HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Jet performance yet once again (Re: Too hot to fly?!?!)
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 03:52:23 GMT

In article <pz0nb#g.steve@netcom.com> steve@netcom.com (Stephen Williams) writes:
>In article <LHE.92Sep19203820@yang.sics.se> lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson) writes:
>>
>>There is another very important consideration. No only does higher
>>temperature require a higher airspeed for the aircraft to get
>>airborne, but it also decreases engine power. The reason is the same -
>>lower air density.
>
>Caveat: I'm not an expert, but here goes...
>
>For jet engines, the trouble is not with air density: a typical turbojet
>burns only a small amount of the oxygen with fuel. The turbines, which
>are in the exhaust stream, cannot handle excessive temperatures, so the
>fuel is limited to burn less and create less heat.

For jet engines, mass flow is the significant parameter.  For a given 
turbine rotational velocity, a jet engine will produce less thrust at a 
lower atmospheric density than at a higher atmospheric density.  

>The inlet temperature (temperature of air entering the engine) can
>thus limit performance of the engine, reguardless of altitude: the
>hotter the air, the less fuel can be safely injected in the engines:
>Burning fuel adds heat to already hotter air.  Thus the performance
>of a turbojet INCREASES with altitude because the ambient air temperature
>decreases with altitude.

Nope.  For instance, a JT8D-15 (used in the 727 and DC-9) produces a max. of 
around 3500 lbs at 30000', vs.  some 15,000 lbs at sea level, at the same 
rating.  



---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.student
From: ulick@angelico.helios.nd.edu (Ulick Stafford)
Subject: Re: Solo Rites
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 21:49:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.155331.11240@exu.ericsson.se> exurlsr@exu.ericsson.se writes:
>
>I did my first solo in the morning before work.   I had on one of my favorite shirts.
>My instructor cut the whole back out.  I had to drive home and get a new shirt.
>
>My friend at the same school, but a different instructor walked away with his
>shirt intact.  
>
>I missed my shirt, but he missed more.

I made a point of wearing one of my least favorite T-shirts when I did my
solo, knowing the back would be cut out and used as a canvas for an 'artwork'
by my instructor.  I still have the rest of the shirt, but regret that I
hadn't worn a better one.  Perhaps I should have worn a dark shirt.  Paint
on that, buster :-).


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 
+ 'There was a  master come unto the earth, + Ulick Stafford, PP-ASEL       +
+    born in the holy land of Indiana,      + Dept of Chemical Engineering, +
+ in the mystical hills east of Fort Wayne'.+ Notre Dame, IN 46556          +
+      B'fhearr liom bheith ag eitilt.      +    ulick@bach.helios.nd.edu   +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: dst+@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky)
Subject: logging vs. acting = credit vs. blame
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:32:33 GMT


Here's another way to understand why the regulations distinguish between
logging PIC time vs. acting as PIC.

The rules for *logging* PIC time determine who gets "credit" for the flight,
i.e., who gets to rack up experience points in their logbook and increase
their stature in the eyes of the FAA and insurance companies.

The rules for *acting* as PIC determine who gets the "blame" for the flight.
Bend some metal or bust an FAR and the FAA will come looking for you.  The
ability to *act* as PIC means the ability to serve as an acceptable
sacrifical lamb if the feds want blood.

Imagine that two private pilots go flying in a Mooney.  Only pilot A handles
the controls, but only pilot B has a complex airplane endorsement.  Because
pilot A has a private ticket and is the sole manipulator of the controls, he
gets credit for the flight if everything goes okay.  (This is fair, since,
he did all the work.)  Because pilot B has the complex airplane endorsement,
only he can be *acting* PIC for the flight.  He gets the blame if things go
poorly.

If pilot B were a CFI, then both A and B can take PIC credit for the flight
in their logbooks.  Pilot A earns his credit by manipulating the controls,
while pilot B earns his credit by providing flight instruction to A.  If
things go badly, though, then it's pilot B, as *acting* PIC, who must answer
to the feds.

The right to log PIC time comes from having paid one's dues.  Student pilots
of course *act* as PIC on solo flights -- they get the blame if something
goes wrong.  But they can't *log* PIC time yet, because they haven't paid
their dues.  CFIs have paid a lot of dues, so they get to log time even when
they don't touch the controls.  Logging time from the back seat is
considered poor form, though.

-- Dave Touretzky,  CFI-AIM,  Seneca N8148E (``The Beast'')
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: robie@umbc4.umbc.edu (Mr. William Robie; POSI (GRAD))
Subject: Re: What did you do to the rest of your shirt?
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:42:41 GMT

In article <9209270621.AA24954@shadow.twinsun.com> junio@shadow.twinsun.com (Jun Hamano) writes:
>My instructor cut the
>back of it with scissors and hanged it on a wall of the FBO,
>leaving me in the wrecked shirt.  The first thing I'm going to do
>would be to wash it (the day was hot and I was sweating a lot),
>but what would I do next?
>
>  Do I hang it on a wall in my office?  May I ask net.aviators
>what they did to theirs?

Save it and use it the first time you wax that plane that you will
eventually buy.  ;-)

Bill


Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: aboyd@quantum.on.ca (Andrew Boyd)
Subject: Re: Trivia question - additional clarification
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 16:37:34 GMT
Organization: Quantum Software Systems
Distribution: na

In article <2178@usna.NAVY.MIL> dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)) 
writes:
>!an aircraft. There would really be no need for a high performance
>!checkout in such a case (a very unusual case, indeed).
>
>... does not have a high-performance endorsement in his Civilian
>log book. You should have seen the Examiner's face when
>we told him what aircraft was to be used. It was wonderful!

not so unusual.  I flew my private flight test, years ago, in my maule
(210 HP, C/S prop, tailwheel).  It was complicated by the fact that you
have to demonstrate two spins on the flight test (up here), so I had to
go up twice with the examiner - once in a C-172 for the spins, then for
the rest of the test in my maule, which is not legal for spinning.

Mind you, we don't have all those funny endorsements that you have down
there, like high performance (200HP or RG?) and tailwheel (and high 
altitude?).

Up here a high performance a/c is defined by Vso >= 80K and Vne >= 250K,
and your license must be endorsed for each high performance a/c type that 
you wish to act as PIC of (again, PIC is defined differently up here,
and has little to do with who fondles, er, manipulates the controls).

I believe the intent of this is to stop people with excessive money-to-
brains ratio (typically doctors and lawyers) from jumping directly from
a C-150 into a warbird and offing themselves.  I think darwin had something 
to say about that kind of pilot, but I suspect our DOT was concerned about
the irreplaceable airframes :-)

----
#include <std.disclaimer>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: gear-down check
Keywords: gear-down, FAA
From: stick@lopez.marquette.MI.US (Stick,CommoSigop)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:32:10 EDT
Organization: Great White North/UPLink

   The idea of making it ATC's responsibility for issuing a "gear down"
check is wrong.  The ultimate responsibility belongs to the pilot.  Always
has, always will.  If said pilot would follow checklist procedures ALL THE
TIME, an inadverdent gear-up landing would never occur.
From: kimminau@usafa.af.mil (Pam Kimminau)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: LongEze for sale!
Summary: $24,000 negotiable
Keywords: airplane sale aviation homebuilt
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:15:18 GMT
Organization: United States Air Force Academy

Gregg Verser (719) 570-1448 

Selling a LongEze, 7.5 gph, 50 gal. total, mode C transponder, VHF comm.
175 mph true, 155 mph indicated, Lycoming O-235, 1100 tt, 2200 tbo,
$24,000 negotiable.....call if interested!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: willcr@bud.sos.ivy.isc.com (Will Crowder)
Subject: Re: Close Encounter - Balloon/Airplane
Followup-To: rec.aviation
Reply-To: willcr@ivy.isc.com
Organization: Interactive Systems Corp.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:25:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.121204.28520@genrad.com>, dls@genrad.com (Diana
L. Syriac) writes:

|> I have but one thing to say about this matter of whether or not "200 feet"
|> is clear enough.  For a SLOW airplane that is taking off at 60 knots, he
|> travels approximately 100 feet per second.  In other words 200 feet go by
|> in just two seconds.  Reaction time of a normal human is on the order of 
|> 1-2 seconds (before they realize something must be done and acts to change
|> that).  How much time is left to avoid now?  I'll leave the math to the
|> net.

FIRST: I'm not taking either side in this one.  I agree with the
apparent majority of the net who think that we "just don't know" enough
about the situation to form an informed opinion.

Now, as to the quoted material above:

	o From what source is your statement that the "normal human"
	  requires "1-2 seconds (before they realize that something
	  must be done and acts to change that)"?  I've always
	  heard values (also without a source, that's why I'm
	  asking) in the 1/4 to 1/2 second range, at the most.  Indeed,
	  there have certainly been a few times on LA freeways where I
	  wouldn't be here writing this post if I'd taken 1-2 seconds
	  to react!  :) :)

	o We don't know what the the closure rate with the balloon was.

	o In any case, the fixed wing pilot almost certainly had the
	  balloon in sight before starting his takeoff roll, thus
	  giving him substantially more than 2 seconds to plan and
	  execute his avoidance maneuver.

Will
PP-ASEL-IA
-- 
Will Crowder                        | "Any airplane you can't roll ain't
Senior Member of Technical Staff    |    no damn good!"
(willcr@ivy.isc.com)                |       -- Tex Johnston
INTERACTIVE Systems Corp.           |
From: jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: LCFI - October 24th
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:39:49 GMT
Organization: Pomona College

Hello, good people,

I received a few more responses to the LCFI announcement, so I think it's
about time for an update:

	Where:	Oceano County (L52), CA
	When :	October 24th, noon

Activities available: horse backriding, beach walks, camping (res. req.
		      through Ticketron), fishing from the shore and
		      deep seap, clam forks for rent.

Restaurants:	      many within walking distance. Also, a nearby park
		      has a picnic area available, which could be an
		      alternative to going to a restaurant.

List of attendees so far:

Les Niles		niles@parc.xerox.com			SJC
C-182			N2461G					2 seats

Alan Marcum		amm@NeXT.COM				PAO
M231			N1082Y					3 seats

Scott Dickson		scott@ontek.com				CRQ area
Passenger wannabe

Jordan Brown		jbrown@qdeck.com			SMO
Comanche		N6755P					2 seats

Bob Moragues            rym20@cd.amdahl.com                     RHV
Warrior                 N47389                                  Possibly 1 seat

Claude Goldsmith	claude@sunfse.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com	HWD
Mooney M20C		N6416U					0 seats

Javier Henderson	jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu		POC
Archer II		N3837N					0 seats

Pilots: if you plan on attending, please send me email, indicating tail
number, departure airport, number of seats available.

Passengers: please send me email, indicating what area you wish to depart
from.

Incidentally, almost everyone suggested a restaurant so far instead of a picnic.

Hope to see you all there!

______________________________________________________________________________
Javier Henderson, N6VBG         | Beat the 55mph limit (legally):
jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu | Learn to fly!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus)
Subject: Re: Logging PIC (sorry ... sigh )
Keywords: PIC, logging
Organization: Taligent, a little subsidiary of two really big companies.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:46:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.221940.6732@tera.com> erik@tera.com (Erik Hedberg) writes:
>In the legal limit, I'm not the "sole manipulator of the controls"
>during the demonstration, so I can't log the time of the demo, right?

Right.

>In practice, of course, it usually takes less than 0.1 hours for such
>a demo, so it doesn't affect the log book, right?

Right.
--
-- Christophe

"Black is the color of non-conformity.  Everyone has to have it."
	T-shirt company executive
From: myshatyn@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Mike Myshatyn)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:09:20 GMT
Subject: Re: What did you do to the rest of your shirt?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

Bill Robie replies...

> >  Do I hang it (shirt) on a wall in my office?  May I ask net.aviators
> >  what they did to theirs?
> 
> Save it and use it the first time you wax that plane that you will
> eventually buy.  ;-)

The truth hurts.


--
 Mike Myshatyn    Bonanza N4896J           Hewlett-Packard Company
   ASEL/AMEL COMM, INSTR, CFI-IA           User-Interface Technology Division
 ...!hplabs!fc.hp.com!myshatyn             Ft. Collins, CO  80525
 or ... myshatyn@fc.hp.com                 (303) 229-4067
From: lmcgee@bondo.corp.sgi.com (Lee McGee)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Another trivia question
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:58:29 GMT
Reply-To: lmcgee@sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics Corp IS

|> >In Kansas, my brother goes flying with a friend in a Bucker Jungman
|> >(sp?).  In the flight, he does rolls, loops, inverted, spins, and
|> >other aerobatic maneuvers.  Neither pilot wears a parachute.  The
|> >airplane and the pilots are realtively young (no grandfathered rules).
|> >The flight is legal.  How?

Ummm.  The friend was at the controls but was a little heavy-handed
with the Jungmann?  None of the maneuvers were intentional?  Would
that do it?

Or.  The Jungmann flew into a Kansas tornado?

I anxiously await to hear the real answer on this one.

-- 
________________________________________________________________

Lee McGee
Silicon Graphics, Inc		"Simplicity, then add lightness"
lmcgee@sgi.com			   
PHONE (415) 390-2403	               
FAX   (415) 961-9584	           
PAGE  (415) 807-2246
From: osh@cray.com (O'Shaughnessy John)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Look out, left coasters!
Date: 29 Sep 92 22:00:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cray Research, Inc, Mendota Heights, MN



I'll be there for InterOp too.  It would be great to get a group of
rec.aviators together.   

(Who knows, maybe even arrange a fly-out some evening?)


John
-- 
-----
John M. O'Shaughnessy					osh@a00308.cray.com
Cray Research, Inc.	Voice: 612.683.7322		Fax: 612.683.7509
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: dougg@kbsw1.uucp (Doug Gerecht 806 1031)
Subject: Re: *long* cross country
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:27:21
Organization: Kentek Information Systems

In Colorado, at least, the weather is typically very nice, as long as
an arctic front is not moving through (usually every couple of weeks).
The only problem would be that we start to get into the winter pattern
of frequently having the jet stream right over us.  This makes the
high mountains impassable, and even low mountains pretty tough, due to
mountain wave and turbulence.  It seems about half my mountain trips
this time of year get cancelled because of wind.

If you are planning on going over the rockies get some mountain
instruction.  Most FBO's out here give it.  I would hope that you
could find some out east.  There are also several good books on the
subject, though specific titles/authors escape me at the moment.

Sounds like a great flight (just a bit jealous ;)).
-- 

		dougg@kentek.com	Doug Gerecht
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: davea@col.hp.com (Dave Allen)
Subject: Re: GTE CONTEL DUAT new features
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:05:15 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

> It's a good thing CONTEL DUAT is available on the INTERNET, because
> I'd never use it otherwise.  Certainly not with the stupid Golden Eagle
> diskette, I got.  It is the most attrocious communications program
> I've seen in a long time ...

Whew. Easy, folks. Marty from GTE is a valuable resource to the net, and I'd
hate to see him clam up because we take his postings as invitations to vent
about Contel duat.

> Why don't you guys take a look at something like TAPCIS.

Ah. Something that almost borders on a constructive comment, if the poor
guy isn't still ducking. :-(

dave allen - Fly because you love it.
From: jle@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jer/ Eberhard)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:48:16 GMT
Subject: Re: Beginner needs advice...badly!
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

>  I've never heard of anyone doing it in 40 hours.

Now you have!  Private Pilot, ASEL, Part 141, 37.2 hours.

Jer/ Eberhard, (SLASH), HAM = N0FZD     | Hewlett-Packard - MS99, 1UP10,15'East
Pilot: COMM, INST, CFI-Airplane & Glider| 3404 East Harmony Road (303) 229-2861
CAP CFI, Check & Mission, Pikes Peak 218| Fort Collins, Colorado  80525-9599 
EMAIL:  jle@fc.hp.com or Jer_Eberhard@fc.hp.com
From: tetsuji@rai.juice.or.jp (Tetsuji Rai)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: What did you do to the rest of your shirt?
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:41:07 GMT
Organization: Rai's home in Tokyo

In article <1992Sep27.223425.10803@leland.Stanford.EDU> spagiola@frinext.
stanford.edu writes:
>Jun Hamano writes:
>>  Today I was wearing my favorite T-shirt, washed clean and
>> perfectly ironed, which was very unusual.  My instructor cut the
>> back of it with scissors and hanged it on a wall of the FBO,
>> leaving me in the wrecked shirt.
>
>Could somebody clue me in on what's going on here?  Is this some  
>bizarre flying ritual?  Never heard of it before.
>
   Maybe he made his first solo or something.    My instructor at that
time in Hawaii(who used to be an airforce pilot) said that the ritual 
in airforce for the first solo was throwing the student pilot into the pool!
He also said that one student pilot had got his leg or arm broken when thrown
into the pool and that he couldn't fly for a month!

----
RRR              Tetsuji Rai    tetsuji@rai.juice.or.jp
R  R   aaa   i    5-12-21, Toyotamakita, Nerimaku, Tokyo 176, Japan
RRR   a  a   i   voice: +81-3-3557-3936   fax: +81-3-3993-0323
R  R  aaaaa  i
From: gei@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Guenther Eichhorn)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Close Encounter - Balloon/Airplane
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:43:42 GMT
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA


>I have but one thing to say about this matter of whether or not "200 feet"
>is clear enough.  For a SLOW airplane that is taking off at 60 knots, he
>travels approximately 100 feet per second.  In other words 200 feet go by
>in just two seconds.  Reaction time of a normal human is on the order of 
>1-2 seconds (before they realize something must be done and acts to change
>that).  How much time is left to avoid now?  I'll leave the math to the
>net.


>Diana

This talk about reaction times in the balloon encounter is getting to be a little
boring, especially since it is irrelevant in the described situation.
The pilot had several minutes to plan a course to fly and avoid the balloon, not a few
seconds.  The balloon didn't pop up out of nowhere, it was plainly visible from the
runway.  At least that is what I understood from the original post.  There was no
reaction time involved and no unanticipated sharp turns or anything of that sort.
Planning a flight path that passes an object with a closest approach distance of 200'
shouldn't be a big problem for a competent pilot.  If there was an incompetent pilot
on the controls of the airplane, then of course s/he should have stayed on the ground.
But then s/he shouldn't be flying at all.

Guenther Eichhorn                             --------------------
gei@cfa.harvard.edu                             |      /\      |
                                                |      \/      |
                                              --------------------
                                                     /    \
 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: argyle@cg.emr.ca (malcolm argyle)
Subject: Re: For sale Picture of the New York Yankees P
Reply-To: argyle@cg.emr.ca
Organization: Dept. of Energy, Mines & Resources, Canada
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:27:09 GMT

In article 1a9r77INNaib@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu, aa718@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Taras Lawriw) writes:
>
>    I have a 5 1/2 x 4 picture of the New York Yankees private jet.
>It is a Boeing 737-100 great picture am selling them for 2.25 each

I guess you don't have the same ideals as those of the kind people who 
run the Freenet.  Scan it and post it (not here!), and I'll decide for myself 
if it's  a  _great picture_.  Otherwise I'll just call Boeing and tell them I'm 
interested in buying a Boeing 737-100 (family's getting larger, don't you 
know!), and to please send me a brochure and some nice glossy pictures.
 ;-/

Cheers, Malcolm
---
This doesn't reflect their views. Hell, this |Malcolm Argyle
doesn't even reflect my views!               |argyle@cg.emr.ca
                                             |Geological Survey of Canada
                                             |Bldg. 7, 1 Observatory Cres.
                                             |Ottawa, Ont. Canada K1A 0Y3


Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: len@Tandem.com (Len Fishler)
Subject: Re: Another trivia question
Organization: Tandem Computers
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:19:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.203240.5950@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>, mikec@tabasco.lcs.mit.edu (Mike Ciholas) writes:
|> In Kansas, my brother goes flying with a friend in a Bucker Jungman
|> (sp?).  In the flight, he does rolls, loops, inverted, spins, and
|> other aerobatic maneuvers.  Neither pilot wears a parachute.  The
|> airplane and the pilots are realtively young (no grandfathered rules).
|> The flight is legal.  How?

A WAG:
Is one of them a CFI or training to be one?  I recall something about the
parachute rule being inapplicable in the case of training pursuant to 
obtaining a CFI or maintaining currency as a CFI, at least with regards to
spins. 

- Len Fishler -
fishler_len@tandem.com
PP-ASEL-IA
Centurion N3784Y
Newsgroups: rec.aviation