HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hanlon@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Casey Hanlon (SVER))
Subject: be nice to your engine
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Distribution: usa
Date:  1 Sep 1992 17:50 EST  

Gregory Travis writes:
>The only thing you're sacrificing at high power is fuel burn.

If this were correct, then racing engines used in drag racing would last
longer than a few seconds between overhauls.  Drag racing engines may
be an extreme example, but they do represent a significant factor that
has been overlooked in this discussion.  STRESS!  Higher rotating speeds
result in higher stress in the reciprocating components of the engine as
well as in the structures that support these components, the case and
heads.  Higher manifold pressures also result in higher peak pressures
in the cyclinders.  The higher pressure also places higher stress on the
cyclinder walls, piston, rod and crankshaft.  All of these stresses
are cyclic in nature and adversely affect the fatigue life of the 
components involved.  Even though the components are receiving lubrication
wear still exist.  Most of us operate engines that don't have oil filters.
This allows abrasive particles to remain suspended in the oil not to mention
a certain amount of combustion products.  Consequently, wear is still
occuring.  The presence of the oil simply significantly reduces the rate 
at which the surface is erroded.  In the end though, starting a cold
engine probably causes more wear than any other single factor.

Casey Hanlon
From: jac@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (John Clear)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: There I was - mag check/Stupid Pilot Tricks
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:52:24 GMT
Organization: occasional on alternate Tuesdays

In article <31AUG199207371824@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> fskevin@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Kevin R. Kirtley (SVER)) writes:

> My greatest "not too serious" faux pas was pulling the mixture rather than
> the carb heat while landing at a crowded fly-in. It sure got people's
> attention.

	During my pre-private training, I had the friction lock set very loosely
on the throttle, and on reaching down to grab the mike to call cross wind, I 
accidently throttle back about halfway.  My instructor was none to pleased and
helped me advance the throttle by slamming my hand into the panel.... Since 
then, I make sure the friction lock is tight enough so that I cant accidently
move the throttle.


-- 
John A Clear                      PP-ASEL
jac@mentor.cc.purdue.edu          C/LTC, CAP-NYW
clearja@sage.cc.purdue.edu
From: prang@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: 'Raiders' planes (was Re: Lost Arc:  Flying Wing)
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:40:13 GMT
Organization: Boeing Defense and Space Group, Seattle WA

In article <1992Aug31.235852.6749@den.mmc.com>, zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin) writes:

> If one watches closely, during the fight scene in 'Raiders
> as the 'plane' trundles around one can see a chain drive
> to one of the main wheel bogies.

Ditto for the F-16 in "Jewel of the Nile".  Except in that case you see a
drive shaft and universal joint.

The "Indiana Jones Adventure" show at the Florida MGM Studios has a
flying-wing mockup real similar to the one in the movie.  It taxis as well.

> A while ago there was dicussion about the identity of the
> aircraft that strafed Indy and 'Dad' in the last Raiders
> flic.  It was not an Me 108 Taifun; I think it was an
> example of a Swiss tandem two seat trainer built in the
> 40's and 50's.  I can't recall its designation.

Swiss... or Italian.  I saw a picture in a British-published aircraft book
that showed a plane very similar to that in the movie.  It was a post-war
Fiat trainer.

On a similar note, the book _Hell Bent for Leather_, the story of the A-2
and G-1 flight jackets, makes mention of Jones' leather jacket in the
series of 'Raiders' films.  If I remember it right, Spielberg wanted 
Indiana to wear a leather jacket; the art director didn't want to use a
flying jacket and so designed his own.  Which, of course, looks VERY much
like a flying jacket.

                                          Ron Wanttaja
					  prang@ssc-bee
					  ...rutgers!uw-beaver!ssc-bee!prang
                                          prang@ssc-bee.boeing.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: davea@col.hp.com (Dave Allen)
Subject: Re: Finding toxic waste (Re: Flying for the Environment)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:35:32 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

Well, John (De Armond), I'm glad that individual rights are a concern of
yours. You'll find they are a concern of everybody on this net. Flying is
a very individual thing, you know. You've recently seen us (collectively)
agonize over reporting an outrageously dangerous fellow pilot.

And I'm not fond of authority either - or at least how it's used/abused.
Those with authority seem to abuse it 90% of the time. My brushes with
authority have not been pleasant: May 4, 1970 in Kent, Ohio. My only
traffic ticket - for not stopping TWICE at a stop sign (was dismissed).
Even the milder authority of the higher education system keeps me from
pursuing knowledge in that sphere.

No, John, you'll not be in my kill file - actually I don't have one. I like
what you have to say. And I'm going to ask you to pursue individual rights
even further. You may not rank verbal assalt up there with physical assault,
but you've probably noticed in life that physical wounds can typically heal
even faster and more completely than verbal wounds.

Well, anyway, my appeal is that you add verbal abuse to your list of gestapo
tactics which should be avoided because of their negative impact on
individual rights.

dave allen - Fly because you love it.
From: schneide@scubed.com (Steve Schneider)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Fire bombers in action...
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:34:46 GMT
Organization: S-CUBED, A Division of Maxwell Labs; San Diego CA


We have had an exciting afternoon here at work.  A fire has been burning
on a ridge on the opposite side of Sorrento Valley (San Diego, CA) from 
our facility for over three hours now.  We've been treated to a front row 
view of the California Department of Forestry bombers attacking the flames.

The fire is about 1/2 mile away and only seems to be endangering one
house which is well protected by fire trucks -- the winds blowing in 
from the ocean have been pushing the fire along the ridge towards that 
structure.  I believe as a precaution some businesses at the top of the 
ridge have been evacuated.  The affected area is about 1 mile long 
and < 1/4 mile wide, but most if it is very steep terrain.  Standing 
outside our building one can easily feel the heat on your face from the 
flames across the valley floor.

They are using a B-26 and larger 4 engine bomber (sorry,  I'm not sure
what type that one is) dropping chemicals along with a Bell Ranger and
a Huey dropping small amounts of water.  There has been a Cessna 
Skymaster orbiting over head directing the effort since shortly after 
the fire broke out.  These aircraft are based at Ramona,  and it is 
taking the two bombers close to 40 minutes between drops to fly back 
to base, refill their chemical tanks, and return to the fire.  The 
Bell helicopter has been refilling its water bucket from a stream 
directly in front of us, so it has a pretty quick turnaround time.  
The Huey seems to be landing someplace nearby to refill bottles under 
its belly.

Initially the choppers didn't have much effect.  The bombers were
having trouble early on too because in releasing over the steep terain
part of their load might hit the high ground on target,  but much of
the load would seem to dissipate driffing down to the lower portions
of the canyon walls.  Now that they seem to have it pretty well under
control the choppers are doing a good job of putting out the hot spots.

It's been fascinating watching the coordination of the air attacks.
It is also fun to look out your window and see a bomber coming straight
at you -- then feel the building shake as he climbs out only one
or two hundred feet overhead!  I think I'll go home tonight and watch
my copy of "Always" again.  :-)

Steve "I wish I'd brought my hand held and my camera..." Schneider


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
Stephen Schneider                 S-CUBED              3398 Carmel Mtn Rd.
schneide@scubed.com           (619) 587-7295           San Diego, CA 92121
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Finding toxic waste (Re: Flying for the Environment)
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:11:38 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <RFINCH.92Sep2085532@venice.water.ca.gov>, rfinch@water.ca.gov (Ralph Finch) writes:
> 
> I like to hear what John De Armond has to say.  Get this: I don't need
> you to censor my news feed for me.  John raised valid concerns about
> excessive government intrusion into personal lives.

Ralph, it isn't that John doesn't have an opinion or that any one wishes
to silence that opinion.

The issue is his PRESENTATION of his opinion. He opened his message with
vicious personal attacks. That doesn't fare well for presenting his
opinion.

If John had sent a polite message, saying something like, "Hey, guys, I
think it is great that you are concerned for the environment, but you
ought to consider that reporting what appear to be illegal toxic waste
dumps might bring considerable hassle to innocent citizens," then I don't
think anyone would have had a problem with it. But he didn't. He
chose to attack persons on the net.

The response you see isn't necessarily an endorsement of the policy/politics
of the ecologically-minded on the net. Instead it is the legitimate
defense from a vicious, unprovoked personal attack on a public medium.

The remainder of your post raises good questions, presented in a polite
fashion. I'm eager to read responses. I just wish John and chosen the same
manner in which to present his thoughts.

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.
From: hutton@ncrcol.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (ed Hutton ext. 6488)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Instrument Training
Keywords: IFR Instrument Training
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:23:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR E&M Columbia SC.

In article <71691@apple.Apple.COM> robg@Apple.COM (Rob Griffiths) writes:
>
>You might also need to budget MORE than $4,000.  Here's a fairly typical
>scenario in a major metro area:
>
>The plane is either a 172 or a Warrior, fairly standard IFR platforms.
>
>   Flying:      50 hours @ $60 per hour == $3,000
>   CFII:        50 hours @  25 per hour ==  1,250
>   Books, Etc:                          ==    200
>   Checkride:   (Assuming a D/E)        ==    200
>                                           ------
>                                  TOTAL    $4,650
>

You might also need to budget LESS than $4,000. Here's the pricing at my
club. The plane is an IFR 172.

    Flying:      50 hours @ $35 per hour == $1,750
    CFII:	 Free 
    Books, Etc:  			 == $  200
    Checkride:   (Assuming a D/E)        == $  125
					    ------
				   TOTAL    $2,075

One fellow in the club borrowed all the books for his instrument
training (advantage of a club). If you belong to the local EAA chapter
($25/year), you can borrowed books from the library and watch training
tapes on the Chapter's VCR and TV. We have two CFII's. One is a retired
Air Force Instructor Pilot. The other instructor is a 700 - 800 hour
younger fellow who flys charter at the local FBO. Several other good
CFII's are available for $15 to $20 per hour.

Granted Columbia is a small metro area ( approx. half a million people).
In my experience, prices vary widely across the country. Good deals are
still available if you look around. Even though my instruction was free,
I still used check pilots. I found the experience of having different
people in the right seat made the check ride easier.

Ed
-- 
edward.hutton@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Ed Hutton)
From: ron@pilot.njin.net (Ron Natalie)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Propping big engines
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:01:04 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

> The engine is sitting so high off the ground
> that the pilot has to come running up from the side and leap up and
> grab the prop as he's coming down in order to give the prop enough of a
> kick to get it started.

It actually might be safer that way, if it means that when you hit the
ground you'd be out of the prop arc.

-Ron
From: lee@bluefuzz.sw.stratus.com (Lee Cooprider)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: 727 IN MIA
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:59:59 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

In article <l9krguINNfq1@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> wsanders@ffeine.Sun.COM (Wiley Sanders) writes:
>!MIA 08/080 MIA ARTCC RCO SITES FREQ 281.5 127.0 319.1 135.22
>381.45 132.4 296.7 323.0 124.7 134.6 269.05 132.95 OTS

... and in DUATS under Radar Summary, "RADDOME DESTROYED"


-- 
Lee W. Cooprider				PP-ASEL/IA
Lee_Cooprider@vos.stratus.com			Skylane N2908F "Wiley"
From: marc@autodesk.com (Marc Ramsey)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: GLIDER: stall landings (Was: Transitio
Date: 29 Aug 92 03:03:37 GMT
Reply-To: marc@autodesk.com
Organization: Autodesk, Inc.

>2) Schweizers (and even twin Grobs) are not typical of the majority of
>   modern glider types, in that they are "nosedraggers" intended to
>   be flown on.  Often it is impossible to do a stall landing because
>   the tailwheel touches down so early (e.g., SGS 1-34).  Outside the US, 
>   taildraggers are the rule.  Most people prefer minimum-energy landings 
>   in taildraggers, at least in calm conditions.  This usually involves 
>   some stalling of the wing before touchdown.

In my experience with "taildraggers" (Pegasus, DG300, SZD 51-1), I've 
become accustomed to a touch down speed (usually with about 1/2 spoilers)
of 5 to 10 knots above stall.  If I get much slower than that, the tailwheel
touches first, pitching the nose down, resulting in a bouncy, if not hard,
landing.  Generally, I try to get the main and tail wheels to touch at the
same time, even in such "nosedraggers" as ASK-21s and Grob 103s.  As far
as I'm concerned, you have to be above stall speed to do that, therefore,
I'd say "don't do stall landings"...
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.aeronautics.
Date: 29 Aug 92 17:38:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 

KS> .I'm not saying the entire thread should be killed in these cases,
  > .just that a floodgate to control these bursts, and to filter random,
  > .groundless speculation where needed, would make the group much more
  > .pleasant for most folks to read.  (Alas, as moderator, I wouldn't get
  > .to enjoy that same benefit. :-( )

KS> .Making an airliners a moderated group is a position I feel I must
  > .support, however grudgingly.

I'm less concerned with redundant postings than with the extra delay
inserted by the moderator, and the resultant reduction in spontaneity.
There's already a big delay in the system, as a result of its
distributed architecture and operating mode.  More delay, and filtering,
will reduce that spontaneity.

I'll still vote for "unmoderated" until such time as it's clearly
counterproductive to avoid that step...

Then again, if it's not open to debate, why ask??  <~>

        D/

 * OLX 2.2 * Dick.Zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com
From: clearja@sage.cc.purdue.edu (John Clear)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: CAP Members!
Summary: are you in CAP
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:02:18 GMT
Organization: occasional on alternate Tuesdays


	Since many of you have mention involvment with CAP, I thought it would
be nice to get a list of all the CAP members that read this group.  Send me
your name, wing, rank, ratings, callsign and any other info you think might
be useful in a database.

John
-- 
John A Clear -- jac@mentor.cc.purdue.edu, clearja@sage.cc.purdue.edu
PP-ASEL   C/LTC, CAP-NYW                                 
'The best way to accelerate an IBM is at 9.8m/s^2' 
'Hard work may not kill me, but why take the chance?'
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jcmorris@mwunix.mitre.org (Joe Morris)
Subject: Re: Mag check random thoughts
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:59:06 GMT

glennh@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Glenn Hetchler) writes:

>                                                                   I regularly
>check my switch while at SLOW idle, at the end of flight.  But even then, its
>only for a brief moment.  

Amen to this.  Another reason to do the mag check at shutdown (rather than
only during the runup) is the possibility that the vibration during flight
(yes, airplanes *do* occasionally vibrate!) might have loosened the P-lead
connections.  Doing the mag OFF check just before pulling the mixture
is no guarantee that it's perfect, but it will detect the failure of the
ignition switch during flight.

I may have posted this earlier, but when I took the written for my
advanced ground instructor's ticket back around 1972 or so one of the
questions was "what would be the result of a broken P-lead?"  None of
the answers were correct; I was later told that the question had been
picked up from an extremely old list and had originally been written 
to target airplanes with fuel systems lacking an "idle cut-off" position
of the mixture control.  The "official" correct answer to the question was
that you could not shut off the engine...

(The question was revoked and credited as "correct" on the test.)

Joe Morris
From: stanley@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Cellular phones again!  Argh!!
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:46:09 GMT
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography

In article <168473BEB.M21208@mwvm.mitre.org> M21208@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>You call the airplane people, you get an airplane answer.  The FAA only cares
>about onboard electronic equipment in terms of of interference with the
>operation of the aircraft.  As long as your cellular phone doesn't screw up
>nav or comm functions, they're happy.  However, the FCC and the cellular
>system operator would probably take a different view.  Try taking it up with
>the FCC and see what happens...

You don't need to. The FCC has already said that it is illegal to use
cellular telephones while in flight.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: fishler_len@Tandem.com (Len Fishler)
Subject: Re: Lost Arc:  Flying Wing
Organization: Tandem Computers
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:48:11 GMT

In article <1646@shaman.wv.tek.com>, donovanh@sptekwv1.wv.tek.com (Donovan Hammer;685-2499;60-850;;sptekwv1) writes:
|> > In the movie "Raiders of the Lost Arc" there was this WWII German
|> > flying wing type airplane.
|> > Anybody know anything about it?
|> > Was it a Hollywood invention?
|> >
|> > -- 
|> > Steve Harlow, Spinneheim, Glen Ellyn, IL, USA
|> 
|> That plane was a "Hollywood invention" although it did demonstrate
|> that the person who came up with it had a feel for some of the
|> exotic designs developed in Germany before and during WWII.
|> 

Well, I can't say for sure that whether the one in Raiders was a Hollywood
invention, but there apparently was a flying wing-like German WWII design.
The most recent Wings series program on aviation technology advances which
aired this past weekend on the Discovery channel mentioned it, and showed
a picture of it.  It having been quite some time since I saw Raiders, I
couldn't rememember enough detail to compare to the real one shown.  In 
fact, the program mentioned a paper on a flying wing design that was
published in the '30s, which apparently was the inspiration for it as
well as the various Northrup designs.

- Len Fishler -
PP-ASEL-IA
Centurion N3784Y
fishler_len@tandem.com
From: jpw@minerva.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Insurance
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:51:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Drexel University, Philadelphia PA

Hi all,

I have been considering various renter's insurance plans, and think
that Avemco (and others similar) is the best. It provides $5K for
medical without having to sue anyone, and it covers your (even related)
passengers.

Before I go out and buy it, does anyone have any advice? 
I am concerned with how much aircraft liability to purchase: is it enough
to cover the FBO's deductable ($500 in my case)?

I'd appreciate any help from seasoned flyers.

Joe Wetstein


 When I was once a student, attempting a landing dual...
 Instructor: "Nose up ... Nose Up ... Nose UP... NOSE UP"
             *bang* (well, we didn't need that tail anyway)
 Instructor: "Ooops... I think you nose up too much..."
From: bills@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM (Bill Standerfer)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:55:08 GMT
Subject: Owners List - 9/92
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Co., Loveland, CO
From: will@wixer.cactus.org (Bill Staniewicz)
Subject: Aerial surveys
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 16:56:15 GMT


I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has conducted aerial surveys
involving marine or terrestrial mammals.

What type of aircraft did you use?
How was it configured?
What type camera equipment was used?

Thank you...
-- 

Bill
will@wixer.cactus.org
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: cab@col.hp.com (Chris Best)
Subject: Re: across the border and back
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:15:59 GMT
Organization: your service

> > Which brings up an interesting question: What are the legalities of
> > flying across the border and back, without landing in the other
> > country?  Suppose I want to do some aerial sightseeing around the few
> > San Juan Islands that Canada got to keep after the Pig War (well, it
> > was still Britain back then).  Will the US and/or Canada get pissed
> > off and chase (or shoot) me down?  Will a DVFR flight plan make it OK?
> 
  ...response deleted - it's okay but not suggested...

----------

Which leads to yet another question.

What if you have to do a precautionary or emergency landing while 
over the border, and haven't notified customs or anyone else?