HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rfh3273@galileo.rtn.ca.boeing.com (Dick Harrigill)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Sharing Flight Expenses
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:52:54 GMT
Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle

In article <1940122@hpgrla.gr.hp.com> joell@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Joel Larner) writes:
>Another question on sharing expenses:  

Seems like this topic comes up 2-3 times every year.

>What constitutes "sharing"?...
>What do people think?

I doesn't matter what people think.  It matters how the FAR is
interpreted by the FAA and the judge that would rule if you were
charged with such an offense.

Even though the FAR does not state that the expenses need to be
shared equally, nearly every ruling has stated that the expenses
must be shared equally.  Logic or fairness does not prevail,
but legal precident that has already been set.

When laws are vague or ambiguous, the interpretation is left
to the courts and other controlling agencies.  Once a precident
is set, it is very hard to change.  Know what precidents have
been set before you challenge or interpret a rule.  Otherwise,
you may find yourself in deep doodoo.


-- 
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
From: martinl@torolab6.VNET.IBM.COM
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 16:39:06 EDT
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: What is Redout?
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not those of IBM
News-Software: Usenet 3.0

Somebody was writing about Falcon 3.0 here recently:

> Falcon has... ... and even the blackout/redout features.

I know what blackout is, but what is redout? I'm sure I know what you
think you mean, but:

1. Has it happened to you or anyone you know?
2. What circumstances?

None of my flying friends have heard of this happening to anyone, least
of all themselves.

Just curious.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: blean@rwb.esd.sgi.com (Bob Blean)
Subject: maule M8
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 03:10:07 GMT

I thought I posted this once, but I have not seen it -- apologies if it
is a duplicate.

I have seen references to a Maule M8.  Can someone please tell me howw
it differs from the other Maules?


-- 
-- Bob
("Our life is frittered away by detail.  Simplify, simplify."  H.D. Thoreau)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: geo@netcom.com (George Pontis)
Subject: O2 mask recommendation needed
Summary: Author seeks advice to purchase an oxygen mask
Keywords: O2 Oxygen mask
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 04:09:31 GMT

Fellow aviators,
I'm interested in buying an oxygen mask for occasional use in a Mooney 231.
The plane is capable of flight well over FL200. I've seen the nasal cannula
jobs at our local airport "shoppe" for about $80, which seems like a rip.
Are there any better alternatives in that price range, should I spend more,
or what. I've only used the mask-with-mic type in the past, and it seemed
to be a pain to put on, but basically OK. Your thoughts ?

George ( geo@netcom.com )
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: stephens@access.digex.com (John Stephens)
Subject: Re: Any comments about the El Al crash?
Organization: Severn Companies, Inc., Lanham, MD 20706
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:11:51 GMT

In article <6OCT199207332114@zeus.tamu.edu> sam4628@zeus.tamu.edu (MCCLUNEY, STEVEN ALEXANDER) writes:
>In article <LHE.92Oct6082922@yang.sics.se>, lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson) writes...
>>When something like this happens the media starts writing lots of
>>funny stuff about aviation. In Swedish newspapers I read yesterday
>>that the 747 is unusual in that it is "stable", meaning that it can
>>land with all engines failed. Today I read that the 747 engine mounts
>>are designed so that the engines actually fall off the aircraft if
>>they have been damaged enough.
>> 
>>This latter statement seems totally incredible. I would have dismissed
>>it straight away if it wasn't for alleged quotes by Boing people
>>supporting it.
>> 
>>Does anyone know if this really IS true?!?
>> 
>>--
>
>According to my old flight instructor (flight engineer, 727; copilot, 737;
>I think he's in 767's now) many (perhaps all?) Boeing planes are designed
>such that if an engine is vibrating badly it will come off before doing
>damage to the rest of the plane.  As far as I know, this only applies
>to engine vibration (i.e. they can't 'eject' an engine which is on fire).
>
I believe that all large jet aircraft, starting with the DC-8 or even before,
are constructed so that an engine will break away from the wing before G-loads
will deform the wing due to the engines weight.  There are specific "break-away"
bolts holding the engine to the wing for that purpose.  These usually get
to do their stuff only in the event of a VERY HARD landing where the wing
would otherwise be strained too much to permit flight to continue safely.

I don't believe the engines are designed to break away in any other
circumstances, and am very sure that they cannot be "jetisoned" by the pilot.

John Stephens.
From: phil@muppet.bt.co.uk (Phil Houseago DNM22)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: What is Redout?
Date: 14 Oct 92 10:29:43 GMT
Reply-To: phil@muppet.bt.co.uk
Organization: British Telecom

In article 609@almaden.ibm.com, martinl@torolab6.VNET.IBM.COM () writes:
##Somebody was writing about Falcon 3.0 here recently:
##
##> Falcon has... ... and even the blackout/redout features.
##
##I know what blackout is, but what is redout? I'm sure I know what you
##think you mean, but:
##
##1. Has it happened to you or anyone you know?
##2. What circumstances?
##
##None of my flying friends have heard of this happening to anyone, least
##of all themselves.
##
##Just curious.


isn't that an inverse blackout - like if an inside loop gives a blackout - no blood to the brain
an outside loop gives redout - too much blood to the brain.


---
phil houseago - 73 de g8sgb	|Isn't it midnight somewhere??   
phil@muppet.bt.co.uk		|shouldn't I be asleep??
 +44 473 648 199		|
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: pdb1@ra.msstate.edu (Philip D Bridges)
Subject: Re: thrust measurements
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:25:44 GMT

Tieing the aircraft to a scale is actually a pretty good way
to measure the static thrust. We have used this technique at 
our flight test laboratory and have tested several aircraft.
The last ones we tested had ducted propellers, with engines
in the range of 300-700 hp. We would see roughly 6 lbs/hp
of thrust. With an unducted propeller I would guess you will
get 60-70% of that, or roughly 4 lbs/hp. Be sure your tiedown
and the aircraft structure you attach to is strong enough to
take the load, and be sure that there is nothing in front of
the aircraft when you test it. If the tiedown fails, you need
plenty of room to stop safely. You will also see that there will
be a lot of fluctuation on your scale when you measure the
static thrust, so don't be surprised. Just try to get a good
average.
 Hope this helps.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|      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: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Auto Engines: Montana Coyote
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:34:32 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <3qzz=b@rpi.edu>, leonam@aix02.ecs.rpi.edu writes:
> 
> That said, does anyone have more information about the Montana Coyote than
> was contained in last year's _Janes_?  It is a Kitfox-style two seat STOL
> airplane, designed to use the 130HP (?) Honda Prelude engine.

Hmm, you mean the Coyote in which some factory rep hit the starter at 
the display booth at Oshkosh at nailed some guy on the shoulder with the 
prop?  Nope, I don't know much about it, but I've seen a positive review
(or maybe it was just a positive statement) of it in a magazine somewhere.

(Sorry about the story, but that kind of stupidity makes me pretty angry).

> On a related subject, does anyone know just what the chain of association/
> lineage is between Avid, Denney (Skystar?), and Montana Coyote?

The Kitfox is descended from the Avid Flyer.  Don't know about the Montana
Coyote, but I think the lineage (if any) is far less direct.
-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt

That was probably a customized engined based paraglider. The french seem to
be the leaders in this domain. It's also the ultimate ULA. Engine + paraglider
ways less than 30 kg, is mounted like a backpack and costs about $7000. In kit
form it's probably even less. There are quite a few magazines available on
the subject in this area.

Johan,
HP Geneva,
Switzerland
From: ST402421@brownvm.brown.edu (Chris Paine)
Subject: liquid cooled engines
Organization: Brown University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:37:52 GMT

An interesting problem occurs with water-cooled engines in aircraft:
I once was speaking with a Lycoming engineer, who said they didn't like
water cooling because "at higher altitudes the filming rate on the liquid
side is reduced."  Finally figured out he meant that the water boils at
a lower temperature at reduced air pressure.  Sure, I knew that, but what
a way to express it.  Oh well, he's an engineer and I'm a physicist, we
don't talk the same language.
But the result is:  If you run the radiator at ambient pressure, your
cooling power decreases with altitude (while, admittedly, increasing
due to cooler air at altitude).  If you pressurize the radiator to a
fixed pressure above ambient you gain something but still see a decrease
with altitude, and the failure modes (leaks) tend to be catastrophic.





















Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: scostant@cc.curtin.edu.au
Subject: EXEC 90 Helicopter kit?
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 23:59:37 GMT

Does anyone out there own/built/flown a EXEC 90 helicopter kit? I was reading
an aviation magazine and saw this kit advertised. For a homebuilt helicopter,
it certainly looks impressive, but what is it like to actually fly etc. Is it
a difficult and time consuming kit to put together? 

COZZIE                           
(Scostant@cc.curtin.edu.au)              
Ph D student                           
School of Biomedical Sciences,     
Curtin University,                
Perth, Western Australia                                         
                                                                               
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: enns@waterloo.hp.com (Roger Enns)
Subject: Re: Subaru Power??
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:20:00 GMT
Organization: HP Panacom Div Waterloo ON Canada
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

David Klingler (klingler@pioneer.unm.edu) wrote:

: Check out the Rotax 912 and 914.  They perform well compared to other 
: engines in their class (actually much better) and are modern designs as
: opposed to Lycoming or Continental.  Also check out the Duncan Rotary Aviation
: engines being produced now in Canada.  I have experience with Duncan
: and his engines and they are excellent, with very few moving parts and close
: to 3000 hour TBOs.  Duncan has around 200 engines in the air.
: 
: You can find ads for Duncan Aviation in the back of Kitplanes.
: 
: Dave

I am not convinced at the power output of the Rotax 912.  In
aircraft powered by both the 912 and the 2-stroke 532, the
performance difference is slim to nill in some cases.  Also, the
Rotax 912 costs more than $8000 Can, with the 914 selling for a
few thousand more.

Funny you mentioned Duncan, as I just finished talking with them
yesterday.  They are sending out an info pack, and putting me on
a mailing list.  They produce modified mazda rotaries, both
single and dual rotor engines of HP range 80 to 300.  The single
rotor engine based on the 12A engine produces 80-150hp depending
on state of tune.  This sounded quite optomistic, until I was
told that redline was set at 9000 rpm (GULP!!).  They claim that
high precision rotor balancing allows them to run continuously at
red-line, with no premature stationary gear wearout.

In the latest Kitplanes, they had a large add marketing their
120hp 150lb wet single rotor engine to the BD-5 guys.  Their are
literally thousands of bd5 kits out there in various stages of
completion.  They feel that they have the powerplant required to
get the bd5 into the air.

--
Roger Enns (enns@waterloo.hp.com) Panacom Automation Division, HP
C-GIIV Dragonfly, 1979 RX7 13B, 1985 Colt
From: ericth@i88.isc.com (Eric Thiele)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Auto Engines: Montana Coyote
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:46:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: i88.1992Oct13.184637.25923
Organization: INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation, Naperville, IL

Kitplanes did an article on the Coyote about 6 months ago.  the only factoid
I recall is that the founder of Montana Coyote was a co-founder of Avid, and
still retains 10% ownership in Avid.

Eric Thiele
From: yiannis@ccad.uiowa.edu (Yiannis Papelis)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: thrust measurements
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:42:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: ccad.1992Oct15.174234.13343
Organization: CAD-Research, University of Iowa, Iowa City

>I will go out on a limb here, and suggest that you just measure the
>acceleration of your dragonfly from a standing start to a low speed
>or a short distance.  By knowing how quickly it gets off the block,
>you will have a good indication of the thrust produced.

That is an interesting proposition! The effects of drag both from the 
wings and the wheel assembly would be minimized if the speed was low.

The problem with this approach however, would be accurate speed or distance
measurement since it is at low airspeed that the indiators are not 
reliable and the smaller the distance the better the accuracy of
the timing device (stop-watch ??) would have to be.

The October (I think) issue of kitplanes had an article of a person
that used a scales tied to a fixed base being pulled
by the plane through a rope.  The purspose was to find the best
prop for the given engine.  It seemed it worked OK.

-- 
Yiannis E. Papelis,            - Electrical & Computer Engineering, U of Iowa
Center of Computer Aided Design- Home of the Iowa Driving Simulator & future
e-mail: yiannis@ccad.uiowa.edu - home of the National Advanced Driving Simulator
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Subject: Re: Attitude about Homebuilts (was: Cost of owning)
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:41:18 GMT

The latest Aviation Consumer has reviews of the Avid and Kitfox planes.
I know and like Charlie (Tuna) DeRego of Avid, but I have no other connection 
with either company. The comments made in the article could apply to most
any kitplane. The main point of the article seems to be that $$ for $$ you
get a better tested better handling plane by buying a used certificated
aircraft. I own a 1971 Cessna 172, and think they are probably right. I think that if the main interest is in flying, then a good used plane is the right
choice. Decent used Cessnas can be bought for something like $20,000, which
is also near the bottom of the kitplane market for something with more than
one seat and similar performance.

But I also have a strong desire to build an airplane, so I am still looking for a 
plane that meets 3 requirements:

	1) a plane I want to build : 
	     materials/methods I enjoy using because I know it will take
	     a very long time and I will not finish if I am not having fun
	2) a plane I will want to fly: 
             with conventional enough handling that a normal
	     200 hr Cessna pilot like me will not be terrified of taking
	     the family along (the family needs to fit)
	3) a kit that will be around:
	     for sale by somebody that I trust enough as 
	     a businessperson. I want to trust the ability
	     of the company to supply me with parts and assistance till
	     I am done flight testing the machine.

So far I have only found planes that satisfy one on the above, some #1, 
some #2 and some #3, but never all 3. I think that I may have found a
kit that satisfies 2 of the above, but I will have to visit the "factory"
to form an opinion about requirement #3.

Searching searching ...

David		doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

The thought police insist I tell you:
my thoughts, not NASA's
From: enns@waterloo.hp.com (Roger Enns)
Subject: Re: Cost of owning
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:38:06 GMT
Organization: HP Panacom Div Waterloo ON Canada
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Mike Serafin (serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com) wrote:
: In article <Bvuyx7.2po@waterloo.hp.com> enns@waterloo.hp.com (Roger Enns) writes:
: >
: >Insurance - I have never owned a certified aircraft, so I can't
: >        compare here, but I know that I pay $60/yr for third
: >	party liability, and also an optional $190/yr for
: >	passenger liability.  If you always fly alone, or build a
: >	single seater, insurance can be as low as a measly $60
: >	per year!  I honestly expected to pay much more, but I'm
: >	not complaining :-)
: >
:                                              
: I think you proably would pay considerably more if you had hull coverage also.
: Can you even get hull insurance on a homebuilt?  It seems to me that after
: putting in that kind of work, you would want to be able to recoup some of the 
: cost if something happened like a hangar burning down.  I know the hull
: coverage makes a big difference on the cost of insurance on my 310.  
: 
 
 To amend my previous post, no hull insurance is not included,
 but it is available for 1.5% of aircraft value per year.  Value
 determination is difficult with a homebuilt, but my impression
 was that you could just state a reasonable value for your
 aircraft, and use that as a basis for premium calculations and
 maximum claim value.

--
Roger Enns (enns@waterloo.hp.com) Panacom Automation Division, HP
C-GIIV Dragonfly, 1979 RX7 13B, 1985 Colt
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: klingler@pioneer.unm.edu (David Klingler)
Subject: Re: Subaru Power??
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 16:21:12 GMT
Organization: Space and Planetary Image Facility

Oops, that was meant to be "extra 50 pounds" in that last post regarding the
weight of the Duncan single rotor in a BD-5.  

Dave

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Subject: Re: Avid, Denney ... (was:Auto Engines: Montana Coyote)
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:56:58 GMT

In article <3qzz=b@rpi.edu>, leonam@aix02.ecs.rpi.edu () writes:
|> ... other stuff ...
|> 
|> On a related subject, does anyone know just what the chain of association/
|> lineage is between Avid, Denney (Skystar?), and Montana Coyote?
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The latest Aviation Consumer flight tested these two and gave some history
about their sometimes not-so-friendly (all in the past now) competition.

David		doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

The thought police insist I tell you:
my thoughts, not NASA's
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: carlson@linac.fnal.gov (Kermit Carlson)
Subject: Re: paint spray guns
Organization: Fermilab, Batavia, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:13:05 GMT

In article <leftwich-081092145004@leftwich.ucs.indiana.edu> leftwich@indiana.edu (Brad Leftwich) writes:
>I'm in the market for a paint spray gun. I'd like to hear from anyone who's
>had good or bad experiences with any particular product.
>
>A friend says he's heard good things about the Croix systems, which use
>lower pressure and heated air. The advantages, supposedly, are that with
>lower pressure you blow more paint on your surface and less into the
>atmosphere; and with heated air the paint dries faster, running less risk
>of temperature/humidity related problems like blushing and runs. Has anyone
>used one of these? Thanks,
>
>--Brad Leftwich
>  leftwich@indiana.edu

   Just cleaned mine up about twelve hours ago.... Brad, if
you plan on painting, use the Croix. It +REALLY+ works fine
once you have mastered how to operate the gun. I am no real
artist but the results I have had using the Croix system have
been better than expected!
   The lack of excessive overspray makes clean-up much easier and
prevents "speckling" the freshly paint surface a few feet away....
It takes some experience with the system but the Croix is a 
real improvement over conventional guns. Good Luck...

                                                Kermit

p.s. of course dont forget goggles and a respirator...
From: ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: EXEC 90 Helicopter kit?
Date: 12 Oct 1992 14:22:00 GMT
Organization: BDS Systems
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.bds.com

One thing I'd check is you height versus it's size.  I've seen a couple
of these small rotorcraft that the brochures read "accomodates pilots up
to 64 inches tall"  

-Ron
From: joep@abraxas.lpl.Arizona.EDU (Joe Plassmann)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Subaru Power??
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:09:39 GMT
Reply-To: joep@asgard.lpl.arizona.edu
Organization: Lunar and Planetary Laboratory - West

In article <1992Oct6.232220.10993@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
eap@leland.Stanford.EDU (Eric Perozziello) writes:

|> I beleive it does. The heavier (MW of O2= 32 AMU) tends to stay in
|> the
|> lower atmosphere more than the lighter (N2=28 AMU) nitrogen
|> molecules.

The ratio does change, but not until you get REALLY high.

From my handy-dandy CRC manual (1980-1981 edition), I get:

ICAO standard atmosphere (by volume)
78.084% +- 0.004 N2
20.946% +- 0.002 O2
...

According to the accompanying tables I infer that these percentages do
not change until
you are past 90 km in altitude. Mean molecular weight is 28.966 from sea
level to 
90,000 m. Past this point the mean molecular weight drops off.

At that altitude the atmospheric density is 3.213E-6 kg/m^3. I doubt the
ol' Subaru is
going to push you that high, not without a little rocket assist :-).

My secondary reference is Charles Houston's book "Going Higher", where
he states that the
atmospheric percentage of oxygen does not change from sea level to at
least 29,000 feet.
This is from memory however.

-- 
Joe Plassmann, Systems Programmer  |
Internet:joep@asgard.lpl.arizona.edu
909-A Gould Simpson                |         
plassmann@looney.lpl.arizona.edu
Lunar and Planetary Laboratory-West| SPAN:    LOONEY::PLASSMANN
Tucson AZ 85721                    | phone:   (602)-621-8183