HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rfinch@water.ca.gov (Ralph Finch)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Finding toxic waste (Re: Flying for the Environment)
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:55:32 GMT
	<1992Sep1.202233.18306@pony.Ingres.COM>
Organization: Calif. Dept. of Water Resources
In-reply-to: kevinq@Ingres.COM's message of 1 Sep 92 20:22:32 GMT

>>>>> On 1 Sep 92 20:22:32 GMT, kevinq@Ingres.COM (Pencil-Necked-Geek) said:

[Lots of personal invective, liberal-facist nonsense deleted]

Too bad you don't follow your own advice about shutting up, not
wasting bandwidth, using email, and moving to Idaho.  Typical, though,
of the left-wing usenet cops who want to tell us what to think.  Cuba
I hear is a real people's paradise; perhaps they could put your
talents to work writing diatribes for El Li'der Ma'ximo.  When you get
tired of that you can put your flying abilities (if you have any) to
use one last time, steal an airplane, and escape back to the USA.

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.

John, just remember: Illigitimi non-carborundum.

Another concern of mine is the hypocrisy of many of the eco types.
For instance, what do these eco-flyers do with gas they drain from
sumps to check for contaminants; do they carefully recycle it, or just
pour it out on the ground like everybody else?  Have they considered
the environmental impact of airplane use, which just from gasoline
consumption alone must be much worse than an automobile, especially
when you consider that airplane engines don't have any emission
controls.  How do environmental activists justify recreational use of
aircraft?
--
Ralph Finch			916-653-8268
rfinch@water.ca.gov		...ucbvax!ucdavis!caldwr!rfinch
Any opinions expressed are my own; they do not represent the DWR
From: rob@cats.ucsc.edu (99708000)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: More propping large engines
Date: 3 Sep 92 07:21:56 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucsco.ucsc.edu


Hmm, well several posters mentioned propping huge radials
(tho usually not 1st person)--that's beside the point, they are
low compression and don't put up that much of a fight.

One poster thought it was ok to invite a demo.

Well, what I wanted to hear was how, or should, do you prop this particular
type of engine (an IO-520, low time--lots 'o compression resistance)
on a 210?

Have any of you >actually done this<?  If so, what techniques/precautions
were necessary?  (Doesn't have to be that particular engine/ac combo--
any LOW TIME (lots of compression) (TS)IO520-540).
-- 

-Rob Strand

   From Bitnet: rob@ucscvm  From Internet: rob@ucscvm.ucsc.edu    
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: joero@microsoft.com (Joe Robison)
Subject: Re: Blimp touch and goes...
Date: 27 Aug 92 02:41:15 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

In article <1992Aug25.113546.1@pomona.claremont.edu> jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu wrote:
> In article <7187@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
> >>Javier Henderson, N6VBG         | Beat the 55mph limit (legally):
> >>jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu | Learn to fly!
> > 
> > ...but not in a blimp, apparently... :-)
> 
> But if he did achieve his 50 kts redline, would that not be a bit over 55mph?
> 
> Then we can argue about ground speed with tailwinds...
> 
> (gee...this can go on forever...)

And it will...

> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Javier Henderson, N6VBG         | Beat the 55mph limit (legally):
> jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu | Learn to fly powered aircraft!
>                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>                                         Does this fit the bill, Jay? ;-)

And the blimp isn't a powered aircraft?
Besides, redline on my sailplane is over double that...
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Re: Assembling gliders
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:33:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.140558.3912@brtph560.bnr.ca> rlarsen@bnr.ca (Richard Larsen P220) writes:
[Story of SGS 1-35 accident deleted]
>
>He had forgotten to hookup the ailerons. How often is assembly a problem
>or cause of accidents? Has anyone ever had a wing come off?

Looks like improper pre-flight procedures.  Glider pilots should perform
a 'positive control check' before flight after assembling a glider.
The procedure is essentially having a helper go to each control surface,
and hold it each direction while the pilot moves the stick or rudder
pedals in the correct direction.  Both directions (up/down) or (left/right)
should be checked as some aircraft might be rigged with cables instead
of pushrods.

This check should also verify that not only are the control surfaces
connected, but connected in the correct direction.

Newer gliders have eliminated much of the potential of misrigging.  For
example, the aileron control is a shaft that rotates and connects like
a square/splined shaft as the wing is assembled to the fuselage.  No
cables, no muss, no fuss, and it is almost impossible to screw up.
Of course one can always forget the wing attach bolts, but I haven't seen
that ..... yet.

Kerry
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Propping big engines
Date: 1 Sep 92 12:11:29 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <17v8qoINNibk@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
rob@cats.ucsc.edu (99708000) writes:

> Who of you out there has propped an engine this big?
> Tell me about it please, if you have.

I have a friend who owns a WACO UPF-7.  It has a Continental 220
horsepower 7 cylinder radial.  The battery died on it one day when he
was at another field and had no opportunity to get a charge.  He had to
prop it or not fly.  He did prop it successfully, but definately didn't
like the experience.  There is a sequence in the film "Spirit of St
Louis" in which James Stewart playing Charles Lindberg starts his mail
plane in a snowstorm.  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.  My father got a chuckle out of that but I have
no way of knowing whether this was pure Hollywood or based on actual
experiences.

Corky Scott
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu
Subject: Re: umwaufi report
Organization: Pomona College
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:51:53 PDT

In article <1992Sep02.184543.19956@i88.isc.com>, ericth@i88.isc.com
> I could do all 10 hours in one C152 trip!  Seriously, tho' could I legally do
> a long trip like that as a student?  Yes, yes, I know, look at the FARs 
> Uncle Sam's Insomnia Cure...  never mind, I'll look it up

I read on Flight Training magazine about this woman who flew her plane from
coast to coast, and she only had a student's certificate at the time. I guess
all it takes is to find a CFI willing to sign you off for that trip... (besides
the flying skills).

______________________________________________________________________________
Javier Henderson, N6VBG         | Beat the 55mph limit (legally):
jhenderson@pomona.claremont.edu | Learn to fly!
From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: GA Safety (was: stupid pilot tricks)
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:33:38 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Aug25.202406.19244@peck.com>, geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) writes:
> 
> I pay about the same amount per year for my aircraft insurance (AIG) and for
> my car insurance (State Farm).  Both vehicles are "based" within a few miles

(details deleted)

> It appears to me that my insurance dollar gives me substantially better
> coverage for the airplane than for the car.  Thus, one could argue that the
> insurance companies seem to "think" (and I use that term very loosely) that
> flying is safer than driving.

True, until you factor in the time spent in each vehicle.  Let's say the 
average car travels something like 15,000 miles per year (which I think is
about right).  At an average speed of, say, 35 mph, including stops and
whatnot, that's 425 hrs/yr spent in the car.  Now how many hours does the
average private aircraft fly in a year?  I don't know, but I doubt it's 
even close to 300 hours.  So you're paying roughly the same amount of money
for both vehicles but spending 40% more time in the car.

I've left out considerations such as the car is probably more likely to be
stolen or damaged and so a higher percentage of the premium probably goes 
towards collision damage and less towards liability than the airplane.  But
on the other hand, liability settlements and awards are more outrageous and
more prevalent for aircraft accidents than for auto accidents, so our
liability premiums probably reflect the insurance company's level of risk as
much as our own.  They are not the same thing.  Then how do we account for
the fact that multiple pilots can be covered on the same policy for the same
premium, whereas multiple drivers increase the rate on an auto policy?

So, what's the conclusion?  I think in philosophy our insurance costs are a 
nice way to assess our level of risk, but in practice there are too many 
variables and unknowns to make a valid comparison.
-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
From: lihan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Bruce G. Bostwick)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Number of U.S. Pilots  (was Number of small aircraft wanted)
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:59:00 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1940106@hpgrla.gr.hp.com> leed@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Lee Devlin) writes:
>BZZZZZZT,  CORRECT!   :-) :-) :-)  Your arithmetic AND assumptions are
>excellent.

<tounge planted firmly in cheek>

I believe the de facto game-show standard nowadays is 

DING  = "Correct"
BZZZT = "Wrong bucko.."

-- 
<BGB>
lihan@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu        /     "I can't complain,
(really Bruce Bostwick)        /   but sometimes I still do"
from the great state of TEXAS /         --Joe Walsh--
From: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Dennis Chamberlin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Finding toxic waste (Re: Flying for the Environment)
Keywords: ponds, plumes, piles, and stains
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:45:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: tekig7.6749
Reply-To: drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <c!an1ka@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>
>read just about enough of this little twinket's babbling without saying

She's not a twinket. A *twinket* is a new wadio for your airpwane.

And, she's not babbling. This net is for flying experiences, not 
personalities and judgements.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: osh@cray.com (O'Shaughnessy John)
Subject: Re: umwaufi report
Organization: Cray Research, Inc, Mendota Heights, MN
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:00:52 CDT

A shame I couldn't make it.  I went to a gathering last year with Tim in
Hutchinson, KS, and the car ride sounds the same...


Now, what other midwest areas would make for a good Fly-In?  Perhap something
near Wisconsin Dells?  Something along the Mississippi for the fall colors?


John

-- 
-----
John M. O'Shaughnessy					osh@a00308.cray.com
Cray Research, Inc.	Voice: 612.683.7322		Fax: 612.683.7509
From: rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: MSP Fly-In Proposal
Date: 2 Sep 92 23:45:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

Well, since I'm guilty of thinking up the idea in a 
moment of late night insanity I suppose I ought to
initiate plans for organizing the fly-in.  If
there is sufficient interest, either I'll finish the
details or perhaps one of the netters up in the Twin Cities
will volunteer to do so.

Anyway, I would suggest October 10 or October 17 for
the fly-in.  This should give sufficient spacing
since the last umwufi and should still be early enough
to preclude a snowstorm.  Whether it will be warm
enough to allow IMC flight is probably 50-50, so we
might need an alternate date.

So I would propose that we plan a fly-in for Saturday,
October 10 with an alternate of October 17
in case of bad weather.  We could meet at MSP at 
2 PM +/- 1 hour and then explore the Mall,
catch dinner, and depart roughly 7 PM.  Yes,
this would require night flight but what a gorgeous
sight that would be on departure.

If you would be interested and/or if you have
any proposed amendments to the above plan,
let me know via e-mail.  I'll summarize
the replies and post a report back to the net.

-- 
Richard Kaplan M.D.           Medical Software Exchange BBS
806 2nd St. SW # 104          (507) 281-1989 14,400 HST
Rochester, MN  55902          (507) 281-1689 Voice
PP-ASEL-IA     N4VRB          rkaplan@mayo.edu|netcom.netcom.com
From: rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: umwaufi report
Date: 2 Sep 92 05:26:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep1.191614.14626@eecs.nwu.edu> phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
>The Amana colonies?  Amish Acres?  No those won't work......we wouldn't
>have to drive to the restaurant!  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)
>


For some real excitement, how about MSP (the TCA primary field
in Minneapolis) at Northwest rush hour?  Then we could 
spend the afternoon/evening at the new Mall of the Americas.

Disclaimer: I'm not sure if I'm serious about this or not. -:)

-- 
Richard Kaplan M.D.           Medical Software Exchange BBS
806 2nd St. SW # 104          (507) 281-1989 14,400 HST
Rochester, MN  55902          (507) 281-1689 Voice
PP-ASEL-IA     N4VRB          rkaplan@mayo.edu|netcom.netcom.com  
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: dougg@kbsw1.uucp (Doug Gerecht 806 1031)
Subject: Re: DME Answers
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:19:15
Organization: Kentek Information Systems

In article <122140229@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> jle@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Jer/ Eberhard) writes:

   BTW, Denver Departure also moved from 121.1 to 126.1, but there is still
   a lot of traffic attempting contact on the old frequency.

This one got me a couple of weeks ago.  I had known they were fiddling
with the frequencies but I had just got my brand new terminal area
chart.  It had the old frequency on it.  I ended up tuning into DEN
ATIS to get the new one.

Right Hand:  "Now lets see . . . what was that left hand doing?"
-- 

		dougg@kentek.com	Doug Gerecht
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: greg@saltydog.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis)
Subject: Re: Cost of capital (was: Flying saves money (sic))
Keywords: money
Organization: Data Parallel Systems, Inc
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 01:14:19 GMT

In <78fn+k=@lynx.unm.edu> ingham@vesta.unm.edu (Kenneth Ingham) writes:

>In article <1992Aug27.235822.852@hpcvusn.cv.hp.com> mark@.cv.hp.com writes:
>> [about the hidden capital costs of owning an airplane]

>I have to respectfully disagree with Mark here.

And so do I.  Our company's CFO also disagrees with Mark.  Of course,
the CFO is biased, he's getting ready to buy a 182!

>First, 46L has been going *UP* in value, even as I fly it.

Indeed, 57E has steadily risen in value in the two years I've owned it.
Sure, it's not as good an investment as, say, a Dreyfuss account.
On the other hand, I can't fly a portfolio to the NEFI!

I didn't check the "book" value of '57E when I bought it, I simply
haggled with the previous owner until he and I came to an agreement.
My airplane is ALREADY worth more than I paid for it.  I just called
AOPA and the current "book" value of '57E, with an 800hr SMOH engine,
is equal to what I paid for the aircraft and a firewall-forward overhaul.

For the numbers freaks, I paid $24,000 in 1990 for my 1979 172N with a
runout engine.  I immediately coughed (and I did cough) up another
$11,000 for the complete firewall forward (muffler and engine mount
needed work) for a total outlay of $35,000 in 1990 dollars.  AOPA says
my airplane, with 800 hours since that major overhaul, full IFR plus LORAN
and DME has a bluebook value of $36,000 today.  AOPA also indicated
that, according to the bluebook, my brand-new WX-900 was worth what I paid for
it, bringing to the total bluebook value to $41,000.

57E has several "skyhawk" niceties that are not covered in the bluebook such as
factory strobes, long-range tanks, new windshield, articulating seats, L&R
opening windows, new carpet, etc.  I think I could probably get the
$41,000.

So, assuming I turned around today and sold it for that book value of $41,000
it would mean that I had flown a nice, IFR, 172 for two years for the
cost of insurance, hangar, annuals, maintenance, avionics, oil, and fuel.  With
no scheduling hassles or overnight worries.

In other words, I am a member of a 1-person only club that owns a C-172.
The monthly club dues are $200 and the airplane rents for $22 an hour (wet);
I can get out of the club at any time with no penalties.

greg, who likes to rationalize his toys
--
Gregory Reed Travis				D  P  S  I
Data Parallel Systems Incorporated   greg@dpsi.com (For MX mailers only!)
Bloomington, IN			     greg@indiana.edu (For the others)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Subject: Stupid pilot tricks and Scary Stories
Reply-To: kerry@Ingres.COM (Kerry Kurasaki)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:52:31 GMT

In article <CSTACY.92Aug23182815@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu> cstacy@ai.mit.edu (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:

>I think one of the best weight-and-balance stories I ever heard was
>brought to mind by the recent "Small Crash / Cherokee" thread from Georgia.
>A pilot whose acquaintance I had made took a Cessna 152 (not a 172) out
>of BED, put himself (standard size) and a passenger (standard weight, tall)
>in the front, put the other passenger (a full adult) in the cargo area
>"sqwunched up on the floor" and embarked on a cross-country flight.
>The passengers all thought this was normal, it not being much
>different than what someone might do in an automobile, although it was
>decidedly less comfortable for the rear passenger.  There was no crash
>on either leg of the trip.  However, the front passenger, who was
>telling me the story, won't go flying anymore because she was scared
>about how wildly the plane acted (the pilot was cursing and generally
>having a hard time lining up) when the pilot tried to land it.
>
>They're out there.

Now THAT IS scary!
From: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Lighted airways beacon co
Date: 31 Aug 92 11:33:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Advanced Computer Concepts BBS, New Rochelle, NY 914-654-1981
Reply-To: dick.zeitlin%acc1bbs@ssr.com (Dick Zeitlin) 


JM> .I finally found a copy of the mnemonic, and it turns out that I had
  > .four of the six characters right.  Here's the proper key:

JM> .  When Undertaking Very Hard Routes Keep Directions By Good Methods
  > .  1    2           3    4    5      6    7          8  9   10

Hmmm...  Minor problem...  The mnemonic I have, from a noted aviation
authority, is:

      When Undertaking Very Hard Routes, Always Navigate By Good Methods

Now, "Keep Directions" and "Always Navigate" both have the same sense,
and COULD be confused, but...

        There are still beacons with code "A" and "K" operating!!!  So,
        I must conclude that BOTH sequences are valid...


JM> .   W  _ _ .         \ dot/dash inversion
  > .   U  . . _         /
  > .   V  . . . _
  > .   H  . . . .
  > .   R  . _ .         \ dot/dash inversion
  > .   K  _ . _         /
  > .   D  _ . .
  > .   B  _ . . .
  > .   G  _ _ .
  > .   M  _ _

Your code for W is wrong...   That's G, as you noted correctly further
down.  And using the mnemonic I have:

        W        . - -
        U        . . -
        V        . . . -
        H        . . . .
        R        . - .
        A        . -
        N        - .
        B        - - - .
        G        - - .
        M        - -


JM> .(BTW: my reference for this is the coffee-table book "The National Air
  > .and Space Museum", page 98.)

And mine is Barry Schiff, in a private communication dated 26 Aug 92.
I'm going to follow up with him, since there's evidence that BOTH
mnemonics may be valid...

        D/

 * OLX 2.2 * Real Pilots enjoy NDB approaches to minimums!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

In rec.aviation, prang@ssc-vax.boeing.com (Ron Wanttaja) writes:

>But as a pusher design, commercial constant-speed props aren't available.
>
>Which is undoubtedly one of the reasons for the Seawind's
>vertical-stabilizer-mounted engine....

Does this mean that the rear engine of a C-337 is turning a fixed-pitch prop?
I guess I never thought about it much, but that's hard to imagine . . .

Mark
--
Mark Cousins                Hewlett-Packard Co.        mtc@hpsemc.cup.hp.com
HP-UX VAB programs    19055 Pruneridge Ave., MS 46T5
(408) 447-4659             Cupertino, CA  95014          FAX: (408) 447-4364
From: phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Proposed MSP Fly-in (Was uamwfi, or something like that)
Keywords: MSP fly-in
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:00:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University

In article <255@csinc.UUCP>, jon@csinc.UUCP (Jon Barber) writes:
|> Being only a lurker and gonnabee pilot, but having flown out of smaller 
|> airports many times with friends, employers, and lately, my brother,
|> I can't help but wonder why those of you considering a fly-in to the
|> Twin Cities would want to use MSP.
|> 
|> It seems that the smaller fields (Flying Cloud, Holman, Crystal, etc.)
|> would be less hassle, and still offer the services of the main Inter-
|> national airport.  Maybe youse guys are a bit masochistic, or something?

But that's half the reason why MSP is such a unique destination for
a fly-in.  MOST fly-ins are to small uncontrolled fields (like Ottumwa
or Antique or Dayton General South).  Flying in to a busy international
airport would be part of this fly-in's uniqueness and novelty.  The other
reason it was picked is that it is the closest airport to the intended
destination:  Mall of the Americas.  I wouldn't want to go to a major
airport for every fly in, but doing it this one time adds to the fun
and the novelty.  It will also certainly add to my experience!

The planners are vey diligently checking out the situation to make sure
that we will not be intruding or causing a serious problem with MSP.
I want to thank both Richard and Tim for making those extra checks.
And I'm sure that that the MSP controllers appreciate it, too.

However, I would throw out this caveat.  If you have never flown in
to a busy tower controlled field before, and especially if you have
never flown in to the primary airport for a TCA, ARSA or TRSA, I would
recommend that you either get such experience before coming to this
fly-in or you come as a passenger/student/observer.  I personally feel
confident that I will have no problem handling the radios and ATC, but
that's because I've had experience with Palwaukee, Du Page, Rockford,
Madison, San Antonio, and the TCAs in Florida.  Also, review your wake
turbulence avoidance procedures!

		William LeFebvre
		Computing Facilities Manager and Analyst
		Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
		Northwestern University
		<phil@eecs.nwu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation