HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: baldwin@cps.msu.edu (Reid A Baldwin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation,rec.aviation.homebuilt,sci.aeronautics
Subject: Pitching Moment of Seaplane Props
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:40:26 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University

A thread has started in rec.aviation.homebuilt regarding the pitching
moment of the tail mounted propeller of the Seawind. Particularly,
how fore-aft movement of the propeller influences the pitching moments.

In article <2239@usna.NAVY.MIL>, dfr@usna.navy.mil (PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)) writes:
|> Marcus Leonard wrote:
|> >> ... The pitching moment due
|> >>to the engine is equal to the thrust multiplied by the distance from the
|> >>thrust line to the CG.  It does not matter where along the thrust line the
|> >>engine is located.
|> >
|> 
|> I have not been following this thread however it does matter where
|> along the thrust line the engine is located. Here's why.
|> 
|> There are 2 moments associated with a propeller:
|> 
|> 1. Direct thrust moment.
|> 
|> This is equal to the thrust times the perpendicular distance from
|> the thrust line to the cg.
|> 
|> 2. Propeller normal force moment.
|> 
|> A propeller at an angle of attack to the airstream generates
|> a force `in the plane' of the propeller disk. The propeller
|> normal force generates a moment equal to the propeller
|> normal force times the distance from the propeller disk
|> to the cg. So it does matter where along the `thrust' line
|> the propeller is located.
|> 
|> Ref. See Etkin `Dynamics of Flight'
|> 
|> Dave Rogers

In what direction is the propeller normal force when the angle of
attack is positive? The moment from this force might help or hurt
with a tail mounted prop. Also, is this force very large relative
to the thrust?

Someone pointed out that mounting the engine on the tail enables
tilting the engine down so that the thrust line is closer to the
CG. That would put the propeller at a negative angle of attack
most of the time.

Reid Baldwin
From: leftwich@indiana.edu (Brad Leftwich)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: High v. Low Wing for Students? EITHER!!
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:17:34 GMT
Followup-To: rec.aviation.student
Distribution: usa
Organization: Indiana University

Personally, I think everyone should learn to fly in biplanes -- that way you get the training advantages of both a low wing and a high wing: You have to climb up on top of the wing to check your fuel, you have to stoop down to drain the sump, you can't see up *or* down in a turn, you can't see over the nose to taxi or to land, and they're tricky in crosswinds and ground handling. But boy are they fun!

--Brad Leftwich (leftwich@indiana.edu)
  Great Lakes 2T-1A N10551
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: s0383619@let.rug.nl (J.J.G.M. Nijhuis)
Subject: Commercial Flight Training
Keywords: The Netherlands/ USA
Organization: Faculteit der Letteren, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, NL
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:49:46 GMT

Hello,

I am a (Dutch) student of Communication at the University of Groningen in 
The Netherlands, and I will graduate in a few months. I have been fascinated 
by aviation all my life and now graduation from university is coming nearer 
I am quite sure that my interest is not in communication problems, nor in 
science in general. My interest and my heart is in aviation. Maybe the past 
years of attending the university will be wasted years, but I have come to 
the conclusion that I want to become a commercial pilot. Anyway, my chances 
of enrolling the Dutch KLM-flying school are nil, because I am too old (I 
will be 28 in november), so the only way is to pay for the training myself. 
Now some problems arise. At a Dutch private flying school the training for 
commercial pilot will cost some 150,000 (some $75,00). There are a few 
Dutch schools that give most of the actual flight training in the USA, 
to reduce costs. Back here in Holland, the students will then be trained 
further to meet the Dutch standards and to obtain the Dutch CPL. 

I would very much like to get in touch with persons who are familiar with 
this way of becoming a commercial pilot, or who have anything to say about 
this subject. 

Thank you,
            Jurgen Nijhuis.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: ulick@chopin.helios.nd.edu (Ulick Stafford)
Subject: Re: High-wing vs. low-wing training
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:53:04 GMT

In article <2AD4BE35.29995@ics.uci.edu> mmuller@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Mark Timothy Muller) writes:
>
>A topic that hasn't been discussed at all in the talks about lowvhigh wings
>is cost.  As another student who plans on getting his license in a few weeks
>i have found that the high wing 172's&152's are the primary trainers used
>by local FBO's usually because they are at least 10$ less expensive to fly.
>and remember even 10$/hour can be a decent amount over 40-60+ hours.

This will vary.  At the FBO where I did my training the rental rate for the
PA28-140 and C152 was the same, while the 172 was $10 more.  FBO's at other
airports around only rent Pipers and Beechcrafts, so I would say that 
high wings aren't always the cheapest or only option.  Having said that,
despite its frumpy look, I may have been better off training in 152
rather than the dog to climb Cherokee, because of some of the stuff you
can do in a 152 that you can't in the other.  It 
took 2 flights and around 1.7 hours to get checked out in the 172 (but on
the other side I was checked out in a Sundowner in .6, 3 times around
the pattern).


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 
+ '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   +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: High speed on final, (was High-wing vs. low-wing training)
Date: 8 Oct 1992 16:18:05 GMT
Organization: BDS Systems
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.bds.com

> In reality, by keeping your
> speed up, then floating 2/3 of the way down the runway before landing, you
> probably did not offer ATC any better separation than you would have had you
> maintained a slower approach speed.

Probably a better way would be just to land long (fly a normal approach
to a point farther down the runway).  I request this (sometimes) and
sometimes ATC volunteers this for me at Dulles as the FBO is at the
far end of a 11,000 foot runway (which means about two miles of taxiing
if I plant it on the numbers).  It's not really a separation issue as there's
lots of places to clear the runway at Dulles.

My other favorite helpful mode that they get is to keep you at 2000 feet
until final (to cross inbound traffic for a parallel runway).  The major
problem with this is to avoid picking up too much speed in the desent,
but hell, there's 11,000 feet of runway again...It's still preferable
to landing on the wrong runway hand having a four mile taxi.

-Ron
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Subject: First SOLO!!! 
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:31:21 GMT

Ok, I got about 18 hours, and zillions of touch-and-go's.  Suppose to go a
couple of hours back, but that darn crosswind keep messing me up during
the afternoon flights.

This morning at SJC, airline traffic was slightly above moderate, VFR
traffic light.  The first landing (in 172 with instructor) was quite a
bounce, partly due to coming in a bit too low for me (like to come in high
and no power), jam the power in and hold the nose level, go around.

2nd one with instructor did a more or less perfact landing, so was the 3rd
and 4th.  The instructor then got off at runup area after getting
permission from tower to do so.  Now I was ready.

Climb to 500, contemplating turning right for crosswind as the tower said
"turn crosswind", so I complied immediately.  Before I get to downwind,
tower said "traffic on final 3 miles, go for extended downwind".  I said
to myself "great, this guy is messing with my first solo".

Beamed the numbers, gone past the usual point for baseleg, looked and
found no other plane on final, and no word from the tower.  Slightly
worried (ok, gentle panic) I called tower to verify order to continue
downwind.  Tower came back and confirmed extended downwind.  "We will call
you when ready for base."  Ok, fine.  I started whistling to myself.

"XXX turn baseleg."  Finally, a sigh of relief.  Turned baseleg, and then
final.  Came in a bit low for me (still well above glideslope), so I
applied power some.  Saw my instructer behind the taxiway sign but too
small to figure out his facial expression.  Cross the numbers and then
landed with a small thump.

Called up the tower while still braking and request for a taxi back
(preempt the tower from switching me back to ground).  Tower said go for
it and hurry up.  Apparently another plane coming in came in too close to
me.  Later I found out that he had to go around.  (Not my fault because I
got off the runway faster than most people do after that landing).

After taxi back instructor signaled go for next one so I proceded to the
hold bar.  Request tower for takeoff but tower said wait.  I did and it
was quite a wait (not so unnieving after first landing).  After clarence
the take off and pattern was uneventful, not until final.

On final I said "oh, oh" wee bit too high.  So power off, and started
praying that I drop fast enough (still 20 degree flap).  About 20 yards
from the numbers the red-and-white came out and I let out a "jackpot!"

I started my usual talking to myself "flare, (pause) flare, (pause), oops,
darn float, hold it, (pause) flare, (pause) hold it..."  Touched down, w/o
any "thump" whatsoever.  "Not bad", I said to myself.  Perfect, except for
that slight float.

The 3rd one was quite eventful as well.

No, we did not break out the beer or cut my T-shirt.  Just logged in 0.6
hours of solo!  Woooo....
From: radack@ces.cwru.edu (Gerald Radack)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: How much to rent?
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:13:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computer Engineering and Science, Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: easy.ces.cwru.edu

In article <Bw67tL.FE1@well.sf.ca.us> mharper@well.sf.ca.us (Michael J. Harper) writes:
>The in-laws have moved to the extreme edge of my willingness to drive for
>a weekend.  Since they have an airstrip nearby, I thought I'd learn how to
>fly so I could shuttle my family down there without wasting so much driving
>time.  I already have some good information on how to go about getting a
>pilot's license.  What I don't know is an average rental cost for a 
>suitable plane for the weekend.  Can anyone give me some figures?

Airplane rental charges are based on the time the plane is operating, not
a daily charge as is customary for rental cars. However, many rental operations
do have a minimum number of hours that must be charged per day (generally
in the range of 2 to 4 hours). The charge for the plane could be anywhere
from $20 to many hundreds of dollars an hour, depending on what model plane
you get, what kinds of instruments it has, the geographic area, whether you are
at a major airport, etc.

To fly your family, you will need at least a Private Pilot license, which will
cost you probably at least $3000 to $5000 to obtain. To be able to use the
airplane as a semi-reliable form of transportation, you will also need an
instrument rating, which will cost you another $3000+. (If you are not instru-
ment rated, you can't fly in clouds or conditions of low visibility.)

When figuring the time savings, be sure to take into account time to:
  * drive to the airport
  * get a weather briefing
  * plan the flight
  * file a flight plan
  * preflight the plane
  * take-off, fly to the destination and land
  * close your flight plan
  * refuel (sometimes done for you)
  * tie down the plane (ditto)
  * pay bills
  * get from the airport to your destination

I don't mean to sound too negative, but I want to make sure you know what
you are getting into. If you like airplanes and flying, then by all means
go for it. But if you are just doing it for transportation, you might want
to reconsider. Many airplane rental outfits (FBOs) and clubs offer an
introductory flight for a low price that will help you decide if you want
to learn to fly.

For more information, see the rec.aviation FAQ.
-- 
Gerry Radack
EEAP								(216)368-2808
Case Western Reserve University			    radack@alpha.ces.cwru.edu
Cleveland, OH 44106
From: serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: High speed on final, (was High-wing vs. low-wing training)
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:05:17 GMT
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center

In article <1992Oct7.151651.29440@ccad.uiowa.edu> yiannis@ccad.uiowa.edu (Yiannis Papelis) writes:
>
>>Bunch of stuff deleted.
>At some article I said
>>>And a final datapoint, an archer with idle power and 140 mph on
>>>short final will float for 6500 feet before a full stall landing.
>>>Don't ask how I know ...
>
>and in some article serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mike Serafin) writes:
>
>>140 mph short final?  Idle power? In an Archer?
>
>I guess I have to explain, considering I got several mail messages
>inquiring about the details.  Regaring mike's comment, I'm not sure 
>if the question (doubt?) is regarding the power, or the speed but
>any plane will go arbitrarily fast, independent of power, if
>enough pitch down is used.
>
>Regarding the specific case, I was landing on a 9000 foot
>runway, the fbo exit is at the far end of the runway, ATC
>is doing the standard 'keep your speed up' thing, it is a
>no-wind-perfect-for-flying afternoon, so I thought I'd give it a try.  
>At 7-9 miles from the airport I started reducing 
>about 300 rpm each minute and maintained airpspeed by trim 
>down whenever necessary.  By the time the plane reached short 
>final it was at 140mph IAS at idle, and the resulting 
>flare/float/whatever was about 6500 feet long.  
>

This is exactly the scenario I had imagined.  I have had the same "keep your 
speed up" requests from ATC at ADS.  The thing to consider here is that you are
the ultimate responsibility for the safe operation of your aircraft.  Was the
operation you described, in your opinion, safe?  Will you do the same thing
again? Or maybe not keep your speed quite so high?  In reality, by keeping your
speed up, then floating 2/3 of the way down the runway before landing, you
probably did not offer ATC any better separation than you would have had you
maintained a slower approach speed. While I am not advocating that you don't
try to work with ATC, I am saying that you shouldn't let ATC force you into a
situation you are uncomfortable with. If I can enter the pattern in a 310
behind a much slower 152, at an uncontrolled field, and still maintain safe
distances, then ATC should be able to sequence their traffic a little better.

This is not meant to be a flame or hostile.  These are just my opinions on the
matter.  

******************************************************************************
Mike "Dragonmaster" Serafin    PP-ASMEL-I      email=serafin@epcot.spdc.ti.com
1964 C310I N48WM                                             Texas Instruments 
HQZ (Hudson Muni, Mesquite TX)                                   Dallas, Texas
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: c60c-3gi@web-3e.berkeley.edu (Masayuki Karahashi)
Subject: many thanks (was: medical certificate)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 07:55:36 GMT

many many many many many thanks to all of you netters that helped me out with
my problem.  Although I am a little busy with school work right at the
moment, I will definately make it a point to call the AOPA ASAP. (^_^)
                                                    
thank you very very very very much for all of you that gave me all these
advice. (^_^) (^_^) (^_^) (^_^) (^_^) (^_^) (^_^)

---Masayuki Karahashi
c60c-3gi@web.berkeley.edu
"I just finshed a project...I really think its time to change major"
From: hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: Rotary vs Fixed wing for beginners?
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:12:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

From article <1992Oct7.085910.1@cc.curtin.edu.au>, by scostant@cc.curtin.edu.au:
> I have always been interested in flying helicopters. I originally planned to
> leave school and join the armed forces in order to pursue this interest.
> However, since I wear glasses I was not elligible for any aviation type careers
> in the Australian defence forces. As a consequence I have pursued a university
> degree etc., but the urge to learn to fly still nags at me. Anyway, I would 
> like to know several things;

Wow!  Over here minimum chopper rental is US$135 an hour, w/o instruction.
I would too like to go for chopper if it isn't that expensive.  Is it
much cheaper over in Aussieland? 
From: scott@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Scott Turner)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:36:27 GMT
Subject: Re: High-wing vs. low-wing training
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
From: lee@bluefuzz.sw.stratus.com (Lee Cooprider)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: High-wing vs. low-wing training
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:55:45 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

In article <1992
Oct5.163229.187@ccad.uiowa.edu> yiannis@ccad.uiowa.edu (Yiannis Papelis) writes:
>There is also the issue of the clearence of the wing from the
>ground during landings with stiff crosswinds where slipping is used.

Also when taxiing near runway lights on high posts (oops) and around snow
banks, or for that matter, landing on narrow runways edged with snow banks.
-- 
Lee W. Cooprider				PP-ASEL/IA
Lee_Cooprider@vos.stratus.com			Skylane N2908F "Wiley"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: c60c-3gi@web-3e.berkeley.edu (Masayuki Karahashi)
Subject: phone number for FAA
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 10:15:33 GMT

does anyone know the phone number for the FAA in Oklahoma City?
specifically the speical issuance dept.  If I am correct, it's
called the Mike Monroney Aeromedical Center or something like that..

or is there a general FAA number that I can call to find this info?
Although I expect that if there is, they'll say, "Can youi hold?"
and never come back to me.... (^_^) (;_;)

anyway, a quick response would be very much appreciated.  Thanks
for your time... :)

---Masayuki Karahashi
c60c-3gi@web.berkeley.edu
"I think its time to change major"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Subject: Re: mechanical vs electronic
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:06:11 GMT

In article <WD.92Oct14131233@sam.cs.tu-berlin.de>, wd@cs.tu-berlin.de (Wolfgang Diestelkamp) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct13.191310.2246@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu> GRIGG@dirac.physics.jmu.edu (Steve Grigg) writes:
|> >     I understand that Sporty's E6B can be used during the FAA exams. Does
|> > anyone have any feelings one way or the other about using a mechanical or
|> > electronic during the course of flight school and exam schedule? Thanks in
|> > advance.
|> 
|> .... much deleted ...         Related to this is the problem
|> of entering data: You type 210Knots instead of 120 Knots and
|> have no chance noticing this, whereas on the mechanical computer
|> you may be a few percent off, not an order of magnitude

Most of the newer flight computers have multi-line prompted entry displays
that remain viewable when the final answer comes up with some flag flashing.
This way you have a chance to go back and correct this kind of entry problem.

If your groundspeed comes out 334 kts in a 172, it should be obvious that 
the wind is prob not THAT strong.  :^}


David		doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

The thought police insist I tell you:
my thoughts, not NASA's
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: mechanical vs electronic
From: GRIGG@dirac.physics.jmu.edu (Steve Grigg)
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:13:07 -0500
Distribution: world
Organization: JMU Physics Dept.
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24


    I understand that Sporty's E6B can be used during the FAA exams. Does
anyone have any feelings one way or the other about using a mechanical or
electronic during the course of flight school and exam schedule? Thanks in
advance.

Steve
From: collier@akro.austin.ibm.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: High v. Low Wing for Students? EITHER!!
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:18:45 GMT
Reply-To: collier@austin.vnet.ibm.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: AIX Technical Support - Austin

In article <leftwich-121092120934@leftwich.ucs.indiana.edu>,
leftwich@indiana.edu (Brad Leftwich) writes:
> From: leftwich@indiana.edu (Brad Leftwich)
> Subject: Re: High v. Low Wing for Students? EITHER!!
> 
> Personally, I think everyone should learn to fly in biplanes -- that
way you get the training advantages of both a low wing and a high wing:
You have to climb up on top of the wing to check your fuel, you have to
stoop down to drain the sump, you can't se> e up *or* down in a turn,
you can't see over the nose to taxi or to land, and they're tricky in
crosswinds and ground handling. But boy are they fun!
> 
> --Brad Leftwich (leftwich@indiana.edu)
>   Great Lakes 2T-1A N10551
Don't forget the manhole (personhole) cover glide characteristics too.

John Collier                    Voice:  512-838-4675 or t/l 678-4675
IBM AWD-Austin/2830             Fax:    512-838-4851 or t/l 678-4851 
collier@austin.vnet.ibm.com