. Douglas Reeves  Dept. Environmental Sci.& Eng.   Oregon Graduate Institute|
|N6XHW on 146.900 in PDX                   dreeves@ese.ogi.edu everywhere else|
|  "... life itself represents a nonequilibrium condition." - James F. Pankow |
From: Brian.Horn@west.sun.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Logging PIC (in types)
Date: 28 Sep 1992 17:46:35 GMT
Organization: SunSoft, Los Angeles, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo
Keywords: PIC, logging, types

In article <1992Sep28.172113.11039@pony.Ingres.COM> kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki) writes:
>Just to complicate things.  I believe you cannot LOG PIC if the aircraft
>requires a type-rating and you do not hold a type rating for that
>aircraft even though you hold category and class ratings.  Does this
>apply to anyone on the net?

Should I consider that a challenge? :-)
From: leed@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Lee Devlin)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 21:40:15 GMT
Subject: Re: Close Encounter - Balloon/Airplane
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Avondale, PA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In rec.aviation, kbrussel@apgea.army.mil (Kyle B. Russell <kbrussel>) writes:

>I have been showing the messages on this thread to our club manager who
>does not have net access.  He has asked me to post the following.  He is a
>commerecial balloon pilot and instructor.  He is an FAA Safety Counsoler
>and the local FSDO consultant of Balloon operations.

>He feels that with the information available, ie. no distance off the end
>of the runway, length of the runway, subjective distance estimates, etc.,
>it is difficult to determine a black and white case for any position.
>That said, while the actions of the fixed wing were not necessarly
>prudent, they do not appear to be overly dangerous.  What he was most
>disturbed about tho was the presence of the balloon in an airport trafic
>pattern without communicating on the CATF.  The simple use of a handheld
>to announce/communicate with the other traffic could have easilly
>established a mutually agreeable course of action between the craft
>involved and prevented the concern over the unknown actions of the
>airplane taking off.  

Great!  Finally,...  an authority on the subject gives us the best
solution to the problem.  If the balloon were able to communicate, it
would have added a bit of levity to what everyone seems to think was a
life-threatening situation.  I can hear it now:  "Balloon 'XXX lumbering
on short, slow, final for taxiway Charlie.  Bonanza, I'll be out of your
way in about five minutes."

A handheld would be a good insurance policy and could be used to
communicate with planes in the vicinity via unicom or the air-to-air
frequency.  That way, when we have to fly near them (~500 ft) we can let
them know that we see them and aren't trying to hit them.

I don't think the ~$400 cost of a handheld would cause your average
balloonist to bat an eyelash since they're all rich like Malcolm Forbes
anyway :-) :-).

"What we have here is a failure to communicate."
                  --    Jack Nicholson in "Five Easy Pieces" (****)

Lee Devlin             |    HP Avondale Division  | phone: (215) 268-5697 
Piper Colt N4986Z      |    Rt 41 & Starr Road    | email:
Spirit of rec.aviation |    Avondale, PA 19311    | devlin@hpavla.avo.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation