HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Subject: Re: (naive?) Buyer enters used plane market
Organization: National Library of Medicine
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 15:51:45 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.213208.28953@ncar.ucar.edu> rosinski@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski) writes:
>
>7) Type of flying.  Mainly long trips, and forays into the local
>mountains. 

>General conclusions: Cessna 172 or 182 would seem to come closest to
>meeting the above criteria.  182 burns alot more fuel and is much more
>expensive to maintain/overhaul however. 

If long trips and mountains are in the average trip profile, you will
outgrow a 172 very quickly (but not after you have sunk a bundle of
cash into it to get it in the condition you would like...happens to
*all* first time owners).  

A 182 does indeed burn more fuel (mine has averaged 13.2 gph over the
last 500 hours, vs. 8.5 in my 172), but it can be flown like a 172...
pull the throttle back to the bottom of the green arc and it will
cruise at 110 kts on about 10 gph.  (Of course, the only owners I know
who have ever done this are ones scared about their fuel status on a
particular flight.  The reason to put 230 horses on a beefed up 172
airframe is to *use* them :-) ).

I disagree that a 182 is much more expensive to maintain.  Owner-assisted
annuals on my 182 have actually cost less on occasion that the 172 did,
averaging about $300-400.  Oil changes replace 9 quarts instead of 6,
and the O-470 consumes a tad more oil (1 qt/6 hours vs. 1 qt/10-12 hrs
in the 172; your quarts may vary...).  Haven't had to overhaul this one
yet, but Mattituck quotes a price for an O-470 rebuild which is "only"
$3K higher than a Lycoming O-320.  The "nickle and dime" stuff (for
actual aviation price, multiply by $100) which has to be ordered from
Cessna or the Trade-A-Plane advertisers pretty much costs the same
(e.g., carb heat cables that wear out, vacuum pumps that break, panel
lights, interior plastic pieces).

You will, however, not find many VFR 182s around, so the purchase price
will include some avionics.  But if long cross countries are the
flight profile, you are going to want to get that IFR ticket beginning,
oh say 30 minutes after you become an owner :-).

Quothe the raven, "Get a 'Lane"

Dan Masys
masys@lhc.nlm.nih.gov

From: myers@hplred.HP.COM (Tom R. Myers)
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 08:32:32 GMT
Subject: Re: Joining West Valley Flying Club?
Organization: Hewlett Packard Labs, Palo Alto CA
Newsgroups: rec.aviation

>  1)  Is the Club's reputation still a good one?  Is this a good
>  club to learn to fly through?

Yes.  Yes.

>  2)  If so, is it difficult to join the Club?  Do I need to act
>  quickly (like yesterday?)?

No.  No.

>  Any useful comments would be appreciated

The club has many good instructors. Go in and talk to a few in
order to select one that you will be comfortable with when you
two are packed into a small plane together over the next few
months. Compatable personalities and styles are important here.


TRM   N1005E

Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again))
Subject: Old Airplane Advertisements
Reply-To: rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu
Organization: High Energy Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 09:40:17 GMT

	Someone here at work brought in a bunch of old National Geographic
magazines from 1970 - 1980, while looking through them I came across a
Beechcraft advertisement, geared to the average consumer, advocating buying an
airplane for those weekend getaways and such.  It just struck me as unusual,
since I missed the "Golden Age of Aviation" as some people call it.  Imagine
these advertisements being in magazines that have nothing to do with aviation,
with the idea that anyone could afford to buy a brand-spanking-new airplane
"for the same price as a family car".  Have we (the GA community) really lost
so much ground?  Sigh.  That was only ~15 years ago.

	So's not to end on such a depressing note, in some old bookcases at
FermiLab, there are some 1941 - 1945 issues of the same magazine.  Talk about
culture shock!  There were advertisements in these issues touting the
reliability of the B-25, B-17 and the Mustang, as well as items (in the postwar
issues) about radar and the "coming television revolution".  Lots of PR
advertisements from GE and such about how well they make vacuum tubes also
filled the pages.

	An interesting side note was the "family" orientation that all of the
insurance advertisements had, with (of course, white middle class) Dad, Mom,
and little Dickie and Sally (with spot, of course),  And here I thought that
the "safety uber alles" and the "protect your poor helpless family from the
uncertain world" were recent inventions of Madison Avenue.  It is quite funny
to see that these aren't new ideas.  TLike they say, he more things change,
the more they stay the same.

	I know the above paragraphs make me sound like some kid laughing at his
parent's times, and I guess that's partially so.  But I'm 30 years old!  I'm
sure that's just a kid to some, but these things are really starting to be way
back there.  It's quite one thing to "know" what things were like, and it's
quite another thing to actually look at the advertisements and such in a
magazine, which I consider a good baramoter of the times.

Ray Swartz

P.S.  If anyone's interested, I could find some of the adverts from either of
these sets of issues, and type in some of the more interesting text, with a
description of the pictures.
From: markk@sagredo.West.Sun.COM (Mark Kampe)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: GPS -- A Potentially Dangerous Technology
Date: 8 Apr 92 16:31:20 GMT
Organization: SunSoft South
NNTP-Posting-Host: sagredo.west.sun.com

I thought this was obvious, but I didn't see postings to this effect
so forgive me if I am restating something that is already well known.

> Why is it so important that the Govt be able to shut down GPS, given
> that there are NDBs and VORs?

In a nuclear first strike, the first targets would be hardened missile
silos.  If these are not taken out in the first strike, the retaliatory
counterstriie would be devastating.  

Missile silos are well protected and (astounding as this may seem) a
warhead that detonates 100' away from the silo is not guarateed to
take the silo out.  An NDB or VOR cannot be used to locate yourself
to within less than one second of arc.

GPS can be used to determine your location to within a few feet (if you
know how to decrypt the high-precision signal), and this is accurate enough 
to target a misslie silo.  The availability of such accurate positional
data would increase the success probability of a first strike.  Thus, it
is strategically important to make sure that everyone knows that GPS could
be turned off at a second's notice.
From: venable@faculty.coe.wvu.wvnet.edu (WALLACE VENABLE)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Motion 'Discomfort'...
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:20:29 GMT
Organization: WVU College of Engineering

In article <j6c3dmo@fido.asd.sgi.com> jeffg@loki.asd.sgi.com (Jeff C. Glover) writes:

>In article <1992Apr6.000056.12477@infonode.ingr.com> kerl@cmack.b11.ingr.com (Dan Kerl) writes:
>>...
>>Today, I went for a ride with a coworker in a 150.  Conditions were CAVU and
>>slightly bumpy, but not unusual.  After 3 tenths of an hour on the Hobbs meter,
>>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", but
>>it has taken me several hours to feel normal again.  I can recall flying in a
>>similar plane 15 years ago, and becoming sick then also.
>>
>>Questions:
>>
>>1. Do I get to look forward to getting this way every time I take a training
>>flight, or will this condition pass with experience?

>I, too, got a little sick to my stomach during the initial training, but
>it went away as time went on.  The only time it recurred was during
>stall training, and once I was at the controls myself, it went away
>entirely.  I actually enjoy doing stalls now.  The more you're in
>control, and the more you _feel_ in control, the less likely you are to
>have this sensation, IMHO.

>Jeff
>jeffg@sgi.com

	Then it comes back when you get a "good" session of instrument 
training.  Then it fades again....
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: jeb@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (james.beckman)
Subject: Re: landing: flaps or not
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 12:15:57 GMT
Summary: No crutches allowed

In article <moodyblu.703211844@camelot>, moodyblu@camelot.bradley.edu (Matthew Weisberg) writes:
> 
> . . .  I inquried with my instructor about this and he said flaps are a
> crutch and that you should learn without them and then you can use them if
> you need them.  So far, in my 55 hours most of my landings have been
> flapless.  Although, we have done flap landings too.
> 
What sort of plane are you training in?  I assume your instructor must
be insisting on a taildragger, since a nosewheel is, after all, the
ultimate crutch.  Use the Armstrong Starter too, right?

Jim Beckman   AT&T, Middletown, NJ    att!mtqub!jeb

:-)   :-)   :-)   ;_)
From: scol@scottsdale.az.stratus.com (Scott Colbath)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Scottsdale, Az. air fair
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:06:40 GMT

I had the chance to walk through a B-17 (Boeing) last Saturday at the  
Scottsdale air show which is a small but decent show. Tight fit for a 6'6" dude  
but it was worth the three bucks to see it. It belonged to the Confederate Air  
Force and was named Sentimental Journey. I asked one of the crew who were all  
retired USAF from WWII if he had seen the movie Memphis Belle and I thought the  
old geezer was going to have a fit. He said "That movie was all bull and we  
(the crew) don't talk about it. Oh well. 

The following day, I got to hang out on the flight line while the crew for an  
F-18 prepared to leave town. There were only a few people there so we were  
allowed to hang around and touch the craft (big deal for me). I got the best  
pictures I ever could have asked for and the thrill of being REAL close when  
they fired up and taxied was great! There was a Cessna 150 behind the F-18  
about 100 feet back abd if that sucker was not chained down, it would have  
blown over. AND we were allowed to stand as close as humanly possible to the  
runway when it took off. I'm not a pilot so this was a big deal for me. Just  
thought I'd post it.

Scott Colbath
Stratus Computer
Phoenix, Az.
From: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Units of measurement (Was: GPS)
Keywords: GPS, Navigation, Defense
Date: 10 Apr 92 13:48:23 GMT
Reply-To: lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
Organization: SICS, Kista (Stockholm), Sweden
Originator: lhe@yang.sics.se

In article <mferrare.702889446@adelphi>, mferrare@physics (Mark Ferraretto) writes:
>>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.

This problem would disappear if we also adopted angular units that
were 1/400 of a circle.... Such angular units are actually used some,
since they are easier to grasp intuitively.  some people.

>I think France and
>Germany have metric systems already?

Germany doesn't use metric units. Ex. east Germany did.  France has
been using metric units for altitudes - at least partly - but I
believe that practise is disappearing altogether. At least I didn't
hear or see any metric units when I last flew in France.

Eastern european countries basically use metric units - although in
different ways, e.g. the ex. Soviet union countries use 500 metre
vertical separation with crusing levels every 500 meters, while Poland
uses normal ICAO cruising levels (1000 feet separation), but expressed
in metres! Pretty weird.

> 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.

The Jeppesen manual (at least the European editions) contains a table
of the units used by all countries in the world. It is a complete
mess. ICAO has two standard tables of units "SI" (metric) and
"Non-SI". Earlier, ICAO had two different standard tables, the "blue"
table (non-metric) and the "ICAO" table (metric). So there are four
basic possibilities, then of course every country has seen fit to
introduce it own idiosyncratic exceptions.
-- 
-- 
Lars-Henrik Eriksson				Internet: lhe@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science		Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263					Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28  KISTA, SWEDEN
From: masys@nlm.nih.gov (Dr. Daniel R. Masys)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: ADF Receivers
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:12:58 GMT
Organization: National Library of Medicine

In article <1992Apr15.053205.17800@schaefer.math.wisc.edu> wayne@schaefer.UUCP (Rick Wayne) writes:
>
>believe it or not, there is an excellent name in ADF receivers, better than
>king for the most part: Cessna/ARC!
>
>this may be the only ARC radio worth having.
>
Funny, that's what the local avionics shop says, too.  The ARC ADF got its
reputation bashed by the abysmal performance of ARC nav/coms, but actually
seems to be quite reasonable (it is the only ARC avionic that I didn't
pitch when upgrading the 182's radios).  Seems to work as well as a
Bendix T12D that was in my 172.  Only problem is that it is a large box;
twice the height of a King with a remote indicator (though only about
7 inches deep).

Dan Masys
masys@lhc.nlm.nih.gov
From: cep@Apple.COM (Christopher Pettus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: VFR on top
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:02:18 GMT
Organization: Taligent, Inc.

In article <1992Apr5.203503.1460@debisa> n6vbg@debisa (Javier Henderson) writes:
>I had my first "VFR on top" experience today. I flew from Brackett (POC) to
>Thermal. Brackett is about 35 miles east of Los Angeles, Thermal is about
>25 miles south of Palm Springs.

I flew from Ontario to Santa Barbara (and then onwards to Palo Alto)
the evening of April 5th.  It was one of the prettiest flights I'd even
made.  The weather at Ontario was E25 SCT 40 OVC, and very gray and
damp.  I filed IFR to Santa Barbara (and got one of the "feed the fish"
overwater Golf routes), and climbed out.

I got about 0.1 of actual climbing through the cloud deck.  The briefer
had said that the tops were around 6,000', my cruising altitude.  What
he didn't tell me is that they were 5,975'!  It looked like I was
taxiing along the cloud deck at 140 knots; it was great.  Occassionally
I would punch through a puffy cloud in the way.  The ride was a bit
bumpy, but the view was so spectacular that when I offered my
passengers to climb up 500' VFR-on-top, all three insisted that I stay
at 6,000'.

>It felt weird at first not being able to see the ground. I flew from VOR to
>VOR (POC to PDZ to PSP to TRM), and had flight following from Ontario Approach
>all the way to the Banning Pass, where I was on my own for a bit, then Palm
>Springs Approach picked me up, although by then I had the ground in sight.

I will say that I would have been very nervous flying my routing VFR,
at least at 6,000' (where it wouldn't have been legal, anyway).  While
the radio navigation was very easy, I had NO outside reference to tell
me where I was, visually (climbing to 8,500' would have probably fixed
that, though).
-- 
-- Christophe

"I realize that I'm generalizing here, but as is often the case when
 I generalize, I don't care." -- Dave Barry
From: harry@wsl.ie (Harry Moreau)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Motion 'Discomfort'...
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:51:35 GMT
Organization: Workhorse Systems Limited, Dublin, Ireland

Two things you can do to lessen motion sickness:

1. I read in Pilot magazine some time ago that RAF instructors
used to recommend that queasy students drink glucose dissolved
in hot water about an hour before flying.  I can't speak to the 
medical reasons why this might reduce nausea, but I have heard
that it works.

2. Wear "Sea Bands" (I think that's what they are called).  These
are elastic wrist bracelets with a little ball that puts pressure
on an acupuncture point in your wrist.  A friend of mine who used
to suffer motion sickness in cars, uses these things and they are
apparently quite effective.

--harry
From: cep@Apple.COM (Christopher Pettus)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Nearby N-numbers
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:08:49 GMT
Organization: Taligent, Inc.

In article <1992Apr3.132428.23647@bony1.bony.com> richieb@bony1.bony.com (Richard Bielak) writes:
>April's "Vintage Airplane" magazine has a picture of a beatiful
>Aeronca on the cover. Its N-number is 83933.
>
>Now, the Aeronca I fly has an N-number of 83944.
>
>Is this just a coincidence? Or were these numbers assigned at nearly
>the same time? Or what?

Frequently, airplane manufacturers had blocks of N-numbers assigned
to them (or requested by them), and they handled assigning them
internally.  Although I don't actually know, that's probably what
Aeronca did.
-- 
-- Christophe

"I realize that I'm generalizing here, but as is often the case when
 I generalize, I don't care." -- Dave Barry
From: dela@news.ee.rochester.edu (Del Armstrong)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Aircraft designators
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:07:34 GMT
Reply-To: dela@news.ee.rochester.edu (Del Armstrong)
Organization: University of Rochester - Dept of Electrical Engineering

In article <1992Apr09.051647.21645@crash.cts.com>, dm@pnet01.cts.com (Dan Melson) writes:
|>
|>ROGER.RITTER@OFFICE.WANG.COM ("Roger D. Ritter") writes:
|>>Recently when flying out of Manchester, NH (MHT), the controllers have
|>>started asking me if I knew my aircraft designator, since they couldn't
|>> [...]
|> [...]
|>aircraft type, a slant ("/"), then your transponder suffix.  So you should
|>learn your aircraft designator if you fly something unusual and ever plan to
|>fly into an ARSA or something - just in case the controller doesn't know it
|>(Assuming they have time to ask - there's always the good old HXA, HXB, and
|>HXC designators, intended for homebuilt experimentals, but fallen back upon in
|>such times).  We also have to use it if you ever fly Special VFR.  Some common

So what should I use when I start to fly my experimental Kolb Twinstar
Mk-II into controlled airspace?

First, how do I quickly let the controller know what sort of
monstrosity he's just let into his airspace? I've been planning to say
something like "experimental Kolb", and let the controller prompt me
for the info he wants. Is there some terminology or designation that
will save him the trouble?

And what sort of a designation should I use when I file my flight
plan? Am I a HXA/<whatever no xponder is>. What is the difference
between a HXA, HXB, and a HXC? Is this in the AIM somewhere?


	Del Armstrong	

	Systems & Networking Staff - Dept of EE and ME
	University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
	Internet: 	dela@ee.rochester.edu
	UUCP:		...!rochester!ur-valhalla!dela

"If God had meant for us to use computers, (s)he would 	have given us
only two fingers to count with."
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: rh@craycos.com (Robert Herndon)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Motion Discomfort...
Date: 7 Apr 92 05:35:43 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

Ron Gaynier (gaynier@elec.uq.oz.au) writes:
>Gerald Rada (radack@ces.cwru.edu) writes:
>
>> In addition to the things mentioned already, some of the factors that
>> in my experience have contributed to feelings of nausea in the cockpit are:
>>
>> 1. Engine noise.
>>
>> Solution: Use a good noise-cancelling headset.
>>
>> 2. Engine vibrations.
>>
>> Not much you can do about this, except switch to a different plane.
>> Unfortunately, the most comfortable planes may also be the most expensive.
>
>The REAL solution to engine noise and vibrations is to get rid of it
>and go fly a GLIDER.
>

  While this works fine for eliminating noise and vibration, I find
gliders worse than any other vehicle I know of for inducing motion
sickness.  The reasons probably include:

  1) Good thermalling days are bumpy.
  2) Lots of time is spent cranked over in 60 degree banks
  3) Lots of time is spent suffering from 2+ Gs (in 60 degree banks)

and I'm sure there are more I'm forgetting...

+rh (1.15 AZEL hours and counting)
-- 
Robert Herndon		    --	not speaking officially for Cray Computer.
Cray Computer Corporation			719/540-4240
1110 Bayfield Dr.				rh@craycos.com
Colorado Springs, CO   80906		   Ignore these three words.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
From: kudzu@tfs.com (Michael Sierchio)
Subject: Re: GPS -- A Potentially Dangerous Technology
Keywords: GPS, Navigation, Defense
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:51:15 GMT

In article <mferrare.702889446@adelphi> 
	mferrare@physics.adelaide.edu.au (Mark Ferraretto) writes:
>
>An advantage of measuring distances in nautical miles is that it is a 
>'natural' distance.  Ie 1nm = 1 minute of latitude.

The meter was originally similarly defined.  
-- 
Michael Sierchio                               TRW Financial Systems
kudzu@tfs.com                                     1947 Center Street
                                             Berkeley, CA 94704-1105
(MKS2)                                                  510.704.3380
From: bryan@intellistor.com (John Bryan)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: Instrument Checkride Passed!
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:41:23 GMT
Organization: Intellistor, Inc.

In <davjqjc.rkaplan@netcom.com> rkaplan@netcom.com (Richard Kaplan) writes:

>Any thoughts about other rec.aviators' first 
>solo IMC flights?  What were (are) your personal
>minimums as a low total time / low IMC time pilot?

When I finished my instrument check ride, I talked to my instructor
about this. He told me that when we was first instrument rated, he set
minima of 1 mile visibility and 800' ceilings. He went on to comment
that that was overly conservative and that he knew my flying well
enough that he recommended 3/4 mile visibility and 500' ceilings until
I'd gained some experience.

My first solo IMC flight was BJC to CYS (JeffCo airport in Broomfield,
near Denver, Colorado, to Cheyenne, Wyoming) last May for a fly-in.
Alas, there was no instrument approach; just a bit of flying along
through the clouds enroute. I did more of the same for my honeymoon
flights (several hours of actual, but all enroute) and for a
Thanksgiving trip. I finally got an actual instrument approach into
Ogden, Utah, (and another on the way back) during my Christmas trip to
California; it was 2 miles visibility and 800' indefinite ceiling in
fog. For the VOR approach there, that was plenty hard enough for me!

I recently (finally!) got to fly an ILS in actual; 700' ceiling 3 miles
visibility, or something like that, at Chadron, NE. After seeing how that
worked out, I'd be willing to try a 500' / 1 mile ILS, maybe even the
3/4 my instructor recommended. It'd depend some on the ILS to be flown.

I'm still being real conservative, and looking for good opportunities
to practice.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John T. Bryan       | e-mail: bryan@intellistor.com
Intellistor, Inc.   | UUCP:   ...!csn!arrayb!bryan
Longmont, CO        | USPS:   2402 Clover Basin Drive, 80503
(303) 682-6527      | PP-ASEL/IA
From: 10692568@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au (CARLOS LOPEZ)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: propellers  HELP
Date: 15 Apr 92 05:51:22 GMT
Organization: Faculty of Engineering, Monash University

I am currently doing a design assignment and i need some info relating the 
design of propellers. I've looked in libraries and from what i can find it 
seems that propellers just happened!!

I'm hoping that someone out there can help me for this assignment as the 
propeller is similar to those used in planes although it will be used in 
water.  If you know anything or where i can get info please mail me

CARLOS :)