HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amazon@sgi.com (Stormwind)
Subject: Plastic Staggerwing model FOUND
Organization: X Industries, Heavy Weapons R&D
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:23:36 GMT

(Stormwind) writes:
>i'd dearly love to get my hot little paws
>on a plastic model of the Beech Staggerwing
>D17S.  

many thanks to all of you who sent email
suggesting places to call, things to look
for.  i think i've found what i'm looking
for, although both places are sold out at
the moment!

all i have to do now is wait for santa to 
hurry up and deliver.

			stormwind

			hell's amazon
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.student
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Subject: Re: DUATS NOTAM limitations
Keywords: NOTAM, DUAT
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 06:52:03 GMT

In article <1em7n3INNh4j@agate.berkeley.edu> chem4-aa@garnet.berkeley.edu
(Lonnie C. Martin) writes:
> ... Why does the FAA play cat and mouse with us, and make us beg for the
> Class II Notams.  The class II Notams aren't THAT big.  Why can't they be
> on-line? (_and_ published)

The NOTAM publication includes two kinds of information:  textual
information which could easily be included in the "on-line" NOTAMs, and
non-textual information which couldn't be as easily included.  The theory
was that the textual published NOTAMS would be put on the FAA's NOTAM
system on or about this year -- until the FAA discovered that their
computer wasn't big enough.  (!)  With any luck, this should happen
relatively soon.

The graphical notices are a more difficult problem.  The FAA would have to
standardize on a way of issuing these electronically, and would have to
ensure that this method of distribution had a wide enough audience that it
would make this worth their while.  As you may have noticed, there is a
plethora of "standard" graphical representations of information.  (For
example, each of the DUATS providers and Jeppesen use different graphical
transmission formats.)  You may also have noticed that many Flight Service
Stations do not have equipment which is capable of displaying, let alone
printing, arbitrary graphics.  So the graphical notices are probably a
reasonably long way off from being on-line.

						Geoff
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: calvin@boi.hp.com (Calvin K McDonald)
Subject: DUATS?
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:43:10 GMT
Reply-To: calvin@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard - Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]


My instructor just mentioned DUATS to me today but didn't have a 
lot of details on what it is (having never used it himself).  He 
just said that it was a way to getting weather info via modem.  I am
interested in using this service.

My questions:

1.  What type of weather info can I get using DUATS?
2.  Is this service free?  If not, how much?
3.  Is the info in standard "unreadable" format and if so is there
    a software package that can translate it to English?
4.  What are the phone numbers to use this system and are they 
    different for different baud rates?
5.  Is there a better way to get weather info via computer (net or
    modem) than DUATS?

Thanks
 ................................... | .................................... 
:                        \__________( )__________/                         :
: Calvin K. McDonald              o'   `o      HP Network Printer Division :
: Hardware Design Engineer                     Boise, Idaho                :
: Email: calvin@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com             Phone:  (208) 323-4678      :
 ..........................................................................
From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Apollo 618TCA for sale
Date: 23 Nov 92 15:02:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering, NJ
Originator: bdboyle@maverick1.erenj.com

Sale of my cherokee (sniff!) creates a bonus for you: Not wanting to
provide my broker with a super well-equipped ship, I removed the Apollo
618 TCA loran from the stack.  This slide-in replacement for flybuddies
and older Apollo lorans features the latest software and over 25K+
waypoints in its flybrary.  Also features multi-leg flightplans, and
will drive most major HSIs and CDI needles.  Comes complete with
mounting tray and manual (and is yellow-tagged).  Looking for best offer
around $1100.  If interested, please contact me:
bdboyle@erenj.com or at 908 730-3338 days.  

Bryan D. Boyle    |opinions mine, not Exxon's...
Senior Engineer   |PVT/ASEL/IA
bdboyle@erenj.com |Semper ubi sub ubi.
From: joell@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Joel Larner)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:34:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Air sickness question
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Greeley, CO
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc

> The pilot told me it was a perspective problem, that it came
> from looking down too much, weird angles and all.  

I would suspect this came from a combination of many things: looking
through the camera lens, and "We circled and circled and circled".
During CAP Search operations, we spend many hours each flight doing
nothing but looking down, and people do not often get sick.  This is
because we do a few simply things to keep from getting sick:

  1) Look up occasionally to relax the eyes, body, calibrate the brain,
     or anything else you can think of.  This is usually done when the
     aircraft makes it's turn at the edge of the search grid.

  2) Do NOT circle, circle, circle.  This will get people sick fairly
     easily if they are prone to airsickness.

  3) We take a relaxation break whenever anyone needs it.

Next time you go on this type of flight, do all the things Geoff Peck
has recommended and also talk with the pilot about your experience
on the last flight.  Help him be more aware of his passengers and
the affects of his flying on them.  You should have much more success.

Happy Flying.
-------------------------------------------------------
Joel Larner - Hewlett Packard, Greeley Storage Division
CAP SAR Pilot            email:  joell@hpgrjq.gr.hp.com
                           CAP:  Pikes Peak 293
                    In The Air:  N182H
From: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Taildragger Tail Low Takeoffs
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:58:18 GMT
Reply-To: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.  Engineering

In article <1992Nov19.160934.24091@cbnews.cb.att.com>, tel@cbnews.cb.att.com 
(thomas.e.lester) writes:
> I was never taught keep the tail down for short field.  This seems
> 	counter intuitive given the increased drag of the tail wheel
> 	and high AOA in this configuration. In fact I was taught quite
> 	the opposite.  Hold brakes at very edge of runway, get full rpm,
> 	release, get the tail up ASAP for short field.
> -- 

I was taught to keep the tail down for a soft field take off
not a short field -- the short field required getting the tail
up as soon as possible to reduce drag...


Tom Pickett 
tpickett@auspex.com or 74616.2237@compuserve.com
SHO  GOZE
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.photo
From: doshay@ursa.arc.nasa.gov (David Doshay)
Subject: Re: Air sickness question
Organization: NASA-Ames Biocomputation Center
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:13:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.041129.21083@gordian.com>, johnk@gordian.com (John Kalucki) writes:
|>
|> I've delt with many a sick passenger and I've been sick myself.
|> Not pleasant. I've found that Scoplamine is virtually foolproof
|> for seasickness, but it may be overkill for an hour in an airplane.
|> You need a perscription in the US, and it'll set you back about
|> $14 for 4 transdermal patches. You MUST put it on at least 4 hours
|> before the motion will begin. Failure to do so makes it virtually
|> worthless.
|> 

2 things to note: 
  1) you may NOT be pilot in command on Scopolamine, but then again the pilot
     is usually busy enough to not get sick
  2) you must also wear the transdermal patch for at least an hour or two AFTER
     you are out of the motion-sickness causing situation, or you will get
     "ground-sick" from the transition from motion to solid ground.

David		doshay@soma.arc.nasa.gov

The thought police insist I tell you:
my thoughts, not NASA's
Xref: sparky rec.aviation.misc:670 rec.aviation.homebuilt:333 rec.aviation:17299
From: coburn@informix.com (David Coburn)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Flying Saucers
Date: 13 Nov 92 23:16:48 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <cf0ZR2m00WB4AlUFVp@andrew.cmu.edu> jd5f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Dunkle) writes:
>
>I also recall that the craft wasn't particularly sacuer shaped but more
>like a sprots car cab with some streamlining to some ducted fans at the
>corners.  I don't recall the specific power configuration ( i.e. did
>each fan have its own engine or was there a transmission system from a
>more central engine(s) powering the fans.  In any event, I remember
>being troubled by how the craft would handle power failure.  Either
>there would be an asymmetric thrust/lift condition, or if all fans
>failed....not much glide ratio.  Wonder how the non-pilot "driver" and
>his computers whould handle that.
>
>Jeff Dunkle

If memory serves, there were multiple rotary engines that powered the
beastie.  The claim in the article I read (Popular Mechanics and/or
Science) was that only about 1/2 of the engines would be required to fly
it.  (They conviently ignored the question of "what happens if the 1/2 that
failed were all on one side?" ;-)  On the issue of recovery, the article
claimed that a BRS (Ballistic Recovery 'Shute) would be standard equipment.

The craft itself looked more like a lifting body type design than anything
else.  But, I studied software in school, not aeronautical engineering, so
I'm willing to listen to other opinions.

David Coburn                                 coburn@informix.com
Informix Software, Inc.                    ...uunet!infmx!coburn
=========================================================================
Any opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Informix 
(or for that matter, anybody else).
=========================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: rec.aviation--traffic decrease
Organization: Pomona College
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:47:38 PST

In article <2408@usna.NAVY.MIL>, dfr@usna.navy.mil writes:
> G'day,
> 
> Has anyone other than me noticed the apparent decrease
> in traffic on rec.aviation.xxxxx since the split?
> 
> Anyone keeping track?

I'm not keeping track, but I didn't notice a big decline. It may appear that
way because the traffic is now scattered over many newsgroups. I like the new
setup a lot, I can concentrate more on the topics in which I am most
interested.

Note: I don't know how you get your news feed, but perhaps your feeding site
isn't getting all the new groups (or all the traffic of) because its feeding
site isn't getting all the new groups because...

______________________________________________________________________________
Javier Henderson, N6VBG         | Beat the 55mph limit (legally):
jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu | Learn to fly!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: dinsdale@berlioz.nsc.com (Steve McRobert)
Subject: Re: Exceed Vne or max G's first? (was Re: looping a non-acro aircraft)
Summary: why gliders are "different"
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation, Santa Clara
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:45:49 GMT

In article <lg6l49INN5ek@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> jfarrell@cloudbase (Jerry Farrell) writes:
>In article <T0B=!6@engin.umich.edu>, dlevy@viper.engin.umich.edu,
>(David W Levy) writes:
>
>> VNE is *always* quoted as INDICATED airspeed, not true.  That is why it
>> is a red line on the airspeed indicator.  Only when you get to high
>> subsonic speeds is true speed important.
>> ...
>> The above discussion relates to powered aircraft.  Is there something
>> different about sailplanes that I don't know?
>
>Apparently so.  I quote from the Flight Manual (POH) for the Schleicher
>ASK-21:
>
>    II.4	AIRSPEED LIMITATIONS AND LOAD FACTOR LIMITS
>    
>    Max. permissible speed (calm air):
>	    VNE = 151.2 kts = 174 mph = 280 km/h
>
>    [other speed limits, discussion of load factors, and control-
>    deflection limits omitted.]
>    
>    True airspeed (TAS) is, however relevant for safety against flutter.
>    Therefore, one must take into account that with increasing altitude
>    the true airspeed is higher than the reading of the airspeed indicator
>    because of the increasing air density.
>
>			VNE at various altitudes
>
>		  Altitude		VNE
>		    ft		knots		mph
>
>		   5000		 151		174
>		  10000		 144		165
>		  15000		 132		152
>		  20000		 121		139
>
>[end quote]
>
>I can't believe the physics is different for powered vs. unpowered craft.
>Can someone explain the discrepancy?
>
>jf
The only reason for the difference that I can think of is that
sailplanes often do fly higher than most piston singles, so the
reduction of the IAS at which flutter occurs is more likely to be
significant.

The quote from the K-21 manual seems to say that Vne does not change
with altitude.  ????????  question of definition??????

My DG300 manual quotes a similar reduction of maximum speed with
altitude.

-- 
Steve Mc Robert (a.k.a. Dinsdale Piranha) PP ASEL, Glider, Tow Pilot
Organisation: National Semiconductor. Aircraft: DG300 GJ
Want to soar?  Call the Ames soaring club 510 516 1745 at Byron airport
From: chem4-aa@garnet.berkeley.edu (Lonnie C. Martin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: radios and non-pilots
Date: 18 Nov 1992 02:42:14 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <38TcuB6w165w@qed.cts.com> tim@qed.cts.com (Tim Capps) writes:
>chem4-aa@garnet.berkeley.edu (Lonnie C. Martin) writes:
...
>> aviation type machine).  I was told that the aircraft station license applies
                                            ^^^
>> to _installed_ transceivers only.  Regardless of the other opinions that 
...
>True.  However, you can license a hand-held (as I did) without having it
>tied to a specific plane.  I rent :-( so I don't have a specific plane
...
By "the", I was referring to a license which is issued for a particular
airplane or fleet, not "the" as in all cases of issued licenses.

Lonnie
-- 
Lonnie C. Martin    lonnie@hydrogen.cchem.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Renting in Australia
From: OWEN@vms.bgu.ac.il (David Owen)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:37:23 GMT
Organization: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Beer-Sheva Israel, BGU
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.13

In <1992Nov17.022654.7752@ramon.bgu.ac.il> OWEN@vms.bgu.ac.il writes:

> In <1992Nov13.165909.15225@Arco.COM> Hal writes:
>
> > I would like to know if anyone has ever rented a general aviation
> > aircraft in Australia?  I am planning a family vacation there in
> > about a month.  I've talked with the Australian AOPA about
> > regualations etc. What I would like to know if anyone on the net has
> > any experience renting and flying in Australia and I am particularly
> > intersted in recomendations about where to rent in the Sydney area.
> >
> > Hal Blacker
> > Blacker@Arco.Com
>
> 2 years ago you had to convert your ppl to Australian ppl by sitting
> Flight rules writen test. other then that no worries basicly.
> Shlomo Zelkine
> Israel
> owen@bguvms
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: amazon@sgi.com (Stormwind)
Subject: Re: Air sickness question
Organization: X Industries, Heavy Weapons R&D
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 23:47:11 GMT

(Joel Larner) writes:
>I would suspect this came from a combination of many things: looking
>through the camera lens, and "We circled and circled and circled".
>During CAP Search operations, we spend many hours each flight doing
>nothing but looking down, and people do not often get sick.  

several years back when i was with 
CAP we flew a practice grid.  on board
were the identical twin brothers
larry and garry.  while garry went out
on one grid, larry was busy telling me
all about getting airsick.  by the time
garry came back, i was so apprehensive
i nearly hurled just LOOKING at the 
airplane.

we got out to do the grid, and larry had
first shot at searching while his evil
twin brother garry flew.  being bored (and
not entirely stupid) i helped look out
larry's window.

when it came my turn to search, i happily
switched windows and searched out my own
window.  larry, on the other hand, made
the mistake of staring out his window at
blue sky.  shortly after, larry announced
he was feeling nauseous.  

this may have been due to the fact that 
larry hadn't been watching a stable object.
there's a lot of emphasis put on how difficult
it is on the eyes to continually scan for
things on the ground during a grid search,
and many people try to either close their 
eyes or stare aimlessly at empty sky, with
predictable results, when it's the other
person's turn to search.

as an amusing note, *both* of us got nauseous
on the flight back home, which was not only
non-turbulent but perfectly straight and level.
which goes to show that you shouldn't stick two
anxious neophytes in the same room together
before a grid search...

			stormwind

			hell's amazon
From: lmiller@aero.org (Lawrence H. Miller)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Museums in Los Angeles
Date: 18 Nov 1992 17:18:55 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: groucho.aero.org

In article <1992Nov18.153317.12738@nuchat.sccsi.com> conover@nuchat.sccsi.com (Mark Allen Conover) writes:
>Looks like I will be in Los Angeles for a couple of days later this week.
>Are there any good aviation museums?  

	Yes indeed.  There is the Air and Space Museum
	(or some such name) in the exposition park 
	area next to the Coliseum and USC.  Also the
	natural history museum is there.  Has a DC-8
	and a DC-3 parked outside, and an F-something
	emerging from the side of the building.  Imax
	theatre too.

	And then there is the Museum of Flying at the
	Santa Monica airport (fly in and park at Gunnell
	Aviation).  

	Both are worth a visit.
-- 
Larry Miller		The Aerospace Corporation
lmiller@aero.org	PO Box 92957		
310-336-5597		LA, CA 90009-2957
From: brianh@smaug.West.Sun.COM (Brian Horn)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: logging solo and ground t
Date: 16 Nov 1992 14:21:41 -0800
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo

In article <furtaw-161192082649@145.1.92.170> furtaw@comm.mot.com (Bob Furtaw) writes:
>BTW  61.189 says "...flight instructor SHALL sign the logbook of each
>person...FLIGHT or GROUND instruction...".  This means NO DECISION, it must
>be done!  This is often overlooked by many instructors.  A student is often

Whoaa!!! Back up.  It is simple.  If the instruction was not logged, it
is as if it didn't occur.  Since none is required to occur (remember the
"or home study") none needs to occur thus doesn't need to get logged.
Or would you like to stretch it so that Geoff (and Dave, and Kerry and ...)
all after posting (and hopefully instructing the net in some small way) were
required to write in each and every rec.aviators logbook?

Note: this does *not* apply to CFI students.  There the logging *is* required.

>asked "Do you want me to sign your logbook?", without realizing he must. 
>Sometimes the question is asked out of courtesy but most times, from
>ingorance. There is an "out", however...the reg does NOT say WHEN the
>logbook shall be signed...Immediately following a lesson, before a
>recommendation, before the 3 year record (CFI) expiration date, or
>whatever??                                                                 

Just for clarification that 3 year requirement is that CFI's must keep
written records for 3 years, not that the CFI's certificate is good
for 3 years.  Of course if you sign (what is allowable) off under your
ground instructor certificate, then one is not required to keep these
things around for the 3 years.
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: license for handheld (was
Date: 14 Nov 92 21:41:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

MB> .The license has an FCC ID number, if I remember right, but I am supposed
  > .to use the N-number of the plane I'm in as the station ID.  Since they
  > .never asked for the handheld serial number, or even make and model, I
  > .don't expect to repeat this song and dance in case I replace the handheld
  > .with another, or even buy a second one.  Whew!  (But I had to do it over
  > .again when I bought an airplane with installed radios, it needs its own
  > .non-portable "license".)  And of course, they never checked my credentials
  > .for proper operation of a radio (presumably a pilot's license means I got
  > .the training).

It would be prudent for you, and for any pilot, to get a copy of
47CFR-87 (The FCC regulations concerning aeronautical radio) and become
familiar with it.  In general, it doesn't take a "rocket scientist" to
figure out what's right and wrong, but, like the FARs, reading the regs
can answer a lot of problems...

        D/

 * OLX 2.2 * Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                                                                                                                  
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: mikec@ginger.lcs.mit.edu (Mike Ciholas)
Subject: Re: Flying Under Bridges
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:13:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.222657.13189@qdeck.com> jbrown@qdeck.com
	(Jordan Brown) writes:
>It is possible to fly aerobatics in non-aerobatic airplanes.  It is even
>possible to do so without killing yourself or bending the airplane.
>Bob Hoover ably demonstrates this all the time, as do many idiots like
>the ones mentioned above.  (Incidentally, anybody know whether Hoover's
>going to be on the West Coast any time soon?)  Tex Johnson demonstrated
>it in the 707 prototype.

Note that the Shrike that Hoover flies (used to fly?) has a spar
modification for added strength.  Note also that the 707 was probably
substantially under gross weight when rolled by Tex.

Mike Ciholas
mikec@lcs.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Air sickness question
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 04:49:25 GMT

OK, I've got to chime in here.  I got airsick when I was photographing
Angel Falls from a Baron.  When I got back to work and was telling
this story down in the test pilots' office, one of our engineers (who
flies backseat in the SR-71) told us about Bob Hoover's experience.

Bob wanted some pictures taken from his airplane during his aerobatic
routine, so he stuck a photographer in the plane and went out and did
his routine.  The photographer got really airsick.  Bob, undeterred by
this, got another photographer and the same thing happened.  So Bob
decided that _he'd_ take the pictures.  He got a buddy to fly the
plane and he sat there, peering through the viewfinder.  He got really
airsick.

I figure that if Bob Hoover gets airsick doing it, everyone's going to
get airsick doing it.

We do a lot of air-to-air photography and videotaping here at Dryden.
I've talked to the photographers and they _all_ say that one should
only look through the viewfinder very briefly, that prolonged
viewfinding guarantees nausea.  This is particularly true when your
F-18 photo chase rolls over the top of the test plane to get that
planform photo.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot