HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: smith@ur-guh.com (Russ Smith)
Subject: Was "Re: HUD question", now diverging toward HUD usage
Reply-To: smith@ur-guh.com
Organization: Ur-Guh Complex Inc.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:24:42 GMT

Gee, back in the 1980-81 time frame I worked for a small
university-affiliated aerospace-engineering-oriented company.
The sole reason someone with my educational background (CMSC
with a Master's in Image Processing) was hired was to assist in
the development of an All-Weather-Landing-System. The idea was
to use multiple methods, including Infrared, Radar, Low Light
Level tv, as well as database-driven graphics, to generate a view
of the field as a plane landed or took off under 0-0 conditions.
This was to be displayed on a Heads-Up display. The client was
a fairly significant player in the overnight package delivery
business that guaranteed overnight delivery...one foggy 2 AM
morning in Memphis rather thoroughly destroys guarantees...

A Heads-Down display was obtained for research purposes from
Wright-Patterson AFB along with some videos. This was strictly
radar based, however. There are many interesting visual sideeffects
using a "range/azimuth" sensor when trying to generate an "x/y" display;
consider the appearance of, say, a brick wall in front of you
with a "range/azimuth" sensor and that with an "x/y" sensor (like a 
tv camera)...somewhat different.

The contract was cancelled due to expected cost of the final system
on a per plane basis -- the cost was high due to time frame (few nifty
gee-whiz fast processors or large cheap memory chips back then) and the
absolute desire to keep the pilot "in the loop" -- everyone at
the top of this particular company was an ex-fighter jockey -- these
folks somehow just don't seem to want the plane flying itself. [sob, 
my job got cancelled, too, alas, along with the promises of free flight
instruction and flying time :-(...but at least I took my very first 
plane ride while there (a Tiger?)]

Russ <Smith@ur-guh.com>


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: barnett@convex.com (Paul Barnett)
Subject: Re: HUD question
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:07:45 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Keywords: HUD, Head Up Display
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <7895@transfer.stratus.com> spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker) writes:

> [discussion about focus point for HUDs]

>So, given these apparently diverging needs, what's the philosophy on where
>a HUD should focus?

I am aware of only one HUD system for non-military aircraft.  A few
years ago, Aviation Leak did a story on a retrofit for 727's that
consisted of a HUD for the captain (left side only).

The display was a "reconstruction" of the runway, in addition to a
number of "peripheral" indicators of airpeed, altimeter, etc.  Once
you descended low/close enough, the runway would "appear" behind the
HUD, presumably coinciding with the artificial image.

During the approach, the first officer's job was to monitor the
traditional instruments.  So, the captain did not have to shift his
focus back and forth.

I think the system was to be certified for Cat IIIb approaches.  Not
quite auto-land, but close (50 foot DH?).  The target market was
time-sensitive air freight, like FedEx.  I don't know what actually
happened.

OK, how does this relate to GA?  Obviously, one cannot assume two
pilots, unless the plane is "big" and expensive.  I suppose that would
be the initial market anyway, much like the "glass cockpit".  By the
time it filters down into the medium and low end of GA, I suspect
there will be some changes to orient it towards a single pilot. 

I could only speculate what those might be, but I would hope that it
would be certifiable as a "sole source of information", meaning that I
could keep my head up, and looking "outside".  

--
Paul Barnett             Internet: barnett@convex.com
Convex Computer Corp.      Office: 214-497-4846
Richardson, TX        Mobile/Home: 214-236-8438
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: furtaw@comm.mot.com (Bob Furtaw)
Subject: Re: Flying Under Bridges
Organization: Motorola
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:02:21 GMT
Followup-To: rec.aviation.misc

In article <1992Nov8.031519.27384@peck.com>, geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Nov7.081317.28968@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
> thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby Hughes) posts an entirely humours inquiry,
> and (unfortunately) some netters didn't see the [semi-subtle] smileys.
> (Aargh!)  Toby asked:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Just to make sure that no netters actually might even consider thinking
> about trying such a stunt, you can expect that any flight under a bridge
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^
> or other structure such as the St. Louis arch will be met with a violation
                                                ^^^^
> of FAR 91.13, Careless or Reckless Operation, and you can bet that maximum
> fines and penalties will be levied.
> 
Just a bit over-stated ;-).  When taking off or landing in a sea plane one
is sometimes faced with flying under or over a bridge.  In fact during my
1968 sea plane check ride, I was asked to simulate a glassy water, cross
wind take off (there was no wind).  When I finally broke free of the water,
I realized I couldn't outfly the bridge (not that bridges can fly), so I
flew under it. This didn't bother the examiner at all, and was a common
practice at Little Ferry Seaplane Base in NJ. The bridge BTW was only about
80' high.

Careless or Reckless Operations in some situations may be perfectly
acceptable in others.  Any doubt, don't try it.   So, If you're on a X/C
and happen to see a nice bridge, please take Geoff's warning. Don't do it. 
 

Bob Furtaw - W8IL
CFI-A/G/I/MEI, CGI-A/I
All disclaimers ever written by anybody apply. :-)
From: gbb@bnr.co.uk (Geoff Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Exceed Vne or max G's first? (was Re: looping a non-acro aircraft)
Date: 5 Nov 1992 17:08:29 GMT
Organization: BNR Europe Ltd., London Road, Harlow, Essex, UK
NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.100.64.6

>   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?
>

I believe gliders are have their Vne's set at 90% of the maximum design speed
and are tested upto 95%.  Go over 95% and you automatically qualify as a test
pilot - good luck.


	Geoff Brown	E-mail: G.B.D.Brown@bnr.co.uk
			BNR Europe Ltd., London Road, Harlow, Essex
From: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Flying Saucers
Date: 13 Nov 92 22:12:53 GMT
Reply-To: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.  Engineering

In article <9211131428.AA26476@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil>, 
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil 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.


Actually, I wrote the above opinion, and I agree with yours below...


> I had a professor once who used to spout off bout how woth the advent of
>microcomputers, etc, we should be able to make airplanes that could basically
>fly itself.  A classmate turned to me and muttered, "When you make an airplane
>that any idiot can fly, they will."


>Dave Hyde

But then again would any sane person make such a vehicle???


Tom Pickett 
tpickett@auspex.com or 74616.2237@compuserve.com
SHO  GOZE
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Subject: Re: Exceed Vne or max G's first? (was Re: looping a non-acro aircraft)
Reply-To: bcash@crchh410.BNR.CA (Brian Cash)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 02:42:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.161654.14239@i88.isc.com>, rmiller@i88.isc.com
(Richard J. Miller) writes:
|>In article <ansc8hs@Unify.Com> raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling) writes:
|>>
|>>	A word of caution is in order that Vd is demonstrated in
|>>	a factory-fresh aircraft.  As individual airframes age they can
|>>	flutter at increasingly lower airspeeds, especially if their
|>>	rigging loses some tension.  In some cases flutter has occurred
|>>	at speeds below Vne.
|>
|>and age isn't the only contributing factor. it is rather well known
|>within the soaring community that once a ship has had flutter, the
|>ship will flutter at a lower speed, possibly MUCH lower.
|>
|>Rich Miller
|>rmiller@i88.isc.com
              
This is caused by a weakening of the metal caused by the
high-speed flutter (like when you bend plastic, it gets
nice and soft where it was bent).  The hope is that
the Vd test shows no high-speed flutter, so the only
cause for flutter will be metal fatigue and stress (age).
Of course, this is not always the case! :^)
Once fluttering occurs, steps need to be taken to
re-support the frame.  
Does anyone have any more information on the Vd test conditions?
(or did I miss a post?) 


Brian /-|-\
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Flying Saucers
Date: 13 Nov 1992 08:35:03 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


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.

I had a professor once who used to spout off bout how woth the advent of
microcomputers, etc, we should be able to make airplanes that could basically
fly itself.  A classmate turned to me and muttered, "When you make an airplane
that any idiot can fly, they will."


Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions, go and get your own."

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: bullock@watson.bms.com (JOAN BULLOCK)
Subject: Re: getting tired
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Bristol Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:44:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.164808.8774@cbis.ece.drexel.edu>, 
jpw@minerva.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein) writes...
>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? 

From your symptoms, it sounds very much like CO build up in the cockpit 
from (I believe) an exhaust leak.  

We keep one of those plastic CO detectors on the panel.  I dunno if they
really work or we are just fooling ourselves.  Anyone with some empirical 
data?


Joan
From: demcma@bb1t.monsanto.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Warm places/short flying vacations
Date: 9 Nov 92 08:55:53 CST
Organization: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO

Now that the cold is approaching in the midwest, I'm trying to come up with
warmer places to fly to for 2-4 days without the hassle of customs/immigration.
Specifically I prefer more out-of-the-way places (-very- close to an airport)
over cities and am now considering Dauphin Island, Ala. and perhaps something
near the southern tip of Texas such as Zapata.  I have only the AOPA's Airport
directory for information thus far.  I would appreciate any additional
information on both these places (including temperatures for the various winter
months) and on any other suggestions the net can provide.  Thanks in advance.

Dudley McMackins          demcma@bb1t.monsanto.com      (St. Louis, Mo.)
Aeronca 7DC 4498E
Comanche 250 5153P
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: chris@a.cs.okstate.edu (Chris Schuermann)
Subject: Ercoupes (was Re: Bridges)
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 13:25:19 GMT

From article <1992Nov9.214446.2415@nntpserver.chevron.com>, by hdnea@usho92.hou281.chevron.com (David Neal):
> In article <1dmajiINNflp@news.aero.org> lmiller@aero.org (Lawrence H. Miller) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov8.031519.27384@peck.com> geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov7.081317.28968@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
>>>
>>>> Any ideas from you Ercoupe-loopers?
>>>
>>>Many Ercoupes have no rudder pedals; instead, they have interconnected
>>>ailerons and rudders.
>>
>>	Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe most Ercoupes
>>	have no pedals, and no pilot controllable rudder.
>>
> 
> Right -- Ercoupes don't have rudder pedals. Later versions of
> the same design (notably the Mooney Mite) do.
> 

Oops.  I believe you are refering to the Mooney M10 Cadet.  This was an
Alon Ercoupe with a different (and larger) slide back canopy, O-200 engine,
and spring steel landing gear (on some, not all).    The Mite was a strange
and quite small airplane.  Not at all related to the 'Coupe.

(Sorry,  I just wanted to jump into this mess, and the ercoupe bit gave good
reason.  :-))
From: rh@craycos.com (Robert Herndon)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: getting tired
Date: 11 Nov 92 06:49:41 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

Good Grief!!!  I've been waiting for an authority (you MDs out there
know who you are) to answer this question, but:

  YES!  Flying at high altitudes will leave you tired.

  I am sure there are many reasons for this, but two are:

1) The air is thinner, and your body suffers somewhat due to both
   (slight?) hypoxia and its efforts to compensate.

2) You are more easily dehydrated (cooler, dryer air up there).
   (Being tired is a symptom of dehydration.)

  I find the difference between 9,500' XC and 11,500' XC very
noticeable on long trips, though I have little problem flying
at 14,000' for short periods.  Since I live at 6,000' MSL, and
am presumably somewhat acclimated, you may notice substantial
effects at lower altitudes.

-r
-- 
   Robert Herndon -- not speaking officially for Cray Computer.
Ask about our designer dishwashers to match your washing machines!
From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Exhaust pipes on GA aircraft
Date: 13 Nov 92 17:00:06 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: wiley.ts.stratus.com

In article <1duqt4INN45c@pongo.West.Sun.COM>, brianh@smaug.West.Sun.COM (Brian Horn) writes:
> 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!)

Well, that's the first thing I thought of too... but then I thought about
radials, which send the exhaust everywhere and are usually attached to open
cockpit airplanes (there's more than one reason why pilots of open-pit 
aeroplanes used to wear rags, I mean scarfs, around their necks).

The significant difference between round and flat engines is that round 
engines send most of the exhaust away from the cockpit, whereas the proposed
exhaust routing for flat engines would probably send all the exhaust to the 
cockpit.  

And there's another difference: with open cockpit planes, there's always 
plenty of ventilation.  With an enclosed cockpit, exhaust gases that found
their way in would tend to accumulate.  Not good.
-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: acuff@CAMIS.Stanford.EDU (Richard Acuff)
Subject: Books, mags, etc. to learn about flying?
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:33:57 GMT


I probably won't be able to undertake lessons for a while, but I'd
like to start learning about flying.  Can you recommend books, videos,
or magazines that will help me learn concepts?  I have a fair
lay-level knowledge of airplanes.

I'm sorry if this is in a FAQ and I missed it.

	-- Rich
Xref: sparky rec.aviation.misc:606 rec.aviation:17251 rec.aviation.homebuilt:315
From: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation,rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Flying Saucers
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:43:33 GMT
Reply-To: tpickett@auspex.com (Tom Pickett)
Followup-To: rec.aviation.misc
Organization: Auspex Systems, Inc.  Engineering

In article <SBCHANIN.92Nov10113655@raisin-nut.ai.mit.edu>, 
sbchanin@ai.mit.edu (Steve Chanin) writes:
> A friend says he saw something about
> this on the TV show _Beyond 2000_.  I'd be interested in whether or
> not this information is true and in any pointers towards
> magazines/vendors who are involved in flying saucers (I've already
> checked _Popular Science_ and _Popular Mechanics_).

I believe you have seen the "Volanter" that Dr. Mohler is
designing/constructing in Davis, CA.  Dr. Mohler is a dentist
I believe, and he has for the past 20 years or so been working
on a VTOL aircraft that would allow a vertical takeoff, cruise
at up to 40K ft. at "400 MPH" all the while accomplishing some
unrealistic fuel consumption.

Flying Magazine's columnist (don't remember which one) did a 
column on it last year.  The conclusion was that the Dr.s figures
were off by quite a bit, but that miracles do happen.

Dr. Mohler has hovered for the camera, and did in fact for "Beyond
2000", in what was a testbed craft shaped like a saucer.  The aircraft
he is building is however, more in line with conventional design.  
he realized that there were practical problems with saucers, i.e.
they don't fit garages and parking spaces very well.

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.  The craft as a practical matter would be different
of course.  There are no automatic courses, and it would require a pilot,
and the FAA I think regards "Volanters" as "Powered Lift Vehicles",
and would likely regulate them.  I don't know what the current state
that the project is in...


Tom Pickett 
tpickett@auspex.com or 74616.2237@compuserve.com
SHO  GOZE
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
From: gsk@world.std.com (Geoffrey S Knauth)
Subject: fuel leaking from gas caps
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 08:49:44 GMT

spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker) writes:
>masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys) writes:
>> In retrospect, the tail-low posture had caused about 7-10 gallons of fuel
>> to leak slowly from the fuel caps over a couple of days.
>If it had been leaking out of the fuel caps over a period of a couple of
>days, I would think you'd have a nice blue stain running back [...]

Some people have STCs to use auto-gas.  I wonder if auto-gas does not stain?
-- 
Geoffrey S. Knauth, Marble Associates, Inc.                Member BCS-NeXT, LPF
gsk@marble.com, (617) 891-5555 work, (617) 547-5247 home   Standard Disclaimers
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,sci.aeronautics,comp.human-factors
From: dls@freedom.genrad.com (Diana L. Carlson)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation
Subject: Re: radios and non-pilots
Date: 13 Nov 1992 07:37:21 -0500
Organization: GenRad, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: freedom.genrad.com

In article <1dv8kqINNfe@agate.berkeley.edu> chem4-aa@garnet.berkeley.edu (Lonnie C. Martin) writes:
>In article <BxJBL6.42x@news.orst.edu> stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>...
>>Of course there isn't an N number on the license. The radio isn't an
>>airplane, and N numbers are AIRCRAFT registration numbers.
>
>I'm not sure I have ever flown an airplane that didn't have a fleet license,
>but I _think_ the airplane N number _would_ be on the radio station license
>(when the license is not the fleet kind, I mean).  
>
>Any airplane owner care to clear this up?


I have just had the opportunity to fill out the application for an airplane
radio station license, and I can assure you that one of the questions that 
was to be filled in WAS IN FACT the Aircraft registration number.  This is
a LEGAL and VALID FCC Callsign.  Stop and think about it.  If it wasn't a
callsign, then why would they be using the same "sequences" as they do for
Amateur Radio licenses?  (For those who don't know, in the USA, all ham
licenses must start with one of four letters:  A, K, N, or W, NOTHING ELSE).
And in fact, you can have your airplane registration number be your Amateur
callsign, IF it happens to start with an N....Dave's been thinking of changing
ours to N1JYX :-)....


Diana

-- 
->Diana L. (Syriac) Carlson dls@genrad.com	Ham: KC1SP (Sweet Pea)      <-
->I'D RATHER BE FLYING!	P-ASEL, INST		CAP: CPT, Freedom 690 Mobile<-
->AD ASTRA, PER ASPERA				Airplane: C-172 N6513E	    <-
->GenRad, MS/6, 300 Baker Ave, Concord, Mass.  01742  (508)369-4400 x2459   <-
From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: Almost running out of fuel
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:30:01 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <Bx3n0D.AMn@mach1.wlu.ca>, eandersn@mach1.wlu.ca (Niels Ejvind Andersen) writes:
> 
> The moral of these stories is to check your fuel (and oil) on every pre-flight.
>

OK, I'm just a student pilot, but the very first part of my training was that
we ALWAYS check the fuel and oil before taking off. Even if we just landed
10 minutes ago.

We may skip other parts of the preflight, but this is one step we never skip.

(eg for skipping preflight, on a 20 minute stop to refuel, we still walk 
around the plane to look for stuff amiss, but may not do as exhaustive check
as when we first untie the plane)

I can't believe people won't climb up on a Cessna and check their fuel.
It's bothersome, but necessary.

-- 
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: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.misc
Subject: Re: fuel leaking from gas caps
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:25:45 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: wiley.ts.stratus.com

In article <1992Nov12.140142.16094@nlm.nih.gov>, masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys) writes:
> In article <1992Nov10.210125.23028@exu.ericsson.se> exumfs@exu.ericsson.se writes:
> >
> >autogas is dyed red.  
> >
> Huh?? I don't know where your autogas comes from, but most folks would
> agree that autogas generally has a pale straw color, if any.  And when
> you drain a little from the quickdrains into a viewing cup or tube, it
> looks indistinguishable from water.

Right.  80 octane is dyed red, not mogas.


-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
Xref: sparky rec.aviation.misc:575 rec.aviation:17224