HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rah@public.BTR.COM (Richard A Hyde  rah@btr.com)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: rec.aviator averts airshow tragedy
Date: 10 Nov 92 03:14:09 GMT
Distribution: ba
Organization: BTR Public Access UNIX, MtnView CA. For info contact: info@BTR.COM

After the Last Moffett Airshow, I posted a plea to the net regarding my
lost Air USEnET patch.  I had attached the patch to my hat just the day
before in anticipation of attending the show... to make a long story short,
my hat (and the patch) BLEW OFF on the trolly ride home... never to be
seen again  :-(  I had hoped that a netter attending the show might have
found it :-(        No luck... 
(I did get an offer to help look for it - thanks eugene!)

I had resigned myself to my fate, when what should appear in the mail!?
A *replacement AIR USEnET patch*!  :-)  Bret Marquis had seen my post
and graciously sent me a replacement patch.  Let me tell you, it made my
day!

Thank you, Bret.  Very much!  I promise to take better care of this one :-)

Regards,

Rick

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   Richard Hyde  |  RaH@btr.com  |    This space intentionally left blank   |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: theune@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Peter Theune)
Subject: Re: looping a non-acro aircraft
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 13:36:23 GMT

john@physiol.su.OZ.AU (John Mackin) writes:

>In article <1992Nov04.195746.12711@qdeck.com>,
>	jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown) writes:

>> As "authority" evidence, consider that there are numerous airplanes
>> (152s, 172s, Tomahawks) certified for spins but not loops.

>Hey.  I can't claim to be a Tomahawk authority, having only flown in
>one twice, but I thought that in Oz anyway they were placarded against
>spinning.  Of course that could be different in Oz and in the USA.  Any
>Down Under people have comments on that?

Of course you can't spin them 'down under', they would spin in the wrong
direction... ;-) ;-) ;-) .

>-- 
>John Mackin <john@civil.su.oz.au>
>Point me at the sky.

Peter Theune (theune@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu)

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: danderer@chopin.udel.edu (Dave Anderer)
Subject: Re: Accident rated (was Re: Corporate reimbursement ...)
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:50:32 GMT


One way I've viewed (rationalized) the seemingly higher danger of
flying is this:

It's generally accpeted that alcohol is involved in 1/2 of the
auto fatalities.  While many of the fatalities are the drinkers
themselves, there are also a significant number of innocent
victims.  You know - "they were killed by a drunk driver."

While alcohol is involved, amazingly enough, in a significant
fraction of the aviation accidents, there are damn few
innocent victims (excluding anyone silly enough to get in a
plane with a drunk pilot.)

So the point is this:  If you're driving down a road at night,
there's little you can do to manage the risk that the guy
coming at you at a 110 MPH closure rate, *hopefully* passing 
down your left side at a distance of 2 feet can manage the
feat.  Just hope he wasn't drinking.

Flying, however, gives you more control on the risk of alcohol.
If you don't drink, you're likely *very* safe from an alcohol-
related accident.

Other analogies can be drawn, but my conclusion is that flying
is basically an individual activity, while driving is group
participation.  I feel much more capable of managing myself
than I do all of those idiots in cars coming at me.
-- 
    Dave Anderer        danderer@brahms.udel.edu       (302) 831-8805
Instructional Technology Center, University of Delaware, Newark, De.  19716
		"Sinners can repent; stupid is forever."
From: brianh@smaug.West.Sun.COM (Brian Horn)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Exhaust pipes on GA aircraft
Date: 12 Nov 1992 15:55:16 -0800
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo

In article <1992Nov12.045608.12633@qdeck.com> jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown) writes:
>dobosz_m@wfooff.enet.dec.com (Mike Dobosz) writes:
>>If one were concerned with decreasing noise produced by the average general 
>>aviation aircraft, wouldn't it be a simple fix to have the exhaust pipes 
>>point up instead of down?

Well consider the following.  If they were pointed "up" they would be
pointed at the windshield.  Do you really want hot exhaust being dumped
at the windshield?  (or worse, think about an open cockpit!)

For twins, the exhaust generall *is* over the wings.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown)
Subject: Re: looping a non-acro aircraft
Organization: Quarterdeck Office Systems, Santa Monica CA
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1992 19:57:46 GMT

zardoz@rx-db (zardoz@rx-db.hf.intel.com) writes:
>Some planes build speed rapidly in a nose down attitude.

All airplanes build speed rapidly in a nose-down attitude.  Some build
speed VERY rapidly.

>But that should not require pulling high G's if there is sufficient altitude.

If you don't screw up, probably not.

>Hypothetically, isn't it better to exceed Vne than pull back harder?

Doing either makes you a test pilot exploring past the limits the previous
test pilots have found.  Neither is a good way to live a long time.

>If you shouldn't loop then you can't split-S either but does that mean
>you can't spin it either?

In a loop you're coming over the top at a very low speed, generally - you've
used up all your available energy to get there.  In a split-S, you _can_
do the same thing - slow a lot before the maneuver - but it's easy to
just roll the airplane inverted and pull from cruise speed, and that's a
bad thing to do because it means you're entering the "back side" of the
loop with a lot of extra energy.  This potential mistake is one of the
reasons why a split-S is considered a more advanced maneuver than either
a loop or an Immelman.  In a spin, you're at very low speeds until you
recover into a basically vertical downline, so you don't have the upper
segment (the third quarter of the loop) to accelerate, so it's less
severe than even a loop.

As "authority" evidence, consider that there are numerous airplanes
(152s, 172s, Tomahawks) certified for spins but not loops.
Xref: sparky rec.aviation.misc:551 rec.aviation:17207
From: ron@topaz.bds.com (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation
Subject: Re: radios and non-pilots
Date: 9 Nov 1992 22:48:45 GMT
Organization: BDS Systems
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.bds.com

> Of course, the requirements vary from country to country.  As far as I can
> tell, in Canada, *anybody* can get a Restricted (Aeronautical) Radiotelephone
> Operator's Certificate.  You just write a test, they don't care who you are.

Here in the US, the operator doesn't need a license.  But the radio station
itself must be licensed.  Hand helds are usually covered by the plane they
are used in (or in the other cases listed by the previous poster).

-Ron
From: jpw@minerva.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: getting tired
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:48:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Drexel University, Philadelphia PA

Why do people get so tired while flying?

Yesterday I took two friends on a fun trip from PNE (philly) to WWD (cape
may, NJ), and one of them even fell asleep on the return trip in the
backseat of the Warrier! When we landed, we all reported being REALLY tired,
even though I flew the plane. Is it the altitude?

jpw@coe.drexel.edu

-- 
Joseph P. Wetstein                  __|__          "I may be Captain by
jpw@coe.drexel.edu              ---o-(_)-o---       rank, but I never wanted
                                                    to be anything else but 
Al Kanfei Nishorim                 KA3VJY           an Engineer" - Scotty
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Flying Under Bridges
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 08:13:17 GMT


In light of recent discussion about looping non-aerobatic aircraft and
buzzing farmhouses in Pitts Specials, I feel it necessary to ask the following:

When flying under a bridge, whether it be the Golden Gate, Mackinac, Brooklyn,
or the Devil's River in West Texas, is it advisable to fly low, near the
surface, or high, with minimum clearance on the bridge?  The determining factor
is, of course, cable stretched across the span, but there is mixed feeling as
to whether most cables are stretched just below the structure, or down on the
water.  Any ideas from you Ercoupe-loopers?

Please answer as soon as possible, as I am also concerned with the technical
aspects of inverted flight in high-wingers over snow fields on moonlit nights.

TH
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Compuserve aviation f
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:03:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

DH> .Inside Compuserve, type GO AVSIG to get the "equivalent" of rec.aviation.
  > .Use GO AVIATION to get you to the aviation "lobby" where you can choose
  > .other related forums.

DH> .I strongly suggest that you use CIM or some other front-end program if you
  > .are going to use CI$.  It will minimize your on-line time/charges.

CIM really isn't going to save you anything.  If you want to save, use
one of the offline readers.  Navigator for the Mac, Tapcis or Autosig or
OzCis for Dos.  They will do virtually everything offline, and minimize
the expense.

        D/

 * OLX 2.2 * Bring back A-N airways!!    Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
                                                                                                                       
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: dst+@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky)
Subject: Re: Public perception of general aviation
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:20:27 GMT


Stormwind writes:

> so where did THEY get the money?  they
> made tradeoffs.  they didn't buy that new
> car...they rebuilt the old one.  they don't
> use their credit cards for things other than
> emergencies and phone orders.  they stop
> eating out as often.  they don't go to the
> movies.  they live in a place that perhaps
> they don't like as much because the rent is
> low enough to afford to fly.

Hallelujah and amen, sister!  You're tellin' 
the truth on that one.

Almost all my pilot ratings were earned while in 
graduate school.  Now I'm on the senior research 
faculty, and there are grad students here who live
better than I do.  But while they're munching
artichoke hearts down at Cafe Froufrou, I'm saving 
up for my next engine overhaul.  

................

I really like the idea of a direct appeal to
the general public to improve the image of GA.
There are several ways to work on that.

#1.  Get your local airport to hold an airport
fair.  It doesn't have to be a full-blown airshow
with all the financial and liability risks that
entails.  Just have static displays, offer airplane
rides, and get a bunch of local aviation groups to
exhibit their stuff.  Who?  The Civil Air Patrol,
the local EMS helicopter team, the local chapters
of EAA, the Confederate Air Force, the 99s, etc.
If you have a big enough airport you can even get
the National Guard to bring in some equipment.
Anything that gets the general public (and their
sticky, screaming kids) onto the airport grounds
for a fun day is a *good thing*.

#2.  Reach out to local community groups.  A few
weeks ago I took 13 underprivileged minority kids
up for airplane rides over downtown Pittsburgh.  I
hope to do more of that sort of thing.  Contact your
local cub scout, girl scout, or explorer troop, and
offer to arrange an airport tour with optional
plane ride.

#3.  Build a relationship with your local media.
Call up the local papers and get to know some of
their reporters.  Every time something good happens
in aviation, try to get a favorable story published.
For example, if the local CAF chapter hosts a fly-in,
get the local reporter to come and sit in some 
restored aircraft and listen to the old boys
reminisce for a while.  If you're active in Air
Lifeline or a similar group, press the local paper
to run at least one story a year on your group's
activities.  Make the reporter's job easier by
supplying him/her with a suggested list of contact
names and phone numbers, and a list of points you'd
like the article to touch on.

#4.  Remember that AOPA is *our* organization,
financed by *our* dues.  They're nice folks, and
they do listen to the membership.  If we want to
push them to be more active in a certain direction,
we can do it.  Call 'em up and talk to them, 
Stormwind.  Toss some ideas back and forth and
let us know what happens.

#5.  Hey Sean, do you think we could get the old
Sky King shows released on video?

-- Dave Touretzky,  CFI-AIM,  Seneca N8147E (``The Public-Spirited Beast'')
From: scottwee@mercury.ksu.ksu.edu (Chuan Chun Wee)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Flight Surveillance Avionics
Date: 12 Nov 1992 13:33:59 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: mercury.ksu.ksu.edu


  I need some information pertaining to Flight Surveillance Avionics..
 
  like :

    1) What is it? 
    2) Which companies have anything to do with it?	

  Any response is greatly appreciated!!! Thanks!! 

  please post answers (if any) to this Newsgroup! :)

scottwee@ksuvm.ksu.edu
scottwee@matt.ksu.edu
Dept of Chemical Engineering, KSU
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: hhg9751@tamsun.tamu.edu (Herb Graeber)
Subject: Looking for copy of "Eight Hours to Solo"
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:01:29 GMT

Does anyone remember a book entitled "Eight Hours to
Solo?"  I remember that it told the story of a student
pilot learning to fly the J-3 Cub and that it contained
many photos.  It was probably published during the
forties as I read it in grade school in the early fifties.
Am looking for a copy to add to my Cub memorabilia.  (Just
getting nostalgic in my old age, I guess!)

Thanks for the bandwidth and to anyone who might know
where a copy can be found.

-- 

 Herb Graeber K5HG, Senior Systems Analyst, Microcomputer Support
 Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843  (409) 845-9999
 hhg9751@tamsun.tamu.edu     profs: x043hg@tamvm1.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation
From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Subject: Re: radios and non-pilots
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:22:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.160836.23398@news2.cis.umn.edu> rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin) writes:
> A few of us, who are not pilots (yet, I may add... :-), have an occasional
> need to communicate with aircraft in the air.  The obvious solution is to
> puchase a good handheld which will be useful once one actually pursues
> that flight-thing.
> 
> In any case, can someone tell me what the requirements are for licensing,
> etc., when the intended user is not airborne or attached to an aircraft
> in any way? 

The answer, plain and simple, is that you won't be able to get a license
for such uses of an aviation-band radio.  The FCC, which issues
aviation-band radio licenses, will do so under a very limited set of
circumstances:

    -  license for an aircraft or a fleet of aircraft
    -  license for a glider pilot who flies no-radio airplanes
    -  license for a fixed base operator
    -  license for a flight school

The first two are restricted to use _in_the_aircraft_.  The latter two are
restricted to use at a particular location and on a particular frequency.
Note that such licenses are not issued even to _pilots_ who wish to talk
to aircraft while they are on the ground, let alone random members of the
public.

If you, as J. Random Public, wish to communicate with people who are on
board a private aircraft, your best bets are:

    -  amateur radio
    -  citizens band radio

Naturally, the aircraft will need to be appropriately equipped, and these
radios will need to be checked to ensure that they do not interfere with
navigational equipment on the aircraft.  You will also need to obtain
appropriate licenses from the FCC.

I would suggest that 2-meter amateur radio is probably your best bet.  The
equipment is sufficiently inexpensive that a pair of handheld transceivers
can be obtained for about $500.  Licensing is also relatively simple these
days -- you can obtain a "no-code" Technician license without the need to
learn Morse Code, by taking two simple multiple-choice written
examinations.  Of course, both sender and receiver will need to obtain
licenses.

						Geoff, KC6ZUA
From: bennett@refine.enet.dec.com (Steve Bennett)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Flying Under Bridges
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:41:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: nntpd.1992Nov10.154645.16717
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


In article <furtaw-091192164518@145.1.92.170>, furtaw@comm.mot.com (Bob Furtaw) writes...
>The rudder is coupled to the aileron control, thus pilot controllable, but
>not individually controllable.  I believe this is what you meant.
> 

This talk about looping Ercoupes has me confused.  I know the original post was
meant to be humorous/sarcastic, but taking it seriously for a minute:

Why would independent ailerons and rudder be required for a loop?  A roll
maybe, but a loop?  I thought any aircraft with an elevator, enough power, and
a high enough load factor could be looped, placards notwithstanding.

-Steve

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Bennett			|  bennett@refine.enet.dec.com
Video, Image & Printers Group	|  Kolb Twinstar N614BT
DEC - Westford, MA		|  "I'm not lost, I'm positionally challenged!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: heuring@riker.cs.colorado.edu (Vincent Heuring)
Subject: Re: Flying Saucers
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:11:33 GMT

In article <15429@auspex-gw.auspex.com> tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett) writes:
>In article <SBCHANIN.92Nov10113655@raisin-nut.ai.mit.edu>, 
>sbchanin@ai.mit.edu (Steve Chanin) writes:
>
>
>Dr. Mohler envisions a device flown entirely by computer control. There
>would be no need for a "pilot's license" as it would be as easy to
>drive (fly?) as a car.  You would get start her up, program in your
>altitude, climb rate and speed, and away you go for 1000+ theoretical
>miles.  he also wants the machines to move on automatic control along
>predetermined routes so that the "pilot" does not have to understand
>navigation.
>
>Sounds boring to me...


"After this era of great pilots is gone, as the era of great sea
captains has gone---each nudged aside by the march of inventive
genius, by steel cogs and copper discs and hair-thin wires on white
faces that are dumb, but speak---it will be found, I think, that all
the science of flying has been captured in the breadth of an
instrument board, but not the religion of it.

"One day the stars will be as familiar to each man as the landmarks,
the curves, and the hills on the road that leads to his door, and one
day this will be an airborne life.  But by then men will have
forgotten how to fly; they will be passengers on machines whose
conductors are carefully promoted to a familiarity with labelled
buttons, and in whose minds knowledge of the sky and the wind and the
way of weather will be extraneous as passing fiction."

                Beryl Markham, _West with the Night_

-- 
---
 Vincent Heuring   Dep't of Electrical & Computer Engineering
 University of Colorado at Boulder      Boulder CO 80309-0425
 heuring@cs.Colorado.EDU   o) 303-492-8751    h) 303-449-8868
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation
From: jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown)
Subject: Re: radios and non-pilots
Organization: Quarterdeck Office Systems, Santa Monica CA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:44:15 GMT

c60c-3gi@web-3c.berkeley.edu (Masayuki Karahashi) writes:
>Can I listen to planes (for fun, ie, use it like a scanner) or is even
>turning on a transceiver illegal if you are not airborne?

Until relatively recently, FCC held that anybody was allowed to receive
any transmission.  (The recent exceptions are for cellular phones and
some kinds of pay TV.)  The fact that the device is _capable_ of transmitting
doesn't make any difference.  (After all, it's only slightly less capable
of transmitting when it's off - you have to twist a knob and push a button
instead of only pushing a button.)

If there's a transmit lock on the Icom, use it just so you won't transmit
accidentally, but other than that go right ahead.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: dlevy@viper.engin.umich.edu (David W Levy)
Subject: Re: Exceed Vne or max G's first? (was Re: looping a non-acro aircraft)
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 92 09:12:13 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Aerospace Engineering, Ann Arbor, MI
Originator: dlevy@viper.engin.umich.edu


In article <1992Nov5.121947.1266@eplrx7.es.duPont.com>, rogersmf@eplrx7.es.duPont.com (Mark Rogers) writes:
> In article <Bx5K7u.1H4@hfglobe.intel.com> zardoz@rx-db (zardoz@rx-db.hf.intel.com) writes:
> >down attitude.  But that should not require pulling high G's if there is
> >sufficient altitude.  I remember an Ercoupe that pulled off both wings while
> >looping near Vancouver, WA.  He was performing his loops rather low, however.
> >Hypothetically, isn't it better to exceed Vne than pull back harder?
> 
> This question was asked at our soaring club's fall meeting: faced with such
> a choice, is it better to exceed Vne or the plane's maximum g-rating?
> 
> The answer given was that there is a larger margin built into the
> g-rating (e.g., to be rated for +4.5 g's, a plane must sustain 6 g's in
> testing), so go ahead and pull back a little harder.  Evidently the margin
> built into Vne is only about 2-3%.  
                             ^^^^^^^^

Sorry, not correct.  According to SFAR 23.15(b), the maximum operating
speed, VNE, must not be greater than 80% of the design dive speed, VD,
unless it is shown that a smaller margin will not result in exceeding
VD after an upset at VNE.  The airplane must be shown to be flutter free,
etc., up to VD.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: jbrown@qdeck.com (Jordan Brown)
Subject: Re: getting tired
Organization: Quarterdeck Office Systems, Santa Monica CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:29:46 GMT

hchong@netcom.com (Hoi Chong) writes:
>jpw@minerva.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein):
>> Why do people get so tired while flying?
>I would think that your body is constantly trying to adjust to new
>altitude density, plus countering the feet-not-on-firm-ground effect, 
>etc, etc.

Others mention noise.  For me, sunlight and focussing at infinity are
big factors.

One technical note:  your body runs on presure altitude, not on
density altitude.  When you inhale, the air gets warmed to body
temperature.  The original temperature doesn't matter much.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc