HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shankar@rss.dl.nec.com (Uday Shankar)
Subject: Re: Lighter-than-air craft?
Organization: NEC America
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 17:43:24 GMT

> Re: Lighter-than-air craft? Would this newsgroup be interested ?

I believe any avaition related topic will fit in well here.
All that your friend has to do is to post an article to
the newsgroup and see what the reaction is! At worst, your
friend will have to put up with indifference. I for one, would
welcome discussions on any aviation topic, including "small
lighter-than-" air craft.

______________________________________________________________
Uday Shankar                 uday.shankar@rss.dl.nec.com
NEC - Supervisory Systems    (214) 907-4494
______________________________________________________________
"go flying, put a spin on life"
From: ipc@otter.hpl.hp.com (Ian Crighton)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 11:34:56 GMT
Subject: Re: creation of eunet.aviation
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

Re: Discussion on the creation of eunet.aviation.

I give a big "yes" to this idea, mainly because of the lack of 
representation of the views of microlight/ultralight pilots in
rec.aviation. 

In my view, this situation seems to have arisen because of the generally 
higher cost of personal aviation in Europe. Thus a higher proportion of 
people with network access and aviation interest in Europe are likely to 
be flying microlights rather than Group A (General Aviation) machines,
compared to the US.

I have never been involved in the ultralight scene in the US, but the
few postings that I have seen in rec.aviation seem to indicate that it
is less well regulated than in the UK. Would it be fair to say that US
GA flyers "look down" on their ultralight counterparts? In my limited
UK experience of 3-axis microlighting, pilots are more likely to be
excellent airmen rather than back-country hedge-hoppers.

Another good reason for having a seperate European group is the marked
difference in reguations between ultralights in the US and microlights in
the UK.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Crighton   HP Computer Peripherals Bristol, UK.   ianc@hpcpbla.bri.hp.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gezelter@rlgsc.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: 360 turn on final by commuter airliner
Date: 16 Apr 92 23:42:04 GMT
Organization: Robert Gezelter Software Consultant, Flushing, NY

In article <40538@shamash.cdc.com>, gkc@freddie.udev.cdc.com (gordon k chace) writes:
> I was a passenger on a commuter flight (American Eagle from Chicago O'Hell to
> Bloomington (Illinois) on an ATR42 turboprop) that did tight 360 on final at
> Why would they do this? 
 
I had a tower controller do this to me under VFR conditons a 
couple of years ago.
 
Condition: Altitude < 1000, downwind leg heading into Grass Strip 
	   beside runway.
 
Tower:	Glider 1, Execute a 360 for spacing.
 
Glider1:	Glider 1
 
(Yes, I was flying a sailplane at the time!!)
 
Lear lands on runway.
Glider 1 lands on grass strip.
 
CFI-G (yes I was a student soloing) takes off in car for tower!!!

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Robert "Bob" Gezelter                       E-Mail:  gezelter@rlgsc.com  |
| Robert Gezelter Software Consultant         Voice:   +1 718 463 1079     |
| 35-20 167th Street, Suite 215               Fax:       (on Request)      |
| Flushing, New York  11358-1731                                           |
| United States of America                                                 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: wolfgang@sam.first.gmd.de (Wolfgang Diestelkamp)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: landing: flaps or not
Date: 14 Apr 92 09:53:13 GMT
Reply-To: wolfgang@prosun.first.gmd.de
Followup-To: rec.aviation
Distribution: usa
Organization: GMD-FIRST, Berlin
In-reply-to: mpucket@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU's message of 14 Apr 92 04:40:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.044049.23786@CS.ORST.EDU> mpucket@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Margaret Puckette) writes:

   [ ... ]

>   Example:  You are cleared to land at a very busy field, told to keep speed
>	     up on final, and to turn off on the first taxiway NO DELAY!  (just
>	     about anytime you land at Portland International (PDX)).

>	   * Again come in fast, timing your speed reduction on approach to
>	     allow some flaps on short final (this helps you slow down to make
>	     that taxiway without skidding your tires).  As you flare and just
>	     begin to touch down, dump those partial flaps fast and begin 
>	     braking.  You'll make it off the runway before that MD-80 on your
>	     tail has you for lunch!

Sorry, I'm missing your point here.
Why would I want to dump flaps at the moment I start using my brakes, producing
more lift and reducing braking action ?
Or is this just a misunderstanding, and by "dump those partial flaps" you mean
retract them ?
--
Wolfgang Diestelkamp
wolfgang@prosun.first.gmd.de
diestelkamp@kmx.gmd.dbp.de
From: scott@ontek.com (Scott Dickson)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: VFR on top
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:23:49 GMT
Organization: Ontek Corporation -- Laguna Hills, California

In article <1992Apr5.203503.1460@debisa> n6vbg@debisa (Javier Henderson) writes:

>Incidentally, Thermal's field elevation is -117. Is this the only airport in
>the US below MSL?

Check just below Thermal on your LA Sectional.  Brawley, Calipatria,
Imperial, NAF El Centro and Salton Sea are all below sea level.  The
only other one I am aware of is Furnace Creek in Death Valley (-211,
the lowest).  Desert Air Sky Ranch and Calexico are right at sea level.
-- 
Scott Dickson
scott@ontek.com
From: wolfgang@sam.first.gmd.de (Wolfgang Diestelkamp)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Extending US (FAR) related threads towards worldwide discussions
Date: 14 Apr 92 10:38:28 GMT
Reply-To: wolfgang@prosun.first.gmd.de
Organization: GMD-FIRST, Berlin

In newsgroup news.group, Jay Maynard and G. David Frye discuss a topic that is
more related to rec.aviation than to the creation of eunet.aviation, so I'd
like to bring this discussion back to rec.aviation (and sorry for quoting more
than writing myself in this case, but I'm not quoting rec.aviation articles):
In article <6366@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:

|>   In article <1992Apr13.215917.21733@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> frye@cerl.uiuc.edu (G. David Frye) writes:
|>   >I believe that a newsgroup of this magnitude requires frequent reminders to
|>   >its participants to KEEP THE DISCUSSION ON TRACK.

|>   So far, so good.
|>
|>   >A thread which begins as a
|>   >specific question about application of a US FAR is not enhanced by telling the
|>   >requester how it's done in some other country XYZ.

|>   Here's where we part company. Not only am I interested in how it's done in
|>   XYZ, but that may actually have relevance in the US, especially if the reason
|>   it's different is because of the different environments in the two or because
|>   the other country is following the ICAO rules and the US isn't.

|>   >I think the idea of "neti-
|>   >quette" works in both directions -- it's important to build an international
|>   >community of aviation enthusiasts, and this newsgroup is a crucial tool, but
|>   >rec.aviation is also a specific source of specific information to individuals
|>   >who come here to ask specific questions to which they seek specific answers.
|>   >Sometimes, in my darker moments, I wonder if our non-American posters lose
|>   >sight of that need out of a desire to "be a part of it all."

|>   I don't think that someone who's looking for specific information is hindered
|>   by postings that aren't directly relevant to their question; I might suggest
|>   that a new thread is warranted (by nuking the References: line and/or changing
|>   the Subject: line), but that's the extent of it. Besides, is it really fair of
|>   us in the US to flood the rest of the world with US-specific postings and get
|>   unhappy when they post other-country specific info?

Can we find a net.consensus on this issue ?
I for one could restrict myself to not extending these discussions, if
rec.aviation.land.usa decides you don't like it.
What do people think ?

--
Wolfgang Diestelkamp
wolfgang@prosun.first.gmd.de
diestelkamp@kmx.gmd.dbp.de
From: chf0@newshost.gte.com (Curtis Fennell)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Full Scale P-51 Replica Info
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:30:09 GMT
Reply-To: chf0@gte.com
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA

A couple of years ago, I saw some info in Kitplanes (and in Plane and
Pilot) about a company in So. California called Flight Training
Devices that was building a full-scale composite replica of the P-51
mustang called the P-51DH.  This aircraft was going to be available to
as a kit and was going to be powered by a small turboprop.  

I wrote to Flight Training Devices and got an info packet, along with
a promise of more information as it became available.  Last year,
after I had heard nothing more for over a year, I wrote the company
but got no response.

Does anyone out there know anything about this company or this
project? Did it fail/disappear?

Any info would be appreciated.

-- 
============================================================
Curt Fennell    [   "Get DOWN off that cross, honey!       ]
chf0@gte.com	[    Somebody needs the wood!"             ]
============================================================
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: rickf@pmafire.inel.gov (Rick Furniss)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 20:20:56 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Grand Canyon flights / SFAR
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 



 Dear net land;

      Does anyone have the latest data on Grand Canyon flights in personal
aircraft ?

     I read "somewhere" that the SFAR was about to be outdated unless they
renewed it, like this or next month.  Yes I realize the latest current charts
show bla bla bla, but thats not the straight poop all the time.

    Sure would be nice if Joe Blo pilot could fly over or around the Grand 
Canyon without having to be a big time , money making tour service!!!

    The local FSS is of no help so far.  
    Any info appreciated.

Rick Furniss

rickf@pmafire.inel.gov
rickf@servprod.inel.gov
From: nigel@modcomp.uucp (Nigel Gamble)
Subject: Loose formation flying at Sun 'n' Fun
Organization: MODCOMP, an AEG company
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 22:31:27 GMT

...And I'm not talking about the airshow performers!

I flew my new AA-5B Tiger to the EAA Sun 'n' Fun at Lakeland on Sunday,
and participated in some `loose formation' flying with 50 or 60 other
aircraft!  I'm referring, of course, to the VFR arrival procedure on
the busiest day of the show.

We arrived at about 1000 local to find large numbers of aircraft
converging on the Lake Parker powerplant, the visual reference point
that marks the beginning of the procedure.  The controller was
chanting, `Nose to tail, nose to tail.  No side-by-side.  If you can't
go nose to tail, break out and re-enter, find someone to follow and go
nose to tail, nose to tail.' We were alongside someone on our right at
this point, so we broke off to the left and went around the lake to
try again.

At this point the controller said, `Lakeland are not accepting any more
arrivals at this time.  They've closed the airport because aircraft
were not flying nose to tail.  Everyone fly a left hand circuit, nose
to tail, along the shore of Lake Parker until they let us send some
more aircraft in.' So there we were, all at 1000' and 100mph, following
nose to tail with just a few aircraft lengths between each of us.
And, of course, more aircraft were arriving to join the procession
all the time.

Eventually they let us complete the procedure, still following nose to
tail, and everything went very well, except that the Cherokee directly
in front of me kept slowing down almost to the Tiger's MCA.

This certainly was a change from the separation standards I usually
experience at tower-controlled FXE :-)
--
Nigel Gamble					uunet!modcomp!nigel
AA-5B N28491					modcomp!nigel@uunet.UU.NET
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: m12566@mitre.org (Skip Guild)
Subject: Re: FSS, DUATS, new airspace classification
Organization: MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 12:37:57 GMT

In article <uVmkiB1w164w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> a_deal@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Andrew Deal) writes:

>...

>The notion of having to pay for a weather service (DUAT) also confounds
>me.  It seems we pay enough to the government (both Canadian and
>American) for them to provide this service, among others.

DUAT itself is free for the (modem and Internet) asking here and Alaska.  
The only "cost" is the Aviation Medical the recording of which in the FAA 
system is your ticket to service.  I suspect any FBO charges relative to 
DUAT is the cost of access to a modem and terminal.  Use your own and it's 
truly free (taxpayer paid for).

>Looking forward to flying around the San Jose area this summer.  I'm
>glad the FAA is changing it's airspace designations to "Classes" (ie.
>SJC will be Class C airspace, not an ARSA), which has been the case in
>Canada for years.

For those who are used to the A, B, ... G airspace designations, the use of 
ARSA, TCA, ATA, etc is confusing.  It will be the same for us initially to 
get used to the new terminology starting next year.  Fortunately there will 
be a phase-in period where both designations will be used on charts.

**********************************************************************
* skip@mitre.org,          |  PVT-ASEL.  Instrument Rating wannabe.  *
* FAX (617) 271-3044,      |  Cessna 150/172/172XP                   *
* If all else fails human- |  Piper Warrier/Archer                   *
* human at DSN 478-5980    |                |                        *
* (MITRE ext 7619) or      |            ----|----                    *
* (617) 271-7619.          |        x------(o)------x                *
*                          |              0 0 0                      *
**********************************************************************
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: phil@saxon.syd.dwt.CSIRO.AU (Phil Irvine)
Subject: Auto engines in glider tugs
Organization: CSIRO Division Of Wool Technology,Sydney
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:36:14 GMT

Is anyone using an Auto engine conversion in a glider tug?

This subject came up during a discussion at the gliding field yesterday. 

