HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cab@col.hp.com (Chris Best)
Subject: Re: public perception of
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:55:30 GMT
Organization: your service

cab@col.hp.com (Chris Best) writes:
> >    I've watched that show for a year now and I've only seen her 
> > plane in the background once. Perhaps we should start a letter 
> > writing campaign to get the writers to let her fly more often?
> 
> ----------
> 
> The only time I'VE seen her plane, she and Joel were in it, and
> the engine failed!  Great PR!


Okay, I better follow up my own post with:
   but she handled it well - better than the general public
   would think.


And - good point about Maurice!  A perfect situation for
another pilot.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: "steve hartwell" <steve.hartwell@canrem.com>
Subject: what is allowed here?
Reply-To: "steve hartwell" <steve.hartwell@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: rec
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:22:48 EST







 Hello All - and powers that govern:

 I would like to learn what is allowed here in the way of advertising
 anything for sale or trade.

 - Does it have to be one's own possession, or can it be commercial ?

 - Can there be UUENCODED GIF's sent by Email thru here ?

 - If so, would/should there be a size limit on # of messages per GIF?

 - Would there be sufficient interest for Email GIF's ?

 - Or is there sufficient interest in access to downloading GIF's ?

 Many thanks for your responses of enlightenment.

 Please reply, including where you saw this message,

 steve.hartwell@canrem.com  <in Toronto, Ontario, Canada>



---
  ACCESS/MAIL 1.00 #0274  Tagline frequencies are Open....
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: Larry.Mc.Donald@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: public perception of
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov  5 1992
Date: 09 Nov 92  11:09:04

 rogersmf@eplrx7.es.duPont.com 
   (Mark Rogers) sez:

 >> I think that the most effective way to popularize GA would be to have
 >>characters in a popular television show make use of GA. (i.e. Bring back 

 > Well, we do have Maggie O'Connell (Northern Exposure).  Overall I'd
 > say she puts GA in a positive light.

   I've watched that show for a year now and I've only seen her 
plane in the background once. Perhaps we should start a letter 
writing campaign to get the writers to let her fly more often?



... Larry.Mc.Donald, N6ZMB, Fullerton, California!  <cough, cough>
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.10

--- Maximus 2.00
From: marks@imagen.com (Mark Salter)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Helicopter icing and IFR
Keywords: helicopter,ifr,icing
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:16:29 GMT
Organization: QMS Inc., Imagen Division

In article <1992Nov11.210102.1869@oakhill.sps.mot.com> mpaton@tempest.UUCP (Michael J Paton) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.025904.8159@cirrus.com> gopal@cirrus.com (Gopal Ramachandran) writes:
>>In article <pdb1.721416200@Isis.MsState.Edu> pdb1@ra.msstate.edu (Philip D Bridges) writes:
>>>
>>.....
>>>3. IFR helicopters are generally flown by professional pilots and   
>>>   usually have 2 pilots in the cockpit....
>>....
>>
>>A very informative response by Philip. I've had only a few lessons in
>>helicopters, though I have a fair amount of fixed-wing time. I noticed
>>that in the simple, training helicopters I was flying, it was not
>>possible for me to free up my hands (or feet) for any length of time.
>>My instructor told me this was why helos needed two pilots in IFR
>>operations. One pilot was on the controls full time, and the other
>>copied clearances, tuned radios, etc
>>	However, I believe that turbine helos have stability
>>augmentation to some degree. Presumably, one could let go of the
>>cyclic without the helo getting away from you while you were retuning
>>a radio. I wonder if they can let go of the collective/throttle
>>twist-grip as well due to a friction device as well, in order to free
>>up the other hand as well? Or are there other good reasons
>>(certification?) to not allow single-pilot IFR in such machines?
>>
>The odds are that Gopal flew a Robinson R22, as there are more of them used in 
>training than anything else. I certainly haven't found it possible to let go
>of the cyclic in the R22, but it's certainly possible to let go of the
>collective for brief periods of time. Of course you still have to watch RPM,
>and you still have to be able to dump the collective to the floor in the
>event of an engine failure.
>
>A friend is training in a Hughes 300C and he tells me that as it has 2-axis
>cyclic trim, it's possible to fly it hands off entirely for brief periods.
>
>It is normally a requirement for IFR certified helicopters to have some
>form of SAS or Stability Augmentation System. This does not need to be an
>autopilot, merely a device to allow hands off flight. Frequently the
>requirement is met by an autopilot. I would guess that more than half the
>helicopters flying are not certified for IFR flight. 
>
>Quite a number of R22s are IFR equipped but not certified, so that they may
>be used as IFR trainers. I did my helicopter instrument additional in one
>of these, and I am happy to tell you that I found the instrument checkride
>MUCH more relaxing than the private the previous day. 
>
>
>Michael Paton
>mpaton@tempest.sps.mot.com
>

There was an article in the October 1992 issue of Flying about
the Bell 230 (a refined 222). The article stated that the 222
was the *only* helicopter certified for single-pilot IFR
without an autopilot or SAS.

----
Mark Salter
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: goose@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Pilot)
Subject: Re: Logging flight time:  dual and/or pic
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:55:07 GMT

In article <BxGxJ1.DFH@spdg.com> jallred@spdg.com (John Allred) writes:
>
>For example, I'm currently working on my instrument rating.  Since I'm
>a private pilot (or better) and sole manipulator of the controls, I
>can log PIC.  Since I am under instruction (from a CFII), I can log
>dual.

  As a current commercial/instrument student myself, I set up my logbook
  so that I log Dual PIC time.. Most air carriers want to have actual PIC
  separated from Dual instructive PIC.. Assuming you are going to get a job
  with one.

>Since there are PIC time requirements for higher ratings and licenses,
>it would be to my advantage to log this instrument instruction time as
>PIC.  However, the Designated Examiner for my checkride might want to
>see dual time for instrument instruction.
>
      Dave

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "Aviation in itself is not inherently   |  David W. Gosnell          |
|   dangerous; but it is terribly         |  goose@sage.cc.purdue.edu  |
|  unforgiving of any carelessness,       |  Purdue University         |
From: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Public perception of general aviation
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:20:58 GMT
Reply-To: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.  Engineering

In article <74136@apple.apple.COM>, stadler@Apple.COM (Andy Stadler) writes:
> >The same was true out here in the Bay area after the World Series 
Earthquake.
> >Pilots ammassed a huge quantity of blankets, clothes, food, and other stuff
> >and flew it all over th Watsonville from Reid Hillview, an airport that the
> >county kept trying to close. A bit of it made the news and the papers, but 
it
> >was kind of in the corner in the back kind of coverage. The County Board of
> >Supervisors even gave a certificate of commendation to the airport and 
pilots
> >that did the airlift. A few of the Supervisors seem to have cut out some 
of 
> >the more extreme "close the airport" retoric.
> >
> >Doing good deeds helps our image, now we have to get them to look.
> 
> David, you've unlocked the key to the GA public perception problem.
> 
> More Earthquakes.

I had another pilot write me in Email a while ago, when I had suggested
that we "saved" the coast after the earthquake, and he informed me that
we had not helped at all.  According to this fellow the stuff that the
airlift sent down to Watsonville basically just sat at the airport and
was not distributed due to a lack of planning and means. Any comments?


Tom Pickett 
tpickett@auspex.com
SHO  GOZE
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: pdb1@ra.msstate.edu (Philip D Bridges)
Subject: Re: Helicopter icing
Keywords: helicopter,ifr,icing
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:25:15 GMT

gopal@cirrus.com (Gopal Ramachandran) writes:


>My instructor told me this was why helos needed two pilots in IFR
>operations. One pilot was on the controls full time, and the other
>copied clearances, tuned radios, etc
>	However, I believe that turbine helos have stability
>augmentation to some degree. Presumably, one could let go of the
>cyclic without the helo getting away from you while you were retuning
>a radio. I wonder if they can let go of the collective/throttle
>twist-grip as well due to a friction device as well, in order to free
>up the other hand as well? Or are there other good reasons
>(certification?) to not allow single-pilot IFR in such machines?

Yes, it is possible to let go of the collective and tune the radios
while flying a helicopter, and the collective will stay in place due
to friction. The throttle on a turbine helicopter stays in place, since
it is full on in normal flight. It is also possible to let go of
the cyclic for short periods of time on helicopters without stability
augmentation systems. For IFR certification, the helicopter must meet
the same stability and handling qualities criteria as fixed wing.
Unfortunately, helicopters are inherently unstable with angle of
attack changes and have virtually no dihedral stability. Thus 
helicopters certified for IFR today all have full-time stability
augmentation systems to give them good stability characteristics.
Interestingly enough, the first ifr certified helicopter was built
by Cessna back in the 1950s. I don't believe,though, that Cessna
marketed it. They decided to stick with airplanes. Most helicopter
ifr operations are still in military helicopters, and they are
exempt from having to meet FAA requirements for ifr certification.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|      Philip Bridges                 |  "Strive for design simplicity:  |
|      Dept. of Aerospace Eng.        |   you never have to fix anything |
|      Miss. State University         |   you leave out."                |
|      (601) 325-3623                 |                                  |
|      pdb1@ra.msstate.edu            |           Bill Lear (1903-1978)  |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mam@gvgspd.gvg.tek.com (Mark A. Matthews)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Batteries & Damage Done...
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:21:59 GMT
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gvgspd.gvg.tek.com

Now if it's an old battery, then probably no amount of charging is going
bring this battery back, regardless of it having had 24V applied across it's
terminals. Perhaps it's just time for replacement.

-Mark
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: "We're in the pipe, five by five"
Date: 4 Nov 92 17:53:43 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Oct31.200449.6130@gvl.unisys.com>, hopkins@gvlf9-o.gvl.unisys.com (Bill Hopkins) writes:
> In article <1992Oct29.012904.25619@telebit.com> brent@telebit.com (Brent Chapman) writes:
>>
>>"Five by five" is actually a radio term, I think.  In communications,
>>it generally means "loud and clear".  

> That's "five by nine."  Or was, anyway, when I committed radio amateurism.
> 
> A long time ago, in a galaxy not a million miles from here, there was
> a readability/strength/tone (RST) system to characterize radio reception.

Actually, before there was an RST system, there were two "Q" signals (used
in both Amatuer and commercial use) that were used to represent signal
strength and readability. 

I can't remember both of them, but one was definitely QSA. If you sent
QSA 5, it meant you were loud and clear. Sometimes this was shortened on
voice to "Q5 copy".

So, a 5 by 5 could have simply meant you were 5 and 9 in the days before
the RS(T) system.

Or, it could simply be something they made up for the movie....

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: verhulst@raven.aosg.gsf.dec.com ()
Subject: Re: Public perception of general aviation
Organization: AOSG
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:35:53 GMT

>> Anyone else remember this one?
>
>I remember Whirlybirds, Sky King and Steve Canyon...
>
>not to mention one about skydivers, I forget the name.

"ripcord" What else? :-)
From: brianh@smaug.West.Sun.COM (Brian Horn)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Public perception of general aviation
Date: 5 Nov 1992 12:22:09 -0800
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo

In article <15344@auspex-gw.auspex.com> tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett) writes:
>I don't know any rich pilots.

Of course not!  They may have been rich once, but aviation sucked off
all of their money! :-)
From: jph@pangea.Stanford.EDU (J. P. Harrison GP visitor)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Spinning Stoned
Date: 8 Nov 1992 04:50:19 GMT
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
NNTP-Posting-Host: pangea.stanford.edu

Newsgroups:rec.aviation
Subject:Flight Training References
Summary:Pilot training references for all ratings and aircraft 
Expires:31 Dec 93 
Sender:jph@pangea.stanford.edu 
Followup-To: 
Distribution:rec.aviation
Organization:Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Keywords: Flight training; pilot training; flight training references. 

Now available on request, the 1993 Pilot Training Publications Co. catalogue    
offers the most comprehensive selection of the world's best flight training     
references. Since aviation is governed by international standards and           
regulations, it is both possible and practical to use any high quality flight   
training references almost anywhere in the world.

Started in 1991 by a highly experienced and active CFI, Pilot Training          
Publications Co. offers over 250 flight training references from US, UK, Canada,
Australia and elsewhere pertaining to both general and highly specialized areas 
of flight training, including, Aerobatics; Agricultural Pilot; Air Traffic      
Control and Radio Communications; Aircraft Systems; Airline Transport Pilot;    
Aviation Law; Aviation Meteorology; Balloons; Certificated Flight Instructor;   
Commercial Pilot; Flight Training and Career Guides; Flight Theory; Formation   
Flying; General Flight Reference; Glider; Gyroplane; Helicopter; Human Factors  
in Aviation; Instrument Rating; Multi-Engine Airplane; Mountain Flying;         
Navigation and Flight Planning (Short and Long Distance); Practical Test        
Standards; Private Pilot; Radio Aids; Spin Training; Survival Training;         
Seaplane; Tailwheel; Written Test Guides.

For catalogue please send $2.00 for USA/Canada addresses or $4.00 for addresses 
elsewhere in the world. Pilot Training Publications Co., P.O. Box 394,         
Mountain View, CA 94042-0394; Voice/Fax: 415/962-1097 for special requests or   
information.   

Jean-Pierre Harrison
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Flight Training References
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: rec.aviation
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Keywords: 

Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.misc
From: crm25@bnr.ca (Fred Black)
Subject: Re: Public perception of general aviation
Reply-To: crm25@bnr.ca (Fred Black)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Ontario
Disclaimer: These words belong to me, not my company.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:06:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.005755.3533@cascade.Stanford.EDU> eap@everest.Stanford.EDU 
(Eric Perozziello) writes:  About a ballot held regarding the future uses of
Moffett.
>
>her objection lied in the idea of "general Aviation is NOT a legal term".
>
>For those unfamiliar, there was (evidently) a ballot question for
>residents around Moffett to turn it into a GA airport. She said she
>voted NO because the evil politicians could then move some "commercial"
>operation in there like FED EX, or something. She said there was no
>legal meaning behind General Aviation, and that's why she voted NO. 

Aren't operations like FED EX considered to be part of GA even if they do 
operate some large jets?

Although GA often refers to lightplane flying, I believe that technically it
includes most aviation other than the scheduled airlines and the military.

Disclaimer:  I live in Canada so the popular terminology may be slightly 
             different up here.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: gerryr@netcom.com (Gerry Reynolds)
Subject: Comdex trip
Summary: Plan no flying to Comdex from San Jose
Keywords: Comdex
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: ba
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 08:07:34 GMT

I'm planning on flying out to Comdex in Las Vegas on the 17th. I will
be leaving from San Jose. If anyone is interested in going let me know
either via E-mail or leave me a message at 408-866-6357.

Gerry
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: peted@microsoft.com (Peter Duniho)
Subject: Re: temp/dewpoint
Date: 05 Nov 92 21:06:45 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Distribution: rec

In article <1992Nov3.233503.21180@bradley.bradley.edu> maverick@buhub.bradley.edu (Darin Petersen) writes:
>We all know (or at least should) that the relative humidity is a function
>of temperature and dewpoint.  After looking at the current temp/dewpoint I
>don't understand how the humidity is derived.  

This is probably splitting hairs (actually, I'm certain it is :) )...
but _I_ would say that dewpoint is actually a function of current
temperature and relative humidity, in the physics sense.  That is,
it is the physical state "relative humidity" which determines
dewpoint.  Of course, relative humidity is usually found by
determining the dewpoint and figuring out from that the relative
humidity; I said I was splitting hairs, didn't I?  And, of course,
I suppose someone that wanted to split hairs even further would
say that the _real_ physical quantity is the absolute humidity,
which is constant, independent of temperature.

So, given all this, I don't know the actual formula, but it's
easy enough to see how it would work.  You determine the absolute
humidity by finding the dewpoint (I can't spell the name of what
they use, but it essentially uses evaporation of water in a piece
of fabric on a thermometer (*) to find the temperature at which the air
would be fully saturated); you know the amount of water that would
make the air saturated at the current temperature, and then you
just divide the former by the latter.  Kind of like:

                                F(dewpoint)
    Relative Humidity = ----------------------------
                           F(current temperature)

Where F() is the function that maps temperature to absolute
humidity.  I suppose finding this equation would involve looking
at the evaporation energy (how much energy does it take to
evaporate some specific amount of water), figure out how
much energy a given volume of air has for a given temperature,
and then use those two things to figure out how much evaporated
water you could fit into that given volume.  The resulting
number would have units like "mols per cubic meter" or something
like that; some absolute count of water molecules per some
volume.

Does that help?

(*)  By the way, this thing ("sphigmometer" is as close as I can
get to spelling it right, I think) that I describe might just be
the low-tech way to measure absolute humidity/dewpoint.  Does
anyone know of a neater, high-tech device to do the same thing?
-- 
Pete Duniho         "Give me a fish, or a mountain, to scale..."
peted@microsoft.com              -- Toy Matinee
From: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
Subject: Re: Getting my feet wet (first plane suggest
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:47:12 GMT
Reply-To: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.  Engineering

In article <1992Nov11.213941.24881@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, 
patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com (patterson,george r) writes:
> I know two Stinson owners and both claim the aircraft consumes 15 gallons
> or more per hour. You also have to be careful with the purchase. Don't
> touch one with a "light case" Franklin engine. They can't be rebuilt.

I believe there is an AD out on the light case Franklin and they
are probably all changed by now.  The heavy case Franklin is a great
engine.

The fuel consumption is 10.2 GPH thank you at least on the three 
108 s I have flown.  If you ran around flying at 83% power
(this is ok on the heavy Franklin) I suppose you could manage
12 GPH, but I cannot imagine chewing up 15 GPH except at full
power where I imagine that 6-cylinder 145 HP Continentals probably
use 15 GPH too.

Incidently, if anyone knows where Stinson 108-3 N6910M is, I'd
love to know that it is still flying.  I flew "Mike" for 100 hours
back around 1979 to 1981 and consistantly got 120 MPH out
of it.  I haven't seen anymore than 110 MPH out of any of the other
Stinsons I've flown since.


Tom Pickett 
tpickett@auspex.com or 74616.2237@compuserve.com
SHO  GOZE
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
From: fskevin@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Kevin R. Kirtley (SVER))
Subject: Re: Getting my feet wet (first plane suggesti
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 10 Nov 1992 11:01 EDT  

I said: 

>>How Cheap?  The cheapest is by far the Piper TriPacer. It will outperform
>>a C-172 slightly but leg room in the back is lacking. $14,000 will get you a
>>nice one and don't be afraid of fabric airplanes; they don't disintegrate.
> 
Frank said:

>Before we bought 70T (which, BTW, we got for $13,500), we were looking
>at a beautifully maintained TriPacer.  I've got to confess that the few trips around 
>the patch in this plane is the limit of my TriPacer, but I've got to doubt your 
>statements on the comparative performance, Kevin.   I'd say that the an 
>older 172 has about the same or slightly better performance than a simular
>vintage TriPacer.  Maybe we should get togather and race ;-)
> 

My hangar mate is a 172M with the same O-320 engine as my Pacer.  I outclimb
and out cruise him by "a bit".  I'll agree that performance is very close
but if you believe POHs then the edge goes to the TriPacer. However, in the
real world of bugs, non-cruise props, mis-rigging, etc. then I'd call it
a live heat.

Kevin
SWPL

Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:43:52 -0500 
From: Jeffrey Dunkle <jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Getting my feet wet (first plane suggesti

Excerpts from netnews.rec.aviation.owning: 10-Nov-92 Re: Getting my feet
wet (fi.. by Kevin R. Kirtley @mars.l 
> My hangar mate is a 172M with the same O-320 engine as my Pacer.  I outclimb
> and out cruise him by "a bit".  I'll agree that performance is very close
> but if you believe POHs then the edge goes to the TriPacer. However, in the
> real world of bugs, non-cruise props, mis-rigging, etc. then I'd call it
> a live heat.
>  
> Kevin
> SWPL

Kevin,

Trade in the nose wheel for a tail one and you'll beat your hanger mate
hands down.  The short wing Pipers, especially the Tri Pacer, provide
substantial performance for the money.  My dad used to be part owner of
one, and I remember it very fondly.

Jeff Dunkle
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning