HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Rotax 582 vs. 912
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:49:47 GMT
 <1993Jan24.160410.15149@nuchat.sccsi.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1993Jan24.160410.15149@nuchat.sccsi.com>
conover@nuchat.sccsi.com (Mark Allen Conover) writes:

> Skystar (Kitfox) must be actively, though secretively, working on this 
> break-through technology.  Radial engine sound must be on the way.  Afterall,
> they have already provided the radial engine cowl, complete with rocker-arm
> bubbles.  :-)  Kinda reminds me of those fake shutters found on many suburban
> houses.  What would Ayn Rand say?

I wish they were.  Actually the bump cowl you mention was designed for
a radial engine they were intending to use.  Unfortunately, the engine
never got out of the development stage so Denney had to find a
different engine.  He liked the looks of the cowl so much though, he
decided to keep it even though it was not designed for the Rotax
engines most Kitfoxes fly with.  To the best of my knowledge, no small
radial is in the works for the Kitfox.

Corky Scott
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: u883550@geo.geol.utas.edu.au (Chris Lasdauskas)
Subject: pressure sensors for altimeter (2nd go)
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:18:52 GMT

I don't know why, but I don't have any problem posting tests - just real
correspondence. Yesterday all that got through was "thanks <CR> Chris", so
here is the message again:
 
I'm looking for a pressure sensor to use in a digital altimeter, it needs
to have a resolution of 0.1 millibars (circa 2.8 feet), be temperature
compensated, and be relatively cheap. Any details, and especially
addresses would be greatly appreciated; I'll post the results if you email
any answers to me.

Thanks in (eager) anticipation,
Chris.
(hopefully this time the whole message will get through.)



--
Chris Lasdauskas             _--_|\      Email : u883550@geo.geol.utas.edu.au 
Dep't of Geography &        /  Oz  \     Phone : +61 02 202 484 (fax 202 989)
Environmental Studies       \_.--._/
University of Tasmania            V
From: gps19@herald.usask.ca (Gregory P. Siemens)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: NACA airfoil data request
Date: 25 Jan 93 15:30:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: access.1k112uINN8pt
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
NNTP-Posting-Host: herald.usask.ca
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]

[ Article crossposted from sci.aeronautics ]
[ Author was Gregory P. Siemens ]
[ Posted on 15 Jan 1993 17:21:28 GMT ]



C
Does anyone out there have the raw data for NACA airfoils
(or any others).  Data I need is Lift and Drag co-efficients for any
angle of attack.  I have a book with several NACA airfoils in it
(Abbott) but it contains only the graphs of this data and not the data
itself.  I need the data in a form that could be typed into a data file
or read into a program as a data file.  I would very much appreciate
this data as we are trying to compile a database of Cd/Cl vs. Angle of
attack for a large number of airfoils(not just NACA).  If you know of
someone who has this data or a way of getting it please mail me with the
info.

			Thanks in advance. 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: schinner@vcd.hp.com (Jim Schinnerer)
Subject: Flying Wing
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:33:21 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard VCD
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

I am surprised at the lack of discussion about the PUL-10 flying wing
featured in the Feb '93 (I think) Kitplanes.  Real nifty little plane
if you ask this former hang glider pilot.

The plane is a two seat pusher flying wing powered by a Rotax.  Elevons
are the only flying control surfaces.  The article went on to praise the
handling of flying wings in general, but the PUL-10 itself is still very
new, so not much was said about it.  Top speed is projected to be in the
140 mph range.  The plane has retractable trike wheels.

So, here's a couple of questions...

1)  The PUL-10 doesn't have rudders.  How can you land it in a crosswind?

2)  Do flying wings ever flip in the pitch axis, or is this phenomena limited
    to hang gliders, that is, wings controlled solely by weight shift?

3)  What is the general net.wisdom regarding flying wings.  Must be someting
    there since we have a megadollar flying wing bomber out there, but
    if they were great, we'd have a bunch of them flying.

4)  I noticed in the Jan '92 Kitplanes that a company in Idaho is working
    on a flying wing (Gemini(?)) with a 160hp Lycoming and 4 or 5 seats.
    Anyone know about this thing?
From: spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Canard airplanes
Keywords: EZ Canard
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:56:51 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: wiley.ts.stratus.com

In article <2440@deadmin.ucsd.edu>, lu@topcad.ucsd.edu (George Lu) writes:
> 
> 1) I saw a LongEZ (or VariEze, I can't tell the difference) at MYF
> from time to time. I am quite puzzled by the lack of the nosewheel.
> Does it actually land on only two wheels? 

The Long-EZ has a tailwheel.  You just didn't see it.  It lands and takes
off in reverse, then shifts into forwards once it's in the air.  Hey, 
if you can't see where your taildragger's going, you might as well see where
it's been!  What better way to keep the tailwheel on the centerline than
to be staring straight at it???



Sorry.  I'll get serious now.  The -EZs have a retractable nose wheel
which is retracted when the plane is parked (as well as in flight, of 
course).
-- 
     Steve Pennypacker		     PP-ASEL

     spenny@wiley.ts.stratus.com     Stephen_Pennypacker@vos.stratus.com
From: schwartz@spk.hp.com (Dave J. Schwartz)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: paint
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:01:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: spk.C1H0n7.GHM
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

The most common clearcoats now are polyurethanes. Both Dupont and Ditzler (and
probably others) sell clear polyurethanes specifically for clear-coating.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     /        |  Dave Schwartz - Hewlett Packard, Spokane Division
    /__  __   |                  P.O. Box 2500
   /  / /  /  |                  Spokane, WA. 99220-2500
  /  / /__/   |                  Stephens Akro  - N31RS 
      /       |  Internet: schwartz@hpspkla.spk.hp.com
     /        |     Phone: (509)921-3648
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: u883550@geo.geol.utas.edu.au (Chris Lasdauskas)
Subject: test please ignore
Summary: test posing please ignore
Keywords: test
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 04:20:37 GMT

don't read this it's only a test
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Lasdauskas,                              | u883550@geo.geol.utas.edu.au 
Dep't of Geography & Environmental Studies     | FAX (002) 202 989
University of Tasmania,                        | Phone (OO2) 202 484 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Canard airplanes
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 20:44:46 GMT
Keywords: EZ Canard

In article <2440@deadmin.ucsd.edu> lu@topcad.ucsd.edu (George Lu) writes:
>
>I am a student pilot with about 20 hours in the air and 2 hours solo
>so far. I have been dreaming about owning an airplane some day. I
>have been reading a lot of canard planes: impossible to stall, fast
>and low fuel comsumption.  I have some questions that I hope you can 
>answer.

The phrase "impossible to stall" is not accurate.  In general the 
canard is designed and implemented to stall _before_ the main wings
which results in the porpoising motion familiar to those who have
flown them.  However, Rutan's Newsletter has mentioned at least one
fatal collision due to the main wings stalling - now we have vortilons
on our main wings as a mandatory change.

>1) I saw a LongEZ (or VariEze, I can't tell the difference) at MYF
>from time to time. I am quite puzzled by the lack of the nosewheel.
>Does it actually land on only two wheels? 

Nope, the nose retracts (the wrong direction in my opinion, the nose wheel
should be as far forward as possible for CG reasons).  The important
thing to remember is to extend your nose gear prior to landing.  I forgot
to do this once and it was quite a shock (but she ran true, nice and straight).

>2) How easy is it to transit from Cessna types to canard planes? I
>have heard that approach angle is lower, red over white will overshoot
>most of the runway.

I found it _very_ easy (no pun intended) to transit to the Long.  It was
like night and day from the Cessna 152 I'd trained on.  

The landings are very shallow and hot, I was once warned at Palomar CA 
that the tower thought I was landing on a drag strip that ran parallel 
to the runway about 2 miles to the east because I came in so shallow..

>3) Say if I bought an used VariEze, where would I go to have it
>"annualled"?

Hmm, typically the original builder annuals the plane himself except 
for the aspects he/she might not feel comfortable with (Engine, Avionics).
I suppose that since you aren't the builder that you would have to go
to the usual FBO route or get a certified A&P to come to you.

Just a caveat: if you are going to buy a homebuilt then keep in mind that
there can be a great deal of variation between individual specimens.
We have a VariEze here that we call the Very-Lumpy because no two points
on any airfoil are even close to identical.  Yet it flies.

Mike Best
From: lu@topcad.ucsd.edu (George Lu)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Canard airplanes
Keywords: EZ Canard
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:30:00 GMT


Hi netters,

I am a student pilot with about 20 hours in the air and 2 hours solo
so far. I have been dreaming about owning an airplane some day. I
have been reading a lot of canard planes: impossible to stall, fast
and low fuel comsumption.  I have some questions that I hope you can 
answer.

1) I saw a LongEZ (or VariEze, I can't tell the difference) at MYF
from time to time. I am quite puzzled by the lack of the nosewheel.
Does it actually land on only two wheels? 

2) How easy is it to transit from Cessna types to canard planes? I
have heard that approach angle is lower, red over white will overshoot
most of the runway.

3) Say if I bought an used VariEze, where would I go to have it
"annualled"?

Is there any literature I can get my hands on for more details?

Thanks in advance for any asnwer to my questions.

George Lu						UCSD ECE dept 0407
lu@ece.ucsd.edu						La Jolla, CA 92093
UCSD Optical Information Processing Group		(619)534-1743
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: earlb@ssd.intel.com (Earl Brabandt)
Subject: Re: RV4 vs RV6
Organization: Supercomputer Systems Division (SSD), Intel
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:57:33 GMT

In article <C1F5pL.Jty@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.052808.21276@netcom.com>
>jmbrown@netcom.com (John M. Brown) writes:
>
>> I am interested in differences between the two planes, other than what is
>> in the slicks the company ships.
>> 
>You might want to check with EAA for the phone number of Tony Bingelis
>who writes a weekly column for "Sport Aviation".  His column is based
>on his having built every RV but the 3 and he's decided to do that next
>so that he can say he's built them all.  If he can't answer your
>questions, no one can.

Except maybe Alan Tolle who (with his wife he recently admitted) has built 
a bunch.  They built the last one in 6 months and Alan says he's "just an
average builder."  Yeah, sure.  Sport Aviation had a write-up within the 
last year or so.  Also, get the issue of AOPA Pilot from a few months back 
with an excellent pair of articles on Van's and Bob and Becky Orndorff's (sp?) 
RV.

The Orndorffs are selling a video on empennage construction that I recommend
as an introduction to anyone interested in building metal airplanes.  They are
planning to complete the set of videos as they complete their second RV-6A. I
don't know how to order it, but I think Van's Aircraft stocks it or can tell
you how to get it.

By the way, I've heard both Tony has started the 3 and Alan is just finishing
one as a platform for an experimental third-party rotary engine. 

Earl Brabandt RV-6 N66VR (under construction)
From: dianysos@raphael.u.washington.edu (Benjamin Andrews)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: C-152 Cockpit Width
Date: 26 Jan 1993 16:55:44 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.95.56.203

In article <1993Jan20.151251.18323@nuchat.sccsi.com>  
conover@nuchat.sccsi.com (Mark Allen Conover) writes:
> I am considering building an Avid Mark IV or Kitfox.  But, I wonder just  
how
> comfortable the cabins are?  Seem pretty narrow to me.
> Any info?
> Thanks,
> Mark Conover // conover@nuchat.sccsi.com

Last Time I saw an Avid was just about the time they came out (the IV's),
but I must say, if you fly alone alot, no problem, otherwise, you're in a
bind (literally)
From: jerryb@jerber.sandiego.sgi.com (Jerry Bransford)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: C-152 Cockpit Width
Date: 27 Jan 93 00:33:46 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <1k3qegINNdgq@shelley.u.washington.edu>,
dianysos@raphael.u.washington.edu (Benjamin Andrews) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan20.151251.18323@nuchat.sccsi.com>  
|> conover@nuchat.sccsi.com (Mark Allen Conover) writes:
|> > I am considering building an Avid Mark IV or Kitfox.  But, I wonder
|> just  
|> how
|> > comfortable the cabins are?  Seem pretty narrow to me.
|> > Any info?
|> > Thanks,
|> > Mark Conover // conover@nuchat.sccsi.com
|>

The Cessna 150/152 cockpit is 38" wide, the new Avid Magnum is supposed to
be 44" wide.
Regards,
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jerry Bransford			
Silicon Graphics
(619) 546-0409
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: schwartz@spk.hp.com (Dave J. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Canard airplanes
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:42:40 GMT

George Lu (lu@topcad.ucsd.edu) wrote:
: 
: Hi netters,
: 
: I am a student pilot with about 20 hours in the air and 2 hours solo
: so far. I have been dreaming about owning an airplane some day. I
: have been reading a lot of canard planes: impossible to stall, fast
: and low fuel comsumption.  I have some questions that I hope you can 
: answer.

First and most important: join the experimental aircraft association. There
are probably a couple of chapters in your area. You will get a lot of help
from them; you may even be able to find someone who has one of these planes
and will give you a demo ride.

: 
: 1) I saw a LongEZ (or VariEze, I can't tell the difference) at MYF
: from time to time. I am quite puzzled by the lack of the nosewheel.
: Does it actually land on only two wheels? 

The nosewheel is retracted when these airplanes are parked. They are so
light that they become tail heavy when the crew wieght is removed.

: 
: 2) How easy is it to transit from Cessna types to canard planes? I
: have heard that approach angle is lower, red over white will overshoot
: most of the runway.

Yes, they do have a flatter approach, and controlling your approach speed is
a little more critical than in a Cessna 150.

: 
: 3) Say if I bought an used VariEze, where would I go to have it
: "annualled"?
: 
Any A&P can legally perform the annual "Condition Inspection" that is
required for homebuilts. Again, your local EAA Chapter can prbably put you
in touch with one who is willing to work on homebuilts.

: Is there any literature I can get my hands on for more details?
: 
: Thanks in advance for any asnwer to my questions.
: 
: George Lu						UCSD ECE dept 0407
: lu@ece.ucsd.edu						La Jolla, CA 92093
: UCSD Optical Information Processing Group		(619)534-1743

Homebuilts are great fun. They have more personality and individuality than
store-bought planes. They also require a greater degree of involvement and
knowledge from their owners. They are licensed as EXPERIMENTAL for good reason.
Take the time to learn about homebuilding and the design(s) you are interested
in. Join the EAA and get the advice of some experienced buiders before buying
a homebuilt. 

Welcome to the world of homebuilders!


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     /        |  Dave Schwartz - Hewlett Packard, Spokane Division
    /__  __   |                  P.O. Box 2500
   /  / /  /  |                  Spokane, WA. 99220-2500
  /  / /__/   |            Stephens Akro - N31RS 
      /       |  Internet: schwartz@hpspkla.spk.hp.com
     /        |     Phone: (509)921-3648
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: amo@cbnews.cb.att.com (arlene.m.osborne)
Subject: Re: Rotax 582 vs. 912
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 13:43:24 GMT
Summary: Sport Aviation

In article <1jpu7lINNsp@hpscit.sc.hp.com>, devlin@avo.hp.com (Lee Devlin) writes:
> Frank Stutzman (franks@synoptics.com) wrote:
> 
> : For me the biggest that the 912 has over the 582 (other than the more
> : HP) is that its a 4-stroke engine and therefore SOUNDS like a real aircraft
> : engine.  I used to own a experimental with a 503 on it and although I 
> : didn't mind mixing up fuel, I never got used to the whiney scream that 
> : it made. 
> 
> When someone comes up with a noise cancelling muffler, 2 strokes will be
> all the rage in aviation.  Noise cancelling will not mute the sound completely
> but rather convert its noise to that of a radial or V12 merlin then
> you'll see how popular two-strokes become :-).
> -- Lee Devlin 

There is a good discussion of 2 cycle vs. 4 cycle in Sport Aviation,
Feb. 1992, page 58 by Mark Brown, which compares the Rotax 582 and 912
in the Pulsar.  You might want to check it out.
From: dianysos@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Flying Wing
Date: 28 Jan 1993 06:50:05 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.95.56.203

Jim Schinnerer writes
> So, here's a couple of questions...
> 
> 1)  The PUL-10 doesn't have rudders.  How can you land it in a 
>     crosswind?
>
> 2)  Do flying wings ever flip in the pitch axis, or is this phenomena 
>     limited to hang gliders, that is, wings controlled solely by weight  
>     shift?

Don't think I have ever heard of one doing that.

> 3)  What is the general net.wisdom regarding flying wings.  Must be 
>     someting there since we have a megadollar flying wing bomber out 
>     there, but if they were great, we'd have a bunch of them flying.

Well, regarding flying wings, they are considered one of the most STABLE  
types of aircraft around, because the entire body is a lifting surface.
If you look in the Rand-McNally Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft, you may  
note just how many were used in world war 2, and some of their flying  
stats.

Regarding the "megadollar flying wing bomber", just remember, it's  
supposed to be a secret... how do we know wether they are actually in  
production or not?

> 4)  I noticed in the Jan '92 Kitplanes that a company in Idaho is 
>     working on a flying wing (Gemini(?)) with a 160hp Lycoming and 4 or  
>     5 seats.
>     Anyone know about this thing?

If the company's address was listed, you should write them and find out.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: conover@nuchat.sccsi.com (Mark Allen Conover)
Subject: Re: Rotax 582 vs. 912
Organization: South Coast Computing Services, Inc.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 16:04:10 GMT

In article <1jpu7lINNsp@hpscit.sc.hp.com> devlin@avo.hp.com (Lee Devlin) writes:
>When someone comes up with a noise cancelling muffler, 2 strokes will be
>all the rage in aviation.  Noise cancelling will not mute the sound completely
>but rather convert its noise to that of a radial or V12 merlin then
>you'll see how popular two-strokes become :-).
 
Skystar (Kitfox) must be actively, though secretively, working on this 
break-through technology.  Radial engine sound must be on the way.  Afterall,
they have already provided the radial engine cowl, complete with rocker-arm
bubbles.  :-)  Kinda reminds me of those fake shutters found on many suburban
houses.  What would Ayn Rand say?


Mark Conover  // conover@nuchat.sccsi.com

Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
From: adh@cbnews.cb.att.com (andrew.d.hay)
Subject: Re: RV4 vs RV6
Organization: guess
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 12:12:39 GMT

spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker) writes:
"Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) writes:
"> You might want to check with EAA for the phone number of Tony Bingelis
"> who writes a weekly column for "Sport Aviation".  His column is based
"	       ^^^^^^
"
"Weekly?!?  Hey, I think my mailman is scamming 75% of my magazines from me!
"
"(S.A. is monthly)

no, no, no!  s.a. prints 4 columns per issue!	;^>

-- 
		+--------------------------------------------------------------+
Andrew Hay	|	one step beyond the outer limits of the twilight       |
a_d_hay@att.com	|	zone in the darkened room at the night gallery	       |
		+--------------------------------------------------------------+
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: RV4 vs RV6
Date: 26 Jan 1993 07:14:28 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


In article <1993Jan25.052808.21276@netcom.com>
jmbrown@netcom.com (John M. Brown) writes:

> I am interested in differences between the two planes, other than what is
> in the slicks the company ships.

and in article <C1F5pL.Jty@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) replies:

>You might want to check with EAA for the phone number of Tony Bingelis
>who writes a weekly column for "Sport Aviation".  His column is based
>on his having built every RV but the 3 and he's decided to do that next
>so that he can say he's built them all.  If he can't answer your
>questions, no one can.

From what I've seen these columns pretty much reflect Bingelis' books _The
Sportplane Builder_, _Sportplane Construction Techniques_, and _Firewall
Foreward_  (may be incorrect titles, its from memory).  Not that its bad.  I
think its nice to have all the info in one spot, and the SA articles generally
get me pointed in the right direction.  Occasionally the columns have a tidbit
or two specific to the RV-series, but he keeps it pretty generic.

In article <C1FBBy.5tr@SSD.intel.com> Earl Brabandt <earlb@ssd.intel.com>
wrote:

>The Orndorffs are selling a video on empennage construction that I recommend
>as an introduction to anyone interested in building metal airplanes.

You've probably heard this several times by now, but its George Orndorff.
You can order the tapes directly from him or from Van's.
I've got Orndorff's number, which I'll E-mail if you want it.  I've also got
the tail
tapes, which will probably save me more than they cost.  There are a lot of
"tricks" that don't make it into the manuals, and a lot of tools that are
pretty unusual.  I strongly recommend these tapes (no, I don't get a kickback
:)), and I'm looking forward to the wing tape.  I took an informal class with
the Orndorff's a few weeks ago on basic metalworking, tailored to RV builders.

If it came down to this or the tapes, do this!  The hands-on experience is
invaluable!  I felt a lot better about going home and hacking away on my -4
tail.

Ah, but I ramble... If anyone's interested, I can E-mail more info.

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

Home of the rapidly growing tail (RV-4, that is).
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt