HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: Electric oil heater question
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 21 Nov 92 02:42:48 GMT

In article <48500004@hpgrla.gr.hp.com> leed@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Lee Devlin) writes:
>One of my friends recently found a heater at a tractor supply store that
>is very similar to the EZ-heat types available from Wag-Aero and A/C
>Spruce.
>
>If it is illegal, then it would seem that the approach timers we velcro
>to our yokes would also be illegal.  So would visors stuck to the
>windows or anything we stick to the plane without an appropriate FAA
>paper trail.
>
>Would it require a form 337 to make it legal?  Or is it completely
>illegal without some sort of FAA blessing? 
>

One of the basic guidelines for filling out a 337 (Major alteration
or Repair) is if the device is "permanently" attached to the aircraft.
For velcro stopwatches, visors, or furry stuffed animals suction cupped
to the windows, the answer is no.

I also do not know how this heater your friend found attaches to the
engine.  Velcro? :-)

Another FAA phrase for the 377 is "an alteration if done improperly,
can substantially affect the flight characteristics of the aircraft"
(paraphrased).  In this case, the answer seem no.

If the heater is removed before flight, then I would categorically
state that a 337 is not needed.  Otherwise, this is one of those
gray areas that you will find a different answer at each FSDO you
talk to.

I wish there was a better answer.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: rogersmf@eplrx7.es.duPont.com (Mark Rogers)
Subject: Aircraft Financing
Organization: Cimtek America
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:32:40 GMT

The subject pretty much says it all.  How do people finance their own
aircraft?  I know about groups of people sharing the cost (heck, I'm a
club member myself), but what kinds of terms do lending institutions have
for aircraft loans?  Is it like car loans (1-5 years at a higher rate) or
are there longer-term loans?


-- 

Mark Rogers, PP-G (rogersmf@eplrx7.es.dupont.com)

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter)
Subject: Re: Cherokee 140 vs. C-172
Organization: Bull HN Informations Systems Inc.
Date: 23 Nov 92 22:20:10 GMT

ulick@bernini.helios.nd.edu (Ulick Stafford) writes:

>In article <greg.722547685@saltydog> greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis) writes:

>>7.  The 172 looks better.  :-)

>It does not.  As my first instructor said when I decided to switch from a 
>152 to a 140, 'did you ever see a high wing fighter?'

Well, we can start with the F-15, and work backwards from there. :-)
-- 
Roger Ritter N1FZZ (R.Ritter@ma30.bull.com) PP-ASEL, AGI
1946 Luscombe 8A N71983 "Rocky"
Sheep do not so much fly as plummet!        NH CAP: Profile 49

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: acampane@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Angelo Campanella)
Subject: Re: Log Book Observations
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 21:56:20 GMT


My 1979 Mooney 201 has alittle in common..

Alternator is still ORIGINAL (2,000 TT)

On third Vacuum pump.

Fist one failed after long time (~1500 hrs)

Second (so-called 'long-life') lasted only a few hundred hours or less.
I trace its failure to a shutdown backfire wihich reverse rotated prop
a turn or two.

Third one is 'conventional' and holding strong.

QUAINT electrical occurrence:   Startup one day occurred normally for few 
seconds, then electrical instruments went bonkers.  Shut down.  No current then
for restart.  Traced it to open in master solenoid wire somewhere between panel
switch and solenoid (near battery, rear).  Jumpered said wire for temporary 
use.  At annual, found the connector terminal (for the + hot wire) was 
completely electrolytically corroded away.  Connector located under upholstery 
by pilot.  Labor-intensive to repair..
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: ulick@bernini.helios.nd.edu (Ulick Stafford)
Subject: Re: Cherokee 140 vs. C-172
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:41:11 GMT

In article <greg.722547685@saltydog> greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis) writes:
>2.  The 172 is a faster plane than a 140, if only marginally.

In my expeience it isn't.  I think it's marginally slower, but it probably
depends on the individual model you fly.  The 140 I rent has a cruise prop, so
has lousy shortfield climb performance, but better cruising.

>3.  The 172 is substantially stronger, from a structural point of view,
>    than a 140.

It doesn't seem to be, but then I haven't seen crash tests.  However its
slower stall speed may make its crashes easier.

>4.  The 172 has better visibility than a 140.

Not of the runway and of airspace of things you are likely to collide with in
the patterm.  Much more important IMHO than seeing things down or 
behind.

>5.  The 172 is a much better short/unimproved field airplane than a 140.

No question, but not an issue  where I fly.

>7.  The 172 looks better.  :-)

It does not.  As my first instructor said when I decided to switch from a 
152 to a 140, 'did you ever see a high wing fighter?'

>
>greg, a totally unbiased 172 owner

Yeah.  Aditional info in favor of Piper.  More stable - passengers much
prefer the ride.  My girlfriend hates it when I rent the 172 instead of 
the 140.  Secondly, I pay $36 wet hobbs for the 140 and $45 for the 172.
I'd prefer to rent a Sundowner when I need a bigger plane, but it's
never available on the notice I like to give.  Sorry for making a renters
post, but I suggest that any potential owner rent planes while deciding
which to buy.

Planes flown a '73 140 150hp, compared with '78 172 with 160 hp.  The 
Sundowner is 180 hp and $50, I think.  


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 
+ 'There was a  master come unto the earth, + Ulick Stafford, PP-ASEL       +
+    born in the holy land of Indiana,      + Dept of Chemical Engineering, +
+ in the mystical hills east of Fort Wayne'.+ Notre Dame, IN 46556          +
+      B'fhearr liom bheith ag eitilt.      +    ulick@bach.helios.nd.edu   +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com (patterson,george r)
Subject: Re: Log Book Observations
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 18:21:16 GMT

In article <134110001@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com> bcarroll@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Bryan Carroll) writes:
>Alternator History:
>	Life Time		Life (in Tach Hrs)
>	10 yrs!			1007 hrs.
>	11 months     		175 hrs.
>	13 months		238 hrs.
>	21 months		482 hrs.
>	16 months		~500 hrs.
>
>We probably just got lucky(?) with the first alternator lasting 
>10 years and over 1000 hours, but then again, perhaps someone
>replaced it without logging it.  Anyone have comparible numbers
>they care to share???  

The alternators (or generators) used in automobiles will burn out
fairly rapidly if the unit which regulates the voltage is improperly
set. I'd bet that's what you're seeing here. The regulator should be
adjusted or replaced when the alternator is replaced. Misadjustment
of the regulator also shortens battery life. How's that doing for you?

>Vacuum History:
>	10 years		918 hrs.
>	5 years			~1600
>
>It seems we were also lucky with the second (and maybe the first
>also) vacuum pump.  

One of the most frequent causes of vacuum pump failure is breakage
due to the engine "kicking back". Since backfires and such happen more
frequently as an engine ages, you can expect more frequent pump
failures. I just had to replace mine because she backfired during
engine shutdown.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | The reason that cliches become cliches is that
George Patterson -  | they are the hammers and screwdrivers in the
N60288              | toolbox of communication.
                    |                        Terry Pratchett
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: Re: Cherokee 140 vs. C-172
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 19:24:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.155711.16741@nuchat.sccsi.com> conover@nuchat.sccsi.com (Mark Allen Conover) writes:
>>
>>If I am willing to settle for a three-person aircraft, why not purchase
>>a less expensive PA28-140?  The Cherokee-140's listed in TAP are roughly 
>>$7,000-$10,000 less than the 172's.

Parts availability should enter into the equation, especially if you are
going to get one that has entered the "nickle-and-dime-you-to-death"
phase of spamcan life (somewhere around 15-20 years for most models).
Piper parts production is, uh, not guaranteed, and the total number of
140's in the field is substantially less than the 37,000 172's that
were built.  Though parts for either can be scrounged from salvage
yards, at least Cessna is still keeping inventories of part$ and provides
Red Label AOG service for them which can get just about any factory-new
part to you within 24 hours.  (It sure is nice to be able to send a fax
to the local Cessna dealer, and see that brown UPS truck drive up next
morning.  Expensive, but nice when your bird is broke and grounded).

Dan Masys
masys@nlm.nih.gov

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com (patterson,george r)
Subject: Re: 80 Octane engines on 100LL
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 23:40:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.204104.28989@unislc.uucp> mgc@unislc.uucp (Marc Christensen) writes:

>If your engine use 80 octane you can probably find get an STC.
>auto fuel STC's are cheap and Auto fuel can be half the cost of 100ll. 

The EAA has STCs for many aircraft and charges $1 per horsepower rating.
The STC for a 150, for example, costs $100.

You will find that many FBOs in the Southeast sell mogas; I haven't seen
it up here. To me, it's not worth the hassel of trucking in cans of gas.

Also, if you are considering this route, check the engine logs carefully.
My engine had 100 octane valves installed at the last annual, and two
mechanics have told me that I can't run 80 octane with those valves. Many
other people have told me that this is nonsense, but no A&P has. Since
I prefer not to pay the penalties of seeing who's right, I keep burning
the blue stuff.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | The gum-chewing girl and the cud-chewing cow
                    | are very alike, and yet different somehow
George Patterson -  | And after much study I think I know now.
                    | It's the clear, thoughtful look
                    |                        on the face of the cow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: bboswell@dante.NMSU.Edu (BOSWELL)
Subject:  Early C172 w/Continental O300 for sale...
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:14:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.215533.21104@nmsu.edu> bboswell@dante.NMSU.Edu (BOSWELL)  
writes:(That's me!)
> Hello!  I am on the board of directors of a flying club in Las Cruces, NM.   
We  
> seem to have a minor problem at the moment and I was wondering if anyone's  
> heard the likes of this one.
> 
> It seems our 1960 172A with the 6-cylinder Continental O300 has a compression  
               ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
Almost forgot!  The aircraft is for sale if you want to buy it before we fix  
it(possibly after...).  The price is reasonable, but I'd have to discuss a sale  
with my fellow board members first...(Listed in Trade-A-Plane a few months back  
for $19k, will be lower than that, price negotiable)
Features:
-VFR only (but no suction pump to go out-Bernoulli Effect suction system)
-Terra Nav Com (not sure of model #, but modern DIGITAL nav com!!!)
-Annualed in 9-92	
-Paint,Interior about 8(on a scale 1-10)
-SHARP white paint scheme W/Red/blue stripe
-Dark Red, mostly knit-cloth interior
-Auto Gas STC (Makes it that much less expensive to operate!)

If interested, contact me:
bboswell@nmsu.edu
From: adf@crosfield.co.uk (alex france)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
Subject: Looking for a new transponder
Summary: Fed up with going around D space!
Keywords: transponder txpdr
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:03:18 GMT
Organization: Crosfield Electronics, Hemel Hempstead, United Kingdom.


This is probably an FAQ, but I'm interested in other peoples
experience of different transponder models. Our 1973 vintage txpdr
just bit the dust (not sure of the model, has a Narco sticker on it,
but the manufacturer would appear to be 'Flightline' or something like
that).

Anyway we are looking for a second hand transponder (hopefully
discarded by someone who just had to have a complete avionics update
every year or so) and wondered what the net.wisdom was on the various
Narco, King, etc. models that we are likely to see for sale.

Also, are all the txpdr antenna the same are are we likely to need a
new one to go with the new txpdr?

Alex.

# Alex France, Crosfield Electronics, | Phone: +44 442 230000 xt.3541 #
# Hemel Hempstead, HP2 7RH, England.  | Email: adf@crosfield.co.uk    #
# AA5A, G-BEZI - more of a 'buzzin' than a 'hummin' Grumman.          #
From: leed@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Lee Devlin)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:57:00 GMT
Subject: Electric oil heater question
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Wilmington, DE
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning

One of my friends recently found a heater at a tractor supply store that
is very similar to the EZ-heat types available from Wag-Aero and A/C
Spruce.  The main difference is that it's only 125 watts (as opposed to
300 watts) and it has no thermostat.  He is currently using it on his
Lancair and a few of my other friends are using them on their homebuilts
(and a few store bought models as well :-).  Its cost is only $27 (as
opposed to ~$150 for the EZ heater) and it produces an oil temperature
rise of about 35-50 degrees if left on overnight (or indefinitely, for
that matter).

What is the opinion of fellow rec.aviators about installing this device
on a certified plane?  It has no PMA or TSO, and is not FAA approved
etc.  

It's a rather thin silicone rubber/foil pad that is stuck on the bottom
of the oil pan with adhesive.  It uses 115V AC so it's not a part of the
airplane's electrical system.  It is never used in flight.  It requires
no mounting holes to be drilled.  Its effect on weight and balance
calculations is negligible.

If it is illegal, then it would seem that the approach timers we velcro
to our yokes would also be illegal.  So would visors stuck to the
windows or anything we stick to the plane without an appropriate FAA
paper trail.

Would it require a form 337 to make it legal?  Or is it completely
illegal without some sort of FAA blessing? 

Thanks,

 Lee Devlin             | HP Little Falls Site  | phone: (302) 633-8697 
 Piper Colt N4986Z      | 2850 Centerville Rd.  | email:
"Spirit of rec.aviation"| Wilmington, DE 19808  | devlin@lf.hp.com
From: bcarroll@hpcupt1.cup.hp.com (Bryan Carroll)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 22:05:13 GMT
Subject: Log Book Observations
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning

Thought I'd share some data I have been collecting from my Airframe
and Engine Log Books.

We recently had both a Vacuum Pump failure followed (a month or so
later) by an alternator failure.  This prompted my searching the logs
to see what had been done with these systems over the years.  The
aircraft in question is a 1977 Mooney 201 with lots of goodies that
put lots of load on the electrical system (our stormscope controls 
and a few other goodies are mounted UNDER the panel on the co-pilots
side due to lack of panel space).

Alternator History:

Date			Tach
	Life Time		Life (in Tach Hrs)
--------------------------------------------------
1/77			0
	10 yrs!			1007 hrs.
9/87			1007
	11 months     		175 hrs.
8/88			1182 
	13 months		238 hrs.
10/89			1420
	21 months		482 hrs.
7/91			1902
	16 months		~500 hrs.
11/92			2400(?)

We probably just got lucky(?) with the first alternator lasting 
10 years and over 1000 hours, but then again, perhaps someone
replaced it without logging it.  Anyone have comparible numbers
they care to share???  

Vacuum History:

Date			Tach
	Life Time		Life (in Tach Hours)
----------------------------------------------------
1/77			0
	10 years		918 hrs.
7/87			918
	5 years			~1600
9/92			~2400

It seems we were also lucky with the second (and maybe the first
also) vacuum pump.  

I was a little surprized at the numbers.  I was expecting the 
alternator to last a little longer and would not have been surprized
if the vacuum pump did not last as long as it did.                   

Comments anyone???

Thought some of you might be interested...
Bryan
N201PC
From: collet@ensta.ensta.fr (Pierre Collet)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
Subject: Seen a Jetstream around ?
Date: 16 Nov 1992 11:48:03 +0100
Organization: ENSTA, Paris, France
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: ensta.ensta.fr

Hi everybody,

A very good friend of mine who has no access to the net is looking forward
to buy one of the first types of Jetstream 200 (HP137) with French Astazou
engines. 

He showed me the plane and it looks gorgeous. The Astazou engines completely
change the looks of it, as they're not as bulky as the now standard GARETT ones.

Anybody has seen one of these birds around ?  He thinks there are some
rusting away on airports on this planet, but the problem is to find them. 

So please, if you see a Jetstream around, (even grounded, or maybe only a
Jetstream cell), could you drop me a line ?

Thanks a lot

Pete

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis)
Subject: Re: Cherokee 140 vs. C-172
Organization: Data Parallel Systems, Inc
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:41:25 GMT

In <1992Nov23.155711.16741@nuchat.sccsi.com> conover@nuchat.sccsi.com (Mark Allen Conover) writes:

>If I am willing to settle for a three-person aircraft, why not purchase
>a less expensive PA28-140?  The Cherokee-140's listed in TAP are roughly 
>$7,000-$10,000 less than the 172's.  From what I have read, the PA28-140 has
>the capability (like the 172) of carrying four adult humans (but not with full
>fuel, again like the 172).

1.  The 172 is a bigger plane than a 140, even if both are really just
    3+ person airplanes.
2.  The 172 is a faster plane than a 140, if only marginally.
3.  The 172 is substantially stronger, from a structural point of view,
    than a 140.
4.  The 172 has better visibility than a 140.
5.  The 172 is a much better short/unimproved field airplane than a 140.
6.  You can still get parts from Cessna.  The parts situation with Piper is
    much less secure.
7.  The 172 looks better.  :-)

greg, a totally unbiased 172 owner
--
Gregory Reed Travis				D  P  S  I
Data Parallel Systems Incorporated   greg@dpsi.com (For MX mailers only!)
Bloomington, IN			     greg@indiana.edu (For the others)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Subject: Re: Archer vs. Arrow Costs?
Keywords: archer arrow
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:13:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.132506.1176@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>
glennw@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (glenn.r.wesley) asks about costs of a Piper
Archer vs a Piper Arrow in a club situation.

The Arrow will, naturally, be somewhat more expensive per hour, but if
your utilization is high enough, it may actually be equal to or less
expensive than the Archer in cost per mile.

Insurance in a club situation may be rather disheartening.  Contact _your_
insurance agent for a quote.  You may find a difference of 2 to 1 in favor
of the Archer.  (i.e., $4K for the Arrow, $2K for the Archer per year.)

Maintenance costs on an Arrow are somewhat higher than for an Archer, but
not dramatically so.  The base Annual/100 hour inspection is a few hundred
dollars more, since the gear needs to be swung.  The engine overhaul is
slightly more expensive, since it's a 200HP fuel-injected IO-360 rather
than a 180HP carbureted O-360.  Figure about $2000 more per 2000 hours.
The 200HP engine is less likely to go well beyond TBO, although with
reasonable care both versions will make the 2000 hour TBO.  The
constant-speed prop will add to your costs in the Arrow -- the overhaul is
several thousand dollars rather than several hundred dollars; this
typically occurs at engine overhaul time.

My memory says that for the way _I_ fly these two, fuel burn in the Arrow
is typically _less_ than in the Archer -- the Arrow burns 10gph and the
Archer about 11-12gph.  And the Arrow is somewhat faster.

Looking at a recent rate sheet of a local FBO, they have Archer II's at
$59/hour dry tach ($46/hour for an older one), and Arrow IV's at $65/hour
dry tach.  (For comparison, I figure my costs for my own Arrow III at
$65/hour _wet_ tach, not including any allowance for cost of capital.)

The quoted speeds on the FBO's rate sheet are 117 knots for the Archer and
131 knots for the Arrow, both in 65% cruise at 8,000', and the useful
payload with ~50 gallons of fuel are in the 600-650 pound range for both
aircraft.  Note that the Arrow has 72 gallon tanks, with 50 gallons to the
tabs, and the Archer has 48 gallon tanks, with 34 gallons to the tabs.
Many people think that Archers can carry a larger payload, but that's
because they're comparing the payload with 34 gallons of fuel in the
Archer to 50 gallons of fuel in the Arrow.

> Our ultimate decision will be based on the difference in hourly
> cost vs. additional benefits of having the extra features of the
> Arrow.

This is the kicker.  If you want a retract, the Archer simply won't do.
But you _will_ pay something extra for that little doughnut-shaped knob...

					Geoff, happy owner of
					       1978 Arrow III N6506C
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com (patterson,george r)
Subject: Re: Aircraft Financing
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 18:27:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.173240.16017@eplrx7.es.duPont.com> rogersmf@eplrx7.es.duPont.com (Mark Rogers) writes:
>The subject pretty much says it all.  How do people finance their own
>aircraft?  I know about groups of people sharing the cost (heck, I'm a
>club member myself), but what kinds of terms do lending institutions have
>for aircraft loans?  Is it like car loans (1-5 years at a higher rate) or
>are there longer-term loans?

My credit union will finance aircraft for periods up to 15 years at very
good rates. The AOPA (why aren't you a member?) has arrangements with the
Maryland Bank of North America to finance aircraft. These are also long
term loans at reasonable rates. Many other institutions will finance them
as "recreational vehicles". Interest rates *were* about 12% a couple of
years ago; they're lower now.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | The reason that cliches become cliches is that
George Patterson -  | they are the hammers and screwdrivers in the
                    | toolbox of communication.
                    |                        Terry Pratchett
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning