HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: specs: Co-Z Mark IV vs Velocity
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 20:29:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.220156.13152@news.arc.nasa.gov> doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay) writes:
>Unfortunately, "stall resistant" says nothing about minimum flight speed.
>All of the listed planes are canards and are stall resistant. With the
>published "stall" speeds you can figure a reasonable speed to use for
>flying the pattern (maybe something like 1.3 times when on final). 
>
>As I have posted before, I have nothing against going fast at cruise, but
>I will gladly give up some top end if I get to land slow. I wish we did have
>a good published number on the Cozy IV, because they have a reputation of
>comming in quite hot. It would be good to know the facts.

I guarantee you that any Rutan Vari EZe derivative is going to come in hot
and shallow on landing (with fixed pitch prop).  Even the Defiant lands 
around 65 to 70 knots.  I am not ready to include the Velocity in the
Rutan derivative list, the differences are too significant.  

Mike Best
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: jmbrown@netcom.com (John M. Brown)
Subject: RV4 vs RV6
Summary: Seeking info on diffs RV-4 RV-6
Keywords: RV-4  RV-6 differences
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:28:08 GMT

I am in the proccess of buying my first homebuild.  I have taken a facny
to the RV-4 / RV-6 planes and the all metal seems to be easyier than
the glass kits.  

I am interested in differences between the two planes, other than what is
in the slicks the company ships.

Also would like feed back from anyone who has built either or both.  Things
to look out for etc...

Thanks in advance.  I'll post a summary in a month or so...

PS: How much space would be required to build the air-frame etc

jmbrown@netcom.com
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: RV4 vs RV6
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:56:06 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1993Jan25.052808.21276@netcom.com>
jmbrown@netcom.com (John M. Brown) writes:

> I am interested in differences between the two planes, other than what is
> in the slicks the company ships.
> 
> Also would like feed back from anyone who has built either or both.  Things
> to look out for etc...
> 
> Thanks in advance.  I'll post a summary in a month or so...
> 
> PS: How much space would be required to build the air-frame etc

You might want to check with EAA for the phone number of Tony Bingelis
who writes a weekly column for "Sport Aviation".  His column is based
on his having built every RV but the 3 and he's decided to do that next
so that he can say he's built them all.  If he can't answer your
questions, no one can.

Corky Scott
From: lee@deneb.sw.stratus.com (Lee Cooprider)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: DME/Radar rquired--why--Answer
Keywords: DME, Radar, Answer, IFR
Date: 28 Jan 93 18:43:50 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: deneb.sw.stratus.com

In article <2706@usna.NAVY.MIL> dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)) writes:

>How about a different designer and I am not kidding. Don't forget the
>human factor.

Also, TERPS change over time, and are subject to different interpretations.
The same person or a different person might interpret the same situation
differently.

An approach, once published, says set until someone decides it needs to be
changed.  Perhaps the FAA pilots who check out approaches chose to raise a
concern about one but didn't necessarily look through the charts for all other
approaches that might have the same problem (e.g. a nuisance for a single NAV
pilot).  Or pilots who frequent Providence complained about that approach, but
no one called in about the one in Portland (or where ever).

I expect that consistency among approach design minutia is found in main, but
not in the specific.
-- 
Lee W. Cooprider				PP-ASEL/IA
Lee_Cooprider@vos.stratus.com			Skylane N2908F "Wiley"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild)
Subject: Re: Filing IFR as a student?
Organization: The MITRE Corp
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 12:42:49 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.112830.24208@crash> jav@crash.cts.com (Javier Henderson) writes:
>
>My question to the fellow netters is...can I file an IFR flight plan, and
>fly it, including the approach, etc., by myself? Of course, in VFR conditions.
>
>The idea is to practice everything involved with an IFR flight.
>

With the cooperation (and approval!) of your instructor, the flight can be a 
legal and complete IFR flight if your instructor has you do the verbal part 
of calling FSS to get the weather, etc., and then you file an IFR flight 
plan listing the instructor as PIC.  Later in the plane, again with the 
instructor monitoring the conversation, you call Ground Control (or 
Clearance Delivery as appropriate) for the IFR clearance, copy it, and read 
it back for verification.  Then fly the route cleared (with enroute 
amendments as they inevitably occur) and you will have a perfectly legal 
practice with IFR flight in the real world.  It's all legal as the 
instructor is with you at each step, and he is PIC for the flight according 
to the FARs.  

This is what my instructor and I did on my long cross country and it 
provided excellent training.  The best part was how to handle a motor-mouth 
controller who issued a complete new (amended) route clearance for the 
second leg of my flight immediately following my missed approach while in a 
climbing turn.  [My response:  "304 right turn to 330, climbing to 4,000, 
standby on the rest of the clearance".  I asked for the rest of the 
clearance when level at 4,000 feet.]

Separate subject is how to log the flight in your logbook.  PIC time for you 
is the entire flight minus any time in actual IMC.  Simulated and actual 
instrument times are the actual times under the hood or in IMC respectively.

Skip Guild
PPSEL-IA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow)
Subject: Re: GPS Instrumentation
Reply-To: witr@rwwa.com
Organization: R.W. Withrow Associates
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:32:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.152550.24836@linus.mitre.org>, Robert Noel writes:
| In article <1993Jan25.033020.28201@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>
| mikec@ginger.lcs.mit.edu (Mike Ciholas) writes:

| >In article <1993Jan24.161054.23835@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.com writes:
| >>[Dakota using 4 GPS sensors to determine attitude]
| >>
| >>The thing you have to realizes is that this experiment is using 
| >>GPS to detect ``differential'' positions as opposed to ``absolute''
| >>positions.

| >Well, not exactly.  You see you *are* trying to measure your position
| >with respect to another point, albeit not on the aircraft, but the
| >runway. 

| apples and oranges (I think).  
| 
| measuring the relative position of multiple antennas
| (with a single receiver) is not the same as measuring
| the relative position of multiple antennas when each
| antenna has its own receiver.

Right.  This is what I was *trying* to say, but I didn't say it very
well.  When you can *directly* compare the ``phase (I guess i'd call it)''
of the signals received from several positions you can be *very* precise.
(This is the reason, btw, that only 2 (and I'd guess 1 too) satelites
were required, whereas 4 are required for a general 3d fix).

This is similar (but not identical) to what is done using DGPS, where two
stations are receiving the same signals, and communicate to compare them,
and is what makes dgps more precise.  What makes dgps more accurate is
that one of the stations is in a precisely *known* position.

I know I'm doing a lousy job of explaining though...

-- 
 Robert Withrow, Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM
 R.W. Withrow Associates, 21 Railroad Ave, Swampscott MA 01907-1821 USA
Organization: Sponsored account, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 10:56:05 -0500 
From: Jeffrey Dunkle <jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: instrument approaches
Distribution: rec

>     When is it possible for non-instrument rated pilots to log instrument
>approaches?  
> 
>If I practice one with a safety pilot, can i legally log one?

Yep.  If you a) had a hood on and were thus simulating instrument
conditions, b) had an appropriately qualified safety pilot, and c) flew
an approach procedure, thats a "legally simulated" and therefore
logeable approach.

You would, of course, have contacted the controlling ATC facility for
that approach and requested a "practice approach, maintaining
VFR"...(AIM discusses this process) and done all the other necessary ATC
stuff...AND maintained VFR at all times.

Both the time, and the approach are logeable towards your 40 hours of
instrument time for your flight test....it would be a "legal simulation"
of ifr of both the approach, and the time under the hood.

(at least I sure as hell hope so...I got a good bit of my time for my
rating that way)

Jeff Dunkle
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow)
Subject: Re: GPS Instrumentation
Keywords: Radar, DME, approach
Reply-To: witr@rwwa.com
Organization: R.W. Withrow Associates
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:10:54 GMT

In article <9202@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>,
 alm@abbott.seas.ucla.edu (Authur Milberger) writes:
| [...]they took a Dakota and put 4 GPS microstrip antennas on it
| [...]they were able to determine aircraft attitude to within 0.1 degree!
...
| Given the recent thread about using GPS for Cat 1 approaches,
| I thought it was very interesting that it seems, from this
| report at least, that it may be good enough for basic attitude
| control

The thing you have to realizes is that this experiment is using 
GPS to detect ``differential'' positions as opposed to ``absolute''
positions. (I am not using differential here in the sense of
``differential GPS''.) That is, they are measuring the location of
one point on the aircraft *with respect to another point on the aircraft*.
This can be done with *much* greater accuracy that one can measure 
the ``absolute'' location of the aircraft in space.  This is similar
to measuring runout:  It is very easy to measure runouts on the order
of 0.0001 with a dial indicator, but it is very hard to locate a point
in space with that accuracy when the domain of the measurement is
even as small as a cube a few tens of inches on a side...

Thus, this result doesn't directly relate to the use of GPS for
instrument approaches.

-- 
 Robert Withrow, Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM
 R.W. Withrow Associates, 21 Railroad Ave, Swampscott MA 01907-1821 USA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: woof@fc.hp.com (Steve Wolf)
Subject: Re: Flying into Ice
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:53:11 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Fort Collins Site
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8.5]

In article <LHE.93Jan21083630@yang.sics.se>, Lars-Henrik Eriksson (lhe@sics.se) wrote:

> Any ice you pick up during your climb will go away very slowly.
> Climbing through 5000 feet in moderate icing will leave *lots* of ice
> on your aircraft, even if you make it above icing conditions.

Another BIG problem is that lots of the ice you pick up during your
climb will be on the UNDERSIDE of your wing, due to your increased angle
of attack.  This is much worse than having ice on the leading edge.

On a slightly different topic (the legality issue), my understanding is
that an AIRMET for possible icing is quite different than a PIREP
reporting known icing.  FSS seems to slap ice AIRMETs over the entire US
some days, but the icing itself is usually quite localized.  The AIRMET
doesn't regulate pilots out of the sky; the PIREP does.

--
Steve Wolf
Hewlett-Packard				UUCP: hplabs!fc.hp.com!woof
Fort Collins, CO			ARPA: woof@fc.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: Re: World's newest IFR Pilot
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 20:25:19 GMT

In article <93024.005220SC0FBUSW@MIAMIU.BITNET> <SC0FBUSW@MIAMIU.BITNET> writes:
>After a day of moderate turbulence, 30 kt. winds and hellish Cincy
>Lunken approaches, I have become the world's newest Instrument Rated
>Pilot and boy does it feel good!
>
>Shawn Chaney, Private Pilot, (Instrument Rated)

Congratulations, Shawn!  Feels good, doesn't it?  Now get out there and
pick up a load of that good Ohio airframe ice!  (:-) :-) :-) for the
humor-impaired).

Dan Masys
masys@nlm.nih.gov


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: skip@mitre.org (Skip Guild)
Subject: Re: Filing IFR as a student? (MEA CULPA on logging time)
Organization: The MITRE Corp
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:13:01 GMT

In article <skip.236.728052169@mitre.org> I (Skip Guild) write:
>Separate subject is how to log the flight in your logbook.  PIC time for 
>you is the entire flight minus any time in actual IMC.  Simulated and 
>actual instrument times are the actual times under the hood or in IMC 
respectively.

Numerous replies in the form of:

>As I don't want to start a what-to-log-as-pic-time fest again, I don't 
>post this, but maybe you rethink it and then repost ?
>You can log any time that you handle the controls, as long as you are 
>appropriately rated in class and category, which in this case you are.
>So as long as you actually manage to handle the controls in IMC, why could 
>you not log that time ?

To which I reply MEA CULPA, MEA CULPA.
I stand corrected.  I know better.

Skip Guild
PPSEL, IA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.owning,rec.aviation.misc
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: Re: completed the c152 ferry, greensboro-sandyeggo. finally home...
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 18:07:57 GMT

In article <738@oscar.UUCP> hurvitz@oscar.UUCP (Dennis Hurvitz) writes:
>with a combination of tremendous luck, and a little bit of planning, i
>have completed my trip across the u.s. in the winter, in a C152.
>
Congratulations!  Quite an achievement!

>i left twin lakes, north carolina (aka mocksville) around noon on the
>11th. the sky was obscured with an indefinite ceiling, and it was
>raining, and the viz wasn't so hot.
>i landed in greensville with a 200 ovc, 3/4 in rain/fog.

I ran a DUAT briefing on your route of flight that morning and said to
myself, "Dennis is stuck.  No legal alternates anywhere on the east
coast within a 152's range."  (It stayed this way two more days).

>now the rub.
>my next destination, memphis has a low ceiling and requires an
>alternate. nothing available within the range of the 152. i file
>anyway, for if not, i'd probably still be there campers.

I've often wondered how you do this when talking to FSS?  Do they
acknowledge you are not playing by the rules and accept the flight
plan anyway, just leaving the alternate space blank?  (With DUAT it's
easy to enter an illegal alternate...just type and go.)

This has definite operational implications in the east, where large
areas of moisture (avg. frontal system 250-300nm front to back, but
often over 1000nm long) can blanket an area with "easy" IFR (say,
500 and 2) which leaves many functional alternates but no legal ones.
I used to scrub a lot of easily doable IFR trips in the 172 because of
this phenomenon (bless the 84 gallon tanks in the 182; just stick in an
alternate that's 600nm away if necessary).

>
>i was up all night. again. it was worth it though. i got to watch the
>dolphins game the next day, eating a lox and bagel sandwich.
>
Now there's a disappointment...(the game, that is.  Bring back Fouts,
Winslow & Joiner...oops, wrong newsgroup :-) ).

>i estimate i carried 25 pounds of ice back
>there !

No wonder you were hauling in that 152; got the CG way back there!

Great trip report, Dennis.  Hey, I hear there's a great deal available on
an ultralight in Nova Scotia (and some P-38s in Greenland).  Wanna go
pick one up and ferry it to America's Finest City??

Dan Masys
ex-San Diegan
masys@nlm.nih.gov


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: grima@iphase.com (Gary Rima)
Subject: Re: Flying into Ice
Organization: Interphase Corporation, Dallas Texas
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:01:39 GMT

In article <C1A1L9.ILu@well.sf.ca.us> brecher@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Brecher) writes:
>In <C19xGH.I2p@iphase.com>, I write:
>
>> Mike, your Bonanza (and my C210) are CAR 3 certified airplanes as opposed
>> to the newer FAR 23.  As such, they are _not_ prohibited from flight in
>> known icing!
>
>Pilot's Operating Handbook and FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual, for
>Bonanza F33A [serial numbers] CE-674 and After, Limitations section,
>p. 2-10:
>
>                        "WARNING
>
>           FLIGHT IN KNOWN ICING CONDITIONS IS
>           PROHIBITED."
>
>It is my understanding that aircraft manufactured after some date in the
>1970s and which are not certified for flight in known icing carry the
>prohibition regardless of whether they were certified under CAR 3 (as is
>the case for all Bonanzas; the title page of my POH says "FAA Approved ...
>based on CAR 3") or FAR 23.
>
>--
>brecher@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Brecher)

Hi Steve-

OK, I stand corrected on my statement of "all CAR 3 airplanes".  I thought
that's what John Frank had said, but obviously your AFM proves that wrong.

Maybe the distinction is between "placard" vs. "certified Airplane Flight
Manual" airplanes.  I have nothing but a generic "owner's manual" for my
(1960) 210.  All the legal flight limitations for my plane are delineated by
placards - per John Frank (head of Cessna Pilot's Assn. for other's benefit) I
don't even have to carry the "owner's manual" to be legal on the "ARROW" 
requirements.  I do know that my plane is NOT prohibited (legally) from flight
in known icing conditions, and I'm reasonably sure that that's the case for
all "placard" airplanes, at least.  And they DID try to issue a generic AD 
a while back that would have required placards in all aircraft prohibiting
flight in icing.  I believe the main reason it turned out to be so controversial
and ended up being shot down is (I _think_) it was going to prohibit flight in
"known or forecast" icing conditions.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification.

(How's the turbo/intercooler installation working out for you??)

-Gary-

-- 
Gary L. Rima						Interphase Corp.
PP-ASEL-IA						(214) 919-9226
Centurion N7358E					garyr@iphase.com
N0GR							CompuServe 76050,231
Xref: sparky rec.aviation.ifr:658 rec.aviation.owning:412 rec.aviation.misc:1416
From: jav@crash.cts.com (Javier Henderson)
Subject: Re: Filing IFR as a student?
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:24:33 PST

Kerry Kurasaki (kerry@Ingres.COM) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan26.125148.14554@onetouch.COM> phil@onetouch.COM (Philip D. Turner) writes:
: >Only an instrument rated pilot can file an IFR flight plan.
:          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ AND current (6/6/6)

Others have replied similarly, so I'm not picking on Kerry.

My instructor has always had me file, with my name, for all the x-countries
we've done 'ifr', even those we did in actual IMC. Am I to expect some dark
suited guys wearing sunglasses after dark knowcking at my door? Or what?

ThankS
-
Javier Henderson
jav@crash.cts.com
    ^^^^^ yes, I'm a pilot and use a node called 'crash'...
From: scottcr@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
Subject: Re: Flying into Ice
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:32:41 CST
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

In article <93020.195642SC0FBUSW@MIAMIU.BITNET>, <SC0FBUSW@MIAMIU.BITNET> writes:
> 
> The problem with this is that in Ohio we have icing nearly every day from
> November to March.  If IFRR is true, an IFR rating is useless in the winter
> time (unless you have a plane with the equip.[$$$]).  My idea is that if you
> have the plane with enough muscle to climb through it (barring severe or
> moderate ice), then it's OK.  So if I'm in an Archer trying to climb
> through light to moderate icing to 5000k am I gonna 1) die 2) go to jail
> or 3) make it to Florida ???  Can someone clear this up for me?
> Shawn Chaney -  Miami Univ., Oxford, Ohio

I suppose you also want to know the true meaning of life too?

This has been and is the 64 million dollar question;  most pilots will
tell you this is a grey area...(many commercial flight schools could
not operate in the winter if they didn't bend this a little).

I have heard FAA FSDO people say (off the record) that they would
not bust someone for bending this a little, provided that someone
did not get into trouble and declare an emergency, etc,...
On the other hand, I have been chastized by overzealous FAA people
for landing with just a trace of rime.  Told that "this was how
so and so got his certificate suspended."
I have been around pilots who used to haul checks in no-radar /
no de-ice Cherokee Sixes every night in virtually all weather..

ICE seems to be the unmentionable word on the radio: Here's why:
If, on the approach, you become the first to discover ICE, and
announce it, you admit flying into it, and then the issue becomes
whether or not it was "known".  However, you have just poisoned
the approach for the next guy coming in w/o de-ice, as NOW it is
clearly known ice!  This happened to me, in a situation where
surface temp: 28F, I'm ifr on top flying to my destination which
is forecast 2000 and 5, so it's a virtual certainty
that I won't miss, and no alternate required.  So, when I'm
#2 on the approach and am told by FSS about recent PIREP..moderate
ice, what am I supposed to do, park it?

On the other hand, if the ice is truly hazardous, and there is
a possibility of missing... there may be an ethical reason to
warn the next guy...

This seems to be one of those rules where most of the time
the FAA will not hassle you... unless you get caught.

My personal belief is: Safety first, ice rules second: are you
*sure* you can climb to on top with margin?  Are you sure you
won't miss?  How heavy are you?  It it light/moderate rime or
FREEZING RAIN?

Well, this ought to stir it up!  Ice gurus what say ye?

-- 
Chris Scott,  C/E Public Radio,  Western KY Univ,  (502) 745-3834
SCOTTCR@WKUVX1.BITNET      fx off: 745-2084     fx hm: 781-1232  
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Subject: Re: Filing IFR as a student?
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:59:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.112830.24208@crash> jav@crash.cts.com (Javier Henderson)
writes:
> Can I [as a non-instrument-rated pilot] file an IFR flight plan, including
> the approach, etc., by myself? Of course, in VFR conditions.

Absolutely not.  Go re-read FAR61.3, Requirement for certificates, rating,
and authorizations, specifically:
    (e) Instrument rating. No person may act as pilot in command of a civil
	aircraft under instrument flight rules, or in weather conditions less
	than the minimums prescribed for VFR flight unless --
	(1) In the case of an airplane, he holds an instrument rating or an
	    airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane category
	    rating on it;

If you file an IFR flight plan, you are operating under instrument flight
rules.

Be warned that simply _accepting_ an approach clearance constitutes
operating under instrument flight rules.  If you negotiate with a
controller for an approach, make sure that your initial request or your
readback of the clearance includes the phrase "in VFR conditions" or,
simply, "VFR".

> The idea is to practice everything involved with an IFR flight.

You may do so without the IFR flight plan and clearance.  However, you'll
also need to modify your cruising altitudes to be those appropriate for VFR
flight.

						Geoff
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr