HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: difference between Vx and Vy
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:10:25 EDT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Nov17.205646.19539@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com>, chesky@squirrel.austin.ibm.com (Bill Chesky) writes:
> 
> Beginning student here.  An experienced pilot friend of mine and I were
> having a disagreement over the the difference between Vx and Vy.  Here's
> what I have learned:
> 
> 	Vx = best angle of climb speed; the speed that will give you the
> 	     greatest gain in altitude over a given horizontal distance
> 	Vy = best rate of climb speed; the speed that will give you the
> 	     greatest gain in altitude over a given period of time
> 
> [ emplanation deleted ]
> 
> My friend claims that I am mistaken, though.  He says that the term "best 
> rate of climb" is really a misnomer since you will be higher using Vx even
> over the same *period of time*.  I don't totally understand his argument.
> He says Vy is a "more efficient" rate of climb and that's why you wouldn't
> use Vx all the time (or something like that).  So who is right?  Can anybody 
> clear this up for me?

You are right. Your friend is wrong.

Any experience in an airplane would quickly show you that climbing at the
Vx produces a lower rate of climb than Vy.

Climbing at Vx is due to the presence of excess (in excess of that needed
to keep the plane at the same altitude) thrust. Vx is the point of maximum
excess thrust.

Climbing at Vy is due to the presence of excess power. Vy is the point of
maximum excess power. Note that power is thrust per second. (Force per
unit time)

Tell your friend to go back and study physics.

-- 
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.student
From: goose@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Pilot)
Subject: Re: FAA approved or not
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 15:53:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.030617.21240@nntp.uoregon.edu> margolin@oregon.uoregon.edu (Brian Margolin) writes:
>This is my first time on this newsgroup.  I want to get my private pilots
>liscence (I think I've had enough of FS 4.0) and want some advice.  Does it
>matter whether or not a particular school is FAA approved or not?  It seems
>that the FAA schools operate under part 61 and the non-FAA approved schools
>operate under part 41.  Also, is it important to learn at a larger airport
>with a tower or is it okay to learn at a smaller airport with no tower? 
>The school at the larger airport (this is the FAA approved school)
>suggested that it was better to learn at a larger airport because you learn
>how to use the radio and deal with heavy traffic situations right away.  
>

  I started my training at a 141 school at Baltimore-Washington Intl in the
middle of one of the most COMPLEX TCA's around...  And when I came back to 
school here at Purdue, I continued my training at the Lafayette Airport (that
has a control tower).  Both of these GREATLY enhanced my communication skills
on the radio (listening to a portable scanner helped too), and I thought that
having flown in a TCA prepared me for anything !  If nothing else, I would ask
your instructor to take you to a heavily travelled ARSA or TCA on one of your
dual x-countries; it will help you get phraseologies correct and help you as
a private pilot..  Any other questions or suggestions, email me..


    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         |
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: seymour@stein.u.washington.edu (Richard Seymour)
Subject: Re: Spousal support
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:57:28 GMT

In article <By0wsv.DJL@apollo.hp.com> inglis_p@apollo.HP.COM (Pete Inglis) writes:
>I want to thank all who contributed to the discussion on dealing with S/Os 
>when trying to be an airperson.
>Mine says she'll go up when the sky turns pink.
...doesn't that happen almost every day?  during sunrise and sunset?
 (not that we Seattleites SEE it all that often...)
>Wish me luck.
...good luck (and clear skies...)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter)
Subject: Re: Spousal support
Organization: Bull HN Informations Systems Inc.
Date: 20 Nov 92 20:00:13 GMT

inglis_p@apollo.HP.COM (Pete Inglis) writes:

>I want to thank all who contributed to the
>discussion on dealing with S/Os when trying
>to be an airperson.
>Mine says she'll go up when the sky turns pink.

Actually, those gorgeous sunset flights can be GREAT!! :-)
-- 
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.student
From: twillis@ec.ecn.purdue.edu (Thomas E Willis)
Subject: Re: FAA approved or not
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 06:04:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.030617.21240@nntp.uoregon.edu> margolin@oregon.uoregon.edu (Brian Margolin) writes:
>This is my first time on this newsgroup.  I want to get my private pilots
>liscence (I think I've had enough of FS 4.0) and want some advice.  Does it

[stuff trimmed about 141 vs non-141 schools, tower vs non-tower airports]

i don't think that it really makes a big difference if the school is faa
approved or not.  basically, the part 141 regs establish a few criteria
for instructors, circula, and facillities.  it's certainly possible to get
excellent instruction from a non-141 source.

the important "feature" is the quality of your instructor, imho.  there
are some very good instructors out there who aren't associated with a
141 school - so going to a 141 school does not ensure great instruction.

as far as airports go, i learned at aretz (a non-tower field on the edge of
purdue airport's ata (airport traffic area)).  which gave me, i feel, the
best of both worlds.  during the first few lessons, i didn't have to
listen to the constant radio chatter and worry about other planes.
eventually, once i became more comfortable in the plane, we could be in
the heavy traffic at purdue within 2 or 3 minutes.

i think it is important to get exposed to "the system" as soon as you can
safely do so.  it was nice not to have to jump right in, but i think that
i'd go with the tower field if there isn't a situation like we have here
(with a tower and non-tower field within 5 miles of each other) available.

hope this helps.
--
    - t
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Willis, PP-SEL	 / "It's no secret that a conscience can sometimes
Purdue Electrical Engr. / be a pest..." - U2, "The Fly"
twillis@ecn.purdue.edu / 
Xref: sparky rec.aviation.student:279 rec.aviation.piloting:373
From: erik@tera.com (Erik Hedberg)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: Seaplane Instruction in the Seattle area sought
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:53:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: tera.1992Nov18.225348.5439
Organization: Tera Computer Company, Seattle, WA

In article <uh311ae.721869147@sunmanager> uh311ae@sunmanager.LRZ-Muenchen.DE (Henrik Klagges) writes:
>
>As it says. I have to go to a conference in the US in December and
>wonder it would be possible to combine it with a week or so in Seattle
>to get a seaplane add-on.
>
>a) is that time frame realistic, given the weather at this time of the
>   year (I am recent VFR PPL) ?
>b) any hints which base to use, club to join or related issues ?

The only folks I know of are at Kenmore Air Harbor +1 206 364-6990.
They don't have a seaplane Package per se, but they say the rating can
be completed in 3 "good" weather days for about US$ 800 - 1000.  They
also need about a weeks' notice.

Weather note: Seattle is quite grey in the winter.  However, the
airwork required is all at low altitude, so days with 1000 ft ceilings
are actually "good" weather days.  It's when the wind kicks up to 30kt
and the waves splash *over* the floating bridges that are a problem.
Unless you get here right in the middle of a storm, you should easily
get 3 "good" weather days in a week.

Erik
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.misc,rec.avaiation.soaring
From: hagood@sabre.den.mmc.com (Dave Hagood)
Subject: Re: learning how to fly gliders
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:35:38 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.042359.1774@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, c60c-3gi@web-3c.berkeley.edu (Masayuki Karahashi) writes:
|> stuff deleted
|> 
|> now having that fact said, I need to know what experienced people think of
|> taking glider lessons in the winter instead of summer when the weather would
|> probably be much better.  I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, so the
|> weather difference isn't too much, but I don't know if it is enough to
|> make a difference for a first time glider flyer.  Opinions?

	Actually, it makes pretty good sense to learn to fly gliders in the
winter.  You'll most likely spend the winter and early spring learning to fly
and developing the proficiency you'll need for soaring flight.  Once the
thermals start developing, you'll be ready!

|> Also, could anyone tell me what I should be expecting to pay for all my
|> lessons, including both ground and air?  And what is the cheapest way of
|> doing this, without comprimising my education in the subject?
|> 

	As has been said in similar threads before, don't concentrate on doing
it cheaply, concentrate on doing it well.  Plan on around $2500 or so,
minimum (groan)...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
									|
David M. Hagood			Martin Marietta Astronautics Group	|
									|
Voice:  (303) 977-9657		When in danger, or in doubt,		|
E-mail: hagood@den.mmc.com	Run in circles, scream and shout.	|
Fax: (303) 977-1530							|
									|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
     static char *disclaimer = "My opinions, not Martin Marietta's."    |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mmuller@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Mark Timothy Muller)
Subject: Re: FAA approved or not
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Reply-To: mmuller@ics.uci.edu (Mark Muller)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 22 Nov 92 19:01:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.030617.21240@nntp.uoregon.edu> margolin@oregon.uoregon.edu (Brian Margolin) writes:
>This is my first time on this newsgroup.  I want to get my private pilots
>liscence (I think I've had enough of FS 4.0) and want some advice.  Does it
>operate under part 41.  Also, is it important to learn at a larger airport
>with a tower or is it okay to learn at a smaller airport with no tower?
>The school at the larger airport (this is the FAA approved school)
>suggested that it was better to learn at a larger airport because you learn
>how to use the radio and deal with heavy traffic situations right away.
>
>Brian

Here's my two cents:
	I'm currently getting my private's, and live in central Orange
County within the Los Angeles basin.  We've got the LAX TCA, and more
ARSA's than anything as well as nearly everywhere else exists ATA's.
you can't hardy fly anywhere under 3000' without busting some airspace
if you're not careful.
	You need to look at just how big is your big airport?  I live
8 miles from John Wayne, but drive about 5 extra miles to learn from
Fullerton, which is one of the smallest within driveing distance.  I
did this because i wanted to avoid spending all the extra time on the
ground waiting for clearence, or just plain taxiing because the runway's
long.  this is because once you start the engine, the meter is running
and you're paying for it.  it usually takes us .1 or just over to get
off the ground, but if you spend .3 or .4 to get off, those extra .2's
and .3's will cost you much more when you add them up for each flight.
	But, then your airport may not be big enough to worry about this
 you need to decide, if it's not actually big.  Go with the tower,
FUL has a tower and they can actally be helpfu some times, even if once
in a while they'll only say 'HOT!!!' when you ask for a temperture check.

Mark.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
My first flight lesson:
	This is how we write big checks every day.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: FAA approved or not
Date: 21 Nov 92 17:09:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

BM> .This is my first time on this newsgroup.  I want to get my private pilots
  > .liscence (I think I've had enough of FS 4.0) and want some advice.  Does i
  > .matter whether or not a particular school is FAA approved or not?  It seem
  > .that the FAA schools operate under part 61 and the non-FAA approved school
  > .operate under part 41.

You got it a bit confuddled.  The two FAR parts that control things are
Part 61, which outlines the requirements for getting the various
certificates and ratings, and Part 141, which is concerned with a
particular curriculum.

A Pt. 141 school has a very rigidly defined curriculum, with phase
checks, etc.  As a result of the tight requirements, there is a
theoretical advantage to a Pt. 141 school, in the form of reduced
experience requirements.  This is, in most cases, not significant.  The
average student takes about 65 hours of flight experience to be signed
off for a checkride.  So, it doesn't make much difference if the legal
requirement is 35 or 40 hours.  I personally PREFER a Pt. 61 school,
because things can be a bit more flexible.  The instructor can more
easily tailor things to your desires.

The most important factors in choosing a school are SAFETY and the
instructors.  Ask around among the existing students and see if they've
had problems with the aircraft.  Ask pilots based at the field.  Do
whatever you can to assure yourself that the equipment is well
maintained and reliable.

Then ask about the instructors.  Get opinions about good and bad
instructors.  But remember, an instructor has to be good FOR YOU!  You
have to be able to work well with the instructor.  This is a very
individual thing.  If you start with an instructor and you don't feel
that the "fit" is right, don't be afraid to go to another instructor.
Or talk to the Chief Pilot/Chief Instructor of the school.

  > .               Also, is it important to learn at a larger airport
  > .with a tower or is it okay to learn at a smaller airport with no tower?
  > .The school at the larger airport (this is the FAA approved school)
  > .suggested that it was better to learn at a larger airport because you lear
  > .how to use the radio and deal with heavy traffic situations right away.

I agree.  I did my primary training at HPN - Westchester County Airport.
It has a good mix of students, Bizjets, scheduled traffic, and chaos.
After doing my training there, I wasn't intimidated going into ANY
other field.  It's important to get training at both tower
and non-tower fields, however.  If you plan to fly into many
tower-controlled fields, you'll probably feel more comfortable if you do
your training at a tower field and get more experience there...

        D/

 * OLX 2.2 * Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                            
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.simulator,rec.aviation.student
From: Hal <blacker@arco.com>
Subject: Re: Second Try FS 4.0 instruction, power <-> airspeed
Organization: Arco
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1b2
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:56:31 GMT

Subject: FS 4.0 instruction, power <-> airspeed 
From: Yiannis Papelis, yiannis@ccad.uiowa.edu
In article <1992Nov18.212846.28309@ccad.uiowa.edu> Yiannis Papelis,
yiannis@ccad.uiowa.edu writes:
>
>I haven't played with the instruction mode of FS 4.0 since before
>I got my licence....
>
>During the approach lesson I noticed it said to use power
>to control the airspeed.  I was taught that power controls altitude
>and elevator controls airspeed, at least within certain envelope limits.
>
>Because of that I was wondering, is this kind of advice shared by
>all instructors, or each uses their own ideas for teaching?


You are right about using power to contol altitude.  I was taught to fly 
that way and I taught the same when I was an instructor.  I
still believe this to be correct for VFR flight. 

An instrument approach is slightly different.  You are doing more than
changing altitude, you are tightly controlling descent and airspeed
(and direction) during the appraoch down the glide slope.  To do
this, you have to know descent power and have it set at the start of
the approach.  You then fly to the glideslope and trim power based on
airspeed.  Trying to hold the glideslope using power will work with a
few relatively slow single engine airplanes, but with a high
performance, heavier airplane there will be too much lag between power
changes and plane response. It is better to have your speed wander a
little bit than to get off the glide slope, particularly on an
appoach to minimums.

Hal Blacker
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: inglis_p@apollo.HP.COM (Pete Inglis)
Subject: Spousal support
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:36:31 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

I want to thank all who contributed to the
discussion on dealing with S/Os when trying
to be an airperson.
Mine says she'll go up when the sky turns pink.
Wish me luck.
Pete
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.misc,rec.avaiation.soaring
From: c60c-3gi@web-3c.berkeley.edu (Masayuki Karahashi)
Subject: learning how to fly gliders
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:23:59 GMT

OK, its opinion time again...As some of you already may know from my 
previous postings, I am having trouble getting a third class medical
so I can start learning for a private.  But, I have found out despite
that fact, I *can* self-sertify myself for glider operation without
lying (about having prior knowledge of medical problems that would
prevent me from flying gliders safely)..

now having that fact said, I need to know what experienced people think of
taking glider lessons in the winter instead of summer when the weather would
probably be much better.  I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, so the
weather difference isn't too much, but I don't know if it is enough to
make a difference for a first time glider flyer.  Opinions?

Also, could anyone tell me what I should be expecting to pay for all my
lessons, including both ground and air?  And what is the cheapest way of
doing this, without comprimising my education in the subject?

thanks in advance.

---Masayuki Karahashi
c60c-3gi@web.berkeley.edu
"I think its time to change major"
From: kennykb@dssv01.crd.ge.com (Kevin B. Kenny)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re:  Questionable Questions on the Written
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:53:52 GMT
Reply-To: kennykb@crd.ge.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: GE R&D, Information Architectures & Management Program


Thanks to all who responded about my problem with the ASA test guide.
The consensus seems to be that I'm right on all the questions that I
posted, and the answer key is wrong.  There's some controversy about
the question about which wing(s) is/are stalled in a spin, but the
disagreement centers around the definition of stalled (a stall isn't
an all-or-nothing proposition; obviously, the outside wing must be
developing some lift or there would be no autorotation).  In
particular, Dave Hightower <hightowr@cadre.af.mil> mentions that he
gave the answer, `both wings are stalled,' on his written, and got it
right, according to our good friends in Oklahoma City.

Particular thanks go to Gary Martin <gmartin.f15@mhs.elan.af.mil>, who
also pointed out a few more typos in the test prep book, and one
question that both ASA and I had got wrong.  On the whole, I gather
that the Gleim book is more carefully edited, and perhaps I should
have got that instead.

Also, thanks for personal replies:

"areyes!rhenders@uunet.uu.net"
Dave Anderson <dla@westford.ccur.com>
Moshe Braner <braner@trantor.emba.uvm.edu>
Pat Bryant <patb@dsd.mentorg.com>
Jeff Dunkle <jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Robert Herndon <rh@craycos.com>
David Hightower <dth@shark.cis.ufl.edu>
Brian Lewis <startek!Brian_Lewis@csn.org>
Les Niles <niles@parc.xeorx.edu>
Clifton S. Okamoto <okamoto@etdesg.trw.com>
Mike Parker <mparker@mv.us.adobe.com>
Darin Petersen <Maverick@buhub.berkeley.edu>
Keith Peterson <petersk@orange.rtsg.mot.com>
Malcolm Sanders <sanders-malcolm@cs.yale.edu>
Michael Vinson <mjv1@midway.uchicago.edu>
Jeffery Westbrook <westbrook-jeffery@cs.yale.edu>

Still got some memorization of factoids to do... but getting ready to
nail the test....

73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin          There isn't any .signature virus, is there?
From: ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: Seen on DUATS / Brain
Date: 16 Nov 1992 15:33:21 GMT
Organization: BDS Systems
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.bds.com

I don't think it is that bad.  I presume we are talking about the
forcasts and advisories here.  They're already textual, just missing
some vowels.  I don't think that it would increase my down load.  What
would be silly would be getting rid of the rather straight forward
abbreviated SA's, winds aloft, and radar summaries which get rather
voluminously exanded by the plain text briefers.

-Ron
From: junio@bi.twinsun.com (Jun Hamano)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Free lunch?
Date: 16 Nov 1992 13:38:13 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Yesterday when I was trying to figure out where I would like to
go on my solo cross country, somebody told me that at California
City solo XC student pilots can get a free burger.  Does anybody
know of other places where we can get something like that?

--
      |
   __-+-__      Jun Hamano
_-+ (|o|) +-_   junio@twinsun.com
  !   .   !
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student