I am aware of a project here in Australia sponsored by the Gliding
Federation of Australia using the Ford V6 engine. This is apparently quite
advanced and I think ready for flight trials. The tug is a Piper Pawnee.

This project was originally based on a conversion kit from the USA but
apparently was found to be deficient in many respects requiring a long and
expensive re-engineering. If it is successful the projected running costs
are MUCH lower than the Pawnee with the standard Lycoming engine, both for
fuel costs and for maintenance.
-- 
Phil Irvine  (phil@syd.dwt.CSIRO.AU)
CSIRO Division of Wool Technology
RYDE, NSW, AUSTRALIA
From: mferrare@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Mark Ferraretto)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: GPS -- A Potentially Dangerous Technology
Keywords: GPS, Navigation, Defense
Date: 10 Apr 92 07:04:06 GMT

>Flame pilot light: Can we adopt the metric system for aviation?  Are
>there reasons to keep the english units besides the conversion costs?

An advantage of measuring distances in nautical miles is that it is a 
'natural' distance.  Ie 1nm = 1 minute of latitude.  I think France and
Germany have metric systems already?  Here we're half and half.  Vertical
distances are in feet, some horizontal ones in metres and some in nautical
miles.  Eg a/c separation is 500' vertically and 600m (1800'?) horizontally.

Ignoring the actual conversion, there are advantages in going metric.  It's
a lot easier to work out how many metres there are in a kilometre than feet
in nautical or statute miles etc.
--
    ___    PA38. | Name  : Mark Ferraretto
     |     Gotta | Place : Department of Physics and Mathematical Physics
-----O-----love  |         University of Adelaide
   / | \   it!!  | Email : mferrare@physics.adelaide.edu.au
From: Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark T. Evert)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Motion 'Discomfort'...
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:21:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: aio.1992Apr6.142108.19541
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems

In article <1992Apr6.000056.12477@infonode.ingr.com> 
kerl@cmack.b11.ingr.com (Dan Kerl) writes:
> I started getting queasy.  By 6 tenths, I was quite nauseated. Since the 
flight
> terminated shortly thereafter, I was able to avoid doing the "Bush 
Thing", 

I enjoy aerobatic flight, but I can get sick riding as a passenger 
straight and level.  I will never get sick as long as I have control of 
the plane.  Additionally, the more you fly,  the more you will become 
adapted and the likelihood of getting sick will decrease.  Nerves play a 
role also, especially as a student.

In addition to the aerobatic flying, I've been a NASA test subject in 
thier quest to solve the problem of Space sickness.  I've been strapped in 
spinning chairs and flown in NASA's 0 G plane known as the Vomit Comet 
(Actually a KC135).  Extensive exposure to this type of stuff eventually 
desensitized me to motion sickness, but unfortunately it is only 
temporary.  I can fly loops and spins all day in a Citabria, but don't put 
me on anything that goes around and around at the amusement park.

Mark T. Evert

Cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov
(713) 282-5525
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: rickf@pmafire.inel.gov (Rick Furniss)
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 18:08:10 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Landing a Skylane
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <3400203@hpcc01.corp.hp.com> mtc@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Mark Cousins) writes:
>To add to the net.discord about Skylane landings --
>
       STUFF DELETED 

>I fly the pattern at 80 knots and target 65 to 70 over the fence.  (60 to 65
>if it's a real short field.)  I use all the flaps and have flown the 182 in
>any condition from chock full (2950 lbs) to just me and a little gas and have
>never run out of elevator.  Mind you, it takes a good pull -- there's a
>big-ass downspring in these airplanes pulling the other way.
>
   WOW! 80 knots !

   I use 80 MPH in a C210 on base - final, VFR approach.
   If I remember right , I used 70 MPH in my C182 years ago.
   Flaps and power all the way around thank you.


***** standard diskCLAMER *****

rickf@pmafire.inel.gov
rickf@servprod.inel.gov.

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: waugh@rtpnet05.rtp.dg.com (Matthew Waugh)
Subject: Re: children
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 17:01:32 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

This is posted for a friend who does not have net post access, please
note the e-mail address at the end if you wish to communicate with Tom.

Thanks		Mat


My three children have all been flying since they were infants (the
oldest is now seven) for a total of about 400 hours.  Most of this time
was in Mooney 201's.  About 50 hours was in an Aztec.  They have all
done well with traveling.  They do better when they spend the entire
trip strapped into a car seat.  When they are younger, they frequently
sleep through the trip.

We encourage headset use as soon as they will tolerate it, but this isn't
usually until around 2 years of age.  We have had their hearing tested, and
have not found any loss.  If they have an ear infection, we tell ATC that
we have a sick child on board and they have been very helpful in permitting
slow climbs/descents and in allowing us to stay below 5 to 7000 feet to
minimize problems for the children.

The only problem we had was when our son was about 4 years old.  He
had an ear infection but we didn't know about it.  About 30 miles from
our destination he started asking why the plane was flying backwards!
On short final, about time to flare, he suddenly was airsick.  With
impeccable aim he hit the mike of the headset directly and I had to finish
landing the plane with that noise, amplified by the intercom, in my ears!
We made an acceptable landing.  The worst part was disassembling the big
dynamic mike on the Telex D950 and picking out all the mess.

Tom Jackson                                Geriatric Service
PP-IMSEL                                   Medical College of Georgia
Aztec 888SB                                Augusta, GA 30912

I can't post to rec.aviation, but email can reach me at:
TomJack%USCN@uga.cc.uga.edu

Matthew Waugh			waugh@dg-rtp.dg.com
RTP Network Services 		
Data General Corp.		
RTP, NC. (919)-248-6034
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: dr@endor.uucp (David Robinowitz)
Subject: Growing Planes
Summary:  Aircraft Maintenance is no fun
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 14:00:25 GMT

Well, It's been six months that Charlie and I have been together (PA28/151
N7281C, that is), and like any new significant relationship, there have
been some good times, and some, well, you know. If anyone out there thinks
that owning their own plane will cut down on their total, or even per hour,
flying expenses -- forget about it! At least for the first year. I have.

Here's a list of some of the damage:

Strut Seals (l & r), Prop Seal, Spark Plugs, 8 Hinges (both aileron and
stabilator), Various Lights, Oil/Fuel Hoses Firewall Forward, 2 brake
cyllinders, Spinner bulkhead, Prop nicks, Battery Cables (aluminum -->
copper),Seat Rail, Seat Belts (2 shoulder harness, 1 lap belt), Stabilator
Tips (repaired w/ fiberglass), Vertical Fin fairings (X2), Oil return
lines, Vacuum Pump Seal, Mag Seals, Trim Drum, Aft Wing Spar Attachment
Bolt, Various Flight Control Doo-Dads (about $300 worth), Cowling Latches
(x 2), Elt Battery, Various Electrical Repairs -- elt ground wire, intercom
repair, etc., Carb. heat box -- various repairs, cabin heat/defrost hoses, 
plus the usual oil changes -- the list goes on and on.

Left to be done: Exterior and Interior.

When I bought Charlie, I had many foolish thoughts, such as, "Gee, I'll
save up for a Loran....." Instead, I've ended up dumping money into that
hole in the sky, just to keep her flying safely.

I thought I got a great deal with Charlie, now I'm not so sure. I think
owners start to neglect their planes once they've decided to sell them.
I'm sure other owners have had similar experiences. Please tell me that
these are in fact growing pains. Otherwise, I think I'll need to sell
Charlie to pay the mechanic!

-Dave "No money for gas" Robinowitz

David Robinowitz (Comp. Sci. Ph.d. Candidate)  home: (617) 232-9872/3
Division of Applied Science 		       233 Kelton St. Apt. 12
Harvard University                             Boston, MA 02134
N7281C, PPSEL/I	             Just say "yo".    dr@das.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: sss@netcom.com (Small Systems Solutions)
Subject: Re: landing: flaps or not
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 19:15:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Summary:   Throttle-back, full flap, precision approach
Distribution: usa


My first CFI was an old Bird Dog (01) Pilot in Viet Nam.  I learned
precision approaches with throttle cut before final,  and hitting
the numbers was a matter of timing the flap action.

Of course, crosswind landings were another matter -- high speed, no
flaps, crab, kick, fly the plane to the ground.

My point is that there are numerous skills to be learned. Maybe your
instructor is trying to get you to master one thing at a time. Then
again, he may just be an numbskull. :-)
-- 
Small Systems Solutions                   1563 Solano Avenue, Suite 123
sss@netcom.com                                  Berkeley, CA 94707-2116

The above-expressed opinions aren't necessarily
Newsgroups: rec.aviation