HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: girling@cs.sfu.ca (Doug Girling)
Subject: Re: Past the speed of sound...
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:54:59 GMT

In article <barnett.724523570@convex.convex.com> barnett@convex.com (Paul Barnett) writes:
>
>Now I'm curious.  These propellors must have been relatively short,
>with more blades, and/or spinning at a higher RPM?  Please excuse my
>cluelessness (sp?), as I arrived "late" for this discussion.
>
>But then again, a four-blade prop spinning at 2500 RPM would generate
>a 10kHz rate, right?  (OK, I'm guessing).  But that would be at cruise
>or takeoff, not during taxi.
>--
>Paul Barnett             Internet: barnett@convex.com
>Convex Computer Corp.      Office: 214-497-4846
>Richardson, TX        Mobile/Home: 214-236-8438

It had 4 (or possibly 5) short paddle blades with square tips -- like those
on a Hercules or Orion, but shorter).  As to the 10kHz, I'll admit it was a
bit of a guess working backward from an 8-foot dia. 4-bladed prop with the tips
travelling at about mach 1.  For a smaller disc or higher mach # or more of
the blade >= mach 1, the frequency rises correspondingly.  Given that most
of the energy would be dissipated accoustically as shock waves, one not
only has a truly "noise-driven A/C", but one that is producing dangerous
levels of ultrasonics.

Doug


-- 
Doug Girling, lab engineer	| Voice: (604)291-4428  FAX:   (604)291-4951
School of Engineering Science	| Usenet: girling@cs.sfu.ca
Simon Fraser University		| Bitnet: girling%cs.sfu.ca@relay.cdnnet.ca
Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6 CANADA	| CompuServe: 73777,50
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: CHP AIRCRAFT & SPEEDERS
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:02:26 GMT

In article <1258@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com>, rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com (Dick Harrigill) writes:

|> Why?
|> I remember a freshman calculus class proof where it was
|> shown that for any  measured time/distance/speed leg,
|> the average/total-leg speed must be attained for at least
|> an instant.

Okay, this is purely an academic opinion having nothing to do with
California law, or giving speeders a sporting chance, or anything
like that.  

It seems to me that the problem with timing is that you cannot say
definitively at any given point in time or space that the car was
traveling at any given speed.  Yes, you can prove that at some time
the car was traveling at some minimum speed.  This would not seem
to satisfy the requirements of legal proof.  

Imagine if you could 
prove that at some point in a person's life they did something illegal
(like take drugs) but you couldn't prove where or when (i.e. you know
this as a result
of a drug test) then you could deduce that the person had to have
had possession of the drug, but you couldn't charge them with possession.


-- 
***********************************************************************
 Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
 Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
 phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
From: mtc@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Mark Cousins)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Flying flea info wanted
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:47:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpcc01.87330007
Organization: HP General Systems Division

In rec.aviation.misc, ron@etch-eshop.Berkeley.EDU (Ronald Viegelahn) writes:

> I'm looking for some information on an airplane named
>" HM290, Flying Flea ". The plans & a kit are marketed
>by a Canadian Co. Falconar Ltd of Edmonton, Alberta.
>
> What I'm looking for is opinions/pros cons whatever on this
>unusual design. This aircraft is a staggered wing bipe? type
>who's attitude is controlled by pivoting the forward most wing
>witch is mounted higher that the rear wing/stablizer. There is
>no conventional stablizer/elevator. No airlerons just rudder.

This airplane was featured in a chapter of _The World's Worst Aircraft_.
Assuming they haven't changed the design, it exhibits some pretty dreadful
flight characteristics, such as control reversal (stick forward pitches UP) at
certain airspeeds.

Read the chapter and then ask the mfr about it.

No thanks.

> The big pitch is they claim that this plane will not spin or
>stall like a conventional tailed plane can.

See above.

> Hopefully someone out there will know something about this 
>unusual airplane. I'd sure like to get some educated input
>before I decide to build one of these.

Ask the mfr for a list of builders.  I think that EAA might also be a good
source.  This plane is not unheard of so finding info shouldn't be too
difficult.

Mark
--
Mark Cousins                Hewlett-Packard Co.        mtc@hpsemc.cup.hp.com
HP-UX VAB programs    19055 Pruneridge Ave., MS 46T5
(408) 447-4659             Cupertino, CA  95014          FAX: (408) 447-4364
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: reinhart@netcom.com (Rodger Reinhart)
Subject: Re: Creature of habit?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:52:13 GMT


I have had the fly the car experience several times after long trips in my
piper cub. After a long day of flying when I drive my car I seem to not want to
stop. I have come very close to running red lights just after leaving the
airport.  I am usually very tired when this happens. I seems that my brain is
still in the air where on seldom encounters a red light. 

           Rodger Reinhart       reinhart@netcom.com
From: rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com (Dick Harrigill)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: CHP AIRCRAFT & SPEEDERS
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:26:54 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle

In article <BzBE82.AxM@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:

>In article <1258@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com>, rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com (Dick Harrigill) writes:
>|> I remember a freshman calculus class proof where it was
>|> shown that for any  measured time/distance/speed leg,
>|> the average/total-leg speed must be attained for at least
>|> an instant.

>It seems to me that the problem with timing is that you cannot say
>definitively at any given point in time or space that the car was
>traveling at any given speed.  Yes, you can prove that at some time
>the car was traveling at some minimum speed.  This would not seem
>to satisfy the requirements of legal proof.  

Nonsense. Does a 65mph speed limit say you cannot exceed 65, or does
it mean you cannot exceed 65 for at least x seconds.  Is it OK to
bust a TCA (er -Class B that is) as long as it isn't for more than
10 seconds or 1500 feet into it horizonatally, or 150 feet vertically?
No!

If you are timed and average 75mph you had to have been going at least
75 for an instant.  If your speed was not constant, you were actually travelling
FASTER THAN 75 for some slice of time, but you're getting off easy because
the charge is only 75.

Since the law specifies a maximum speed without regard for duration or
length of time the speed was maintained, the legal proof is valid and
logical.



-- 
Dick Harrigill, an independent voice from:     Boeing Commercial Airplanes 
M/S 9R-49  PO BOX 3707                       Renton Avionics/Flight Systems
Seattle, WA  91824                                  Computing Support
(206) 393-9539    rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com    CDP, PP-ASEL
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.owning
From: acampane@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Angelo Campanella)
Subject: Re: Turning Prop in reverse: was Turning the prop during storage
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 02:35:13 GMT




J-3 props;  dark ages; dinosaurs.

I remember those days.

BUT :   No Vacuum Pumps!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: what is P-factor
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Distribution: na
Date: 16 Dec 92 07:39:57 GMT

In article <75601@apple.apple.COM> stadler@Apple.COM (Andy Stadler) writes:
>
[Andy describes 5 left turning factors quite well]

>1.  P-Factor                             Climbs or descents
>2.  Torque                               High power
>3.  Spiraling or Corkscrew Slipstream    High Power
>4.  Gyroscopic Precession                Initial tailwheel rotation
>5.  Left Tire Friction                   On the runway only

Hmm, I can add another one to this... aircraft rigging.

One of the ways to counteract torque, is to rig the aircraft accordingly.
With (US) engines rotating clockwise (as viewed from the cockpit),
there is a torque force in the anti-clockwise direction or a roll to
the left.

One method to counter-act this rolling moment, is to rig the left
wing to produce slightly more lift; usually by changing the angle of
incidence (the angle the wing is attached to the fuselage) so that
the left and right are not set identically (on purpose).  I assume
that you could even have a slightly different airfoil, or slightly
greater wing area or ...

Anyway, the point is that now that the left wing is producing more
lift, it is also producing more drag.  Consequently, there is a left
turning tendency.

But wait, can't you just rig the tail to counter act the increased
drag of the left wing?  Of course, the tail/fin may be offset slightly
or angled slightly to compensate for this effect.  The problem is that
the rigging of the wing and tail are "tuned" for only one flight
configuration, usually cruise.

Another area for "adjustment" is the engine mount.  The thrust vector
can be adjusted to compensate for the torque.

The above is a theoretical discussion;  please don't ask me which planes
are rigged this way.  Topics like this become very religious and
in depth to airplane designers.  Many designers do not like the drag
penalties or manufacturing complexities associated with rigging aircraft
this way and build the planes "straight" and require the pilots to
use the appropriate trim devices when not in cruise configuration.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: calvin@boi.hp.com (Calvin K McDonald)
Subject: Re: Fuel Gauges...
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 03:58:47 GMT
Reply-To: calvin@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard - Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Jeffrey Facemire (facemire@Software.ORG) wrote:
: 
: o Was the plane completely level during fueling so that I'm ensured of having
:   full tanks?
: o If my plane has fuel tank bladders, then is there any way of being
:   absolutely sure that a bladder didn't crease causing my tank to hold less
:   gas than it should?  (Obviously, if the tank was empty before fueling and
:   I watch how much gas went into the tank, then I'll KNOW how much gas is in
:   the tank and whether there was a problem.)
: o What if a fuel vent is clogged (or partially clogged), and I get a vacuum
:   (or partial fuel flow) situation that is not distinguishable until engine
:   failure?
: o I understand proper leaning procedures, however, I'm always a little concerned
:   that I haven't gotten things leaned as good as the test pilots who helped put
:   the flight manual together.

Just in case you're getting too much sleep at night having gotten over 
worrying about the above list, here's another one I think of from time
to time:

o  The Piper TraumaHawk (Air Yugo) I fly has huge, protruding water
   drain valves underside each wing and the hull that have "snap
   me off" or "I leak when you're not looking" written all over them! 
   Lay awake and think of all the ways these spigots can get broken off!
   Bump one with a suit case and it's possible you won't realize it 
   until you're well into your trip (at which point you will _know_ that
   the fuel guage is obviously wrong and keep flying).  Also contemplate
   that there is a 20 cent spring holding the thing closed!  They also
   seem like nice targets for birds.

Is this spigot design common in light aircraft?

______________________________________________________
Calvin McDonald   HP-Boise   calvin@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: ron@etch-eshop.Berkeley.EDU (Ronald Viegelahn)
Subject: Flying flea info wanted
Reply-To: ron@etch-eshop.Berkeley.EDU (Ronald Viegelahn)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:26:36 GMT





 Hello rec.aviators

 I'm looking for some information on an airplane named
" HM290, Flying Flea ". The plans & a kit are marketed
by a Canadian Co. Falconar Ltd of Edmonton, Alberta.

 I posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt, but got almost no
response. Thought I'd try here.

 I received they're info pack and got interested enough
to buy the plans. I'm considering building the Ultralight
version.

 What I'm looking for is opinions/pros cons whatever on this
unusual design. This aircraft is a staggered wing bipe? type
who's attitude is controlled by pivoting the forward most wing
witch is mounted higher that the rear wing/stablizer. There is
no conventional stablizer/elevator. No airlerons just rudder.

 The big pitch is they claim that this plane will not spin or
stall like a conventional tailed plane can.

 Hopefully someone out there will know something about this 
unusual airplane. I'd sure like to get some educated input
before I decide to build one of these.


				Thanks to all

				Ron Viegelahn

				ron@etcheshop.Berkeley.EDU


Xref: sparky rec.aviation.misc:1067 rec.aviation.student:370 rec.aviation.piloting:490
From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Slippery Runway Takeoff [Accident]
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:44:50 GMT
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)

In article <Bz3sK6.FH@fc.hp.com>, jle@fc.hp.com (Jer/ Eberhard) writes:
	[Posting for Mike Raisbeck, <RAISBECK@corral.uwyo.edu>, I think]

	[about crosswind takeoff technique, paraprhasing:]

	  Need to use ailerons and rudder on takeoff roll, as if flying;
	  stay on downwind side of the runway to avoid excursions off
	  the upwind side due to weathervaning at low speeds.

	Maybe this is a good spot to put in another 2-cents-worth
	for learning in sailplanes, or at least getting some glider
	training fairly early to supplement power training.

	With only one wheel on the ground, sailplanes make magnificent
	weathervanes.  Add light weight and two reasonable conclusions are
	that (1) they need to be flown whenever moving, even if the wheel
	is on the ground; and (2) if there's much wind they need to be flown
	whenever not tied down.

	Assuming reasonable exposure to crosswinds, student glider pilots
	learn the same skills that Mike (and/or Jer?) noted for experienced
	taildragger pilots.  The difference is that student glider pilots
	learn them as beginning students.

	Within the last month I've exchanged email with 3 other pilots
	about issues of airmanship that produce the same conclusion -- glider
	training teaches a number of basic skills that tend to come only
	with a fair bit of experience for strictly-power pilots.


------------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@Unify.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: girling@cs.sfu.ca (Doug Girling)
Subject: Re: Past the speed of sound...
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:23:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.225444.29898@athena.mit.edu> brndlfly@athena.mit.edu (Matthew T Velazquez) writes:
>L697187@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>
>>I have a friend here at work who wants to know why propeller-driven
>>aircraft cannot go past the speed of sound?  Or can they?  Feel free
>>to get as technical as you like in your explaination...we'll just
>>pretend to understand.
>
>The big problem with propeller-driven a/c is that the propeller is necessarily
>going faster than the aircraft (in some cases a lot faster).  That means that
>the blade tips will approach the speed of sound a lot earlier than the rest of
>the airplane.  

	[...]
>		Now shock waves aren't all that bad by them-
>selves; they're just a necessary consequence of going mother fast.
	[...]
>			-T
>				T Velazquez


(Small voice from the historical archives) ahem!  There was a U.S. attempt
at developing supersonic propellers in the late `40's/early `50's.  I
believe it was a Voodo with a supersonic turboprop in the nose (there was
also a B-47 with similar-looking turboprops on the inboard pylons, but that
may have been a different project).  They either (a) didn't work, or (b)
the engineering problems were too great, or (c) not enough promise to
bother overcomming the engineering problems.  

There *was* a very real problem with the blade shock waves, however, it
made the ground personel violently sick as the aircraft taxied or made a
low-level pass because the repeated shock waves (at a nice ultrasonic 10
kHz) where literaly trying to shake them to pieces -- an accoustic analog
to a microwave oven in principle.

Just my $.02
Doug


-- 
Doug Girling, lab engineer	| Voice: (604)291-4428  FAX:   (604)291-4951
School of Engineering Science	| Usenet: girling@cs.sfu.ca
Simon Fraser University		| Bitnet: girling%cs.sfu.ca@relay.cdnnet.ca
Burnaby, B.C. V5A 1S6 CANADA	| CompuServe: 73777,50
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: rmt@pioneer.net.com (Richard Tweedie)
Subject: Re: Past the speed of sound...
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:24:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.012312.9943@cs.sfu.ca> girling@cs.sfu.ca (Doug Girling) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.225444.29898@athena.mit.edu> brndlfly@athena.mit.edu (Matthew T Velazquez) writes:
>>L697187@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>
****stuff deleted***

>(Small voice from the historical archives) ahem!  There was a U.S. attempt
>at developing supersonic propellers in the late `40's/early `50's.  I
>believe it was a Voodo with a supersonic turboprop in the nose (there was
>also a B-47 with similar-looking turboprops on the inboard pylons, but that
>may have been a different project).  They either (a) didn't work, or (b)
>the engineering problems were too great, or (c) not enough promise to
>bother overcomming the engineering problems.  
>
>-- 
>Doug Girling, lab engineer	| Voice: (604)291-4428  FAX:   (604)291-4951
*** more stuff deleted***

Don't know about the voodoo...but there was a modified Republic
(RF-84F?)
that had a turboprop installed.  It was (is?) mounted on a pedestal
at Bakersfield airport.  I believe there was some effort to get it
supersonic, dont know the results.  Perhaps Mary Schaefer or someone
else at NASA can enlighten us.  The B-47 project was to increase 
range if memory serves...

Rich Tweedie

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: rah@public.BTR.COM (Richard A Hyde  rah@btr.com)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Surviving a Commercial Aircraft Accident
Date: 21 Dec 92 02:13:18 GMT
Organization: BTR Public Access UNIX, MtnView CA. For info contact: info@BTR.COM

|
|Robert Dorsett (rdd@cactus.org) adds: 
|: 7.  Buy a smokehood!
|: Smoke's been the real killer in recent airline crashes: the Habsheim A320
|: crash; the Chicago ground-collision; the USAir crash at LAX; the Delta 727 
|: crash in Dallas.  They always find these heaps of bodies--often unburned--
|: next to a blocked door.  A smokehood should be mandatory equipment: it only
|: costs about $15, and can give you another minute or two of maneuvering time.
|: 

Where, oh where can you buy a smokehood for $15?  Unless you're talking
about enough units to outfit the entire commercial fleet, they seem to
be much more expensive than that.  I'm seriously interested in buying
one, but the least expensive one I've been able to find is in the $250 (US)
range!  It's a self contained unit with 5 minutes of oxygen and a clear
faceshield good for several thousands of degrees of flame resistance.

Tell me where I can get one for $50 and I'll buy several!



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   Richard Hyde  |  RaH@btr.com  |    This space intentionally left blank   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Goin' to California
Date: 17 Dec 1992 15:32:38 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: wiley.ts.stratus.com

Hi everyone,

I'm going to be out in California for a week of whirlwind touring around 
New Year's.  Any netters out there interested in getting together to meet
(and maybe do some flying)?  I'd be especially interested in checking out 
some of the more interesting planes- homebuilts and such, but I've rarely 
been known to turn down any sort of av-stuff.

I'll be making the L.A. - San Diego route, beginning 12/21 and coming back
around 1/9.  Hope to meet some of you.

-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: barnett@convex.com (Paul Barnett)
Subject: Re: Surviving a Commercial Aircraft Accident
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:42:44 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.

In <jcmorris.724695879@mwunix> jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris) writes:

>A story that's been making the rounds for many years points up the problem
>of passengers not listening to the safety briefing.  The story itself is
>possibly an urban legend, but it's not at all impossible.

[ description of slightly modified safety briefing deleted ]

On a Christmas Eve flight some time ago, the flight attendant recited
a modified safety briefing that started with "Twas the Day before
Christmas....".  It was faithful to the original poem in style and
cadence (OK, those are musical terms: you literary types help me with
the correct ones), and every verse rhymed.  The part that sticks in my
mind:

        In the event the plane becomes a boat,
        Your seat cushion can be used as a float.

              (or something like that)

>Not a single passenger even looked up.

By the time the poem was finished, she had the attention of every
person on the plane, and nearly received a standing ovation.  I missed
a few parts because they were drowned out by laughter (either my own
or everyone else on the plane).

I don't remember what airline I was flying at the time, but there were
two possibilities: Continental or Southwest.  I would guess that it
was the latter.  

I've always wondered what would had happened if an FAA inspector had
been on board.  I believe that she covered all the required subjects,
and all the information was correct, even though it was presented in
an unconventional manner.  Is the standard briefing text supplied,
required, and/or approved by the FAA?
--
Paul Barnett             Internet: barnett@convex.com
Convex Computer Corp.      Office: 214-497-4846
Richardson, TX        Mobile/Home: 214-236-8438
From: cse0075@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Handheld Scanner ???
Date: 14 Dec 92 17:36:28 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services



Can anyone recommend a portable (handheld) scanner that receives the 
aircraft band??  So far, I know of the Uniden Bearcat 200XLT and several
models from Radio Shack.

Thanks,

Mark LaPlante

Please reply via email to cse0075@uoft02.utoledo.edu