Throw a Weight in the Back?

[Kirk]

Anyone ever throw a weight in the back to get within allowable weight and
balance? I am flying a C182 with 430 pounds (pilot & passenger) in the
front row. The point is I would like both of us to sit up front for the
flight. I have other aircraft that I can fly, and this is not a required
flight (no safety flaming please). :)

Calculated arm is 37.99, and minimum arm at that weight is 38.15. I am
144.85 pounds UNDER gross weight at this point.

If I throw a 20 pound weight in the main baggage compartment the arm is 38.4
(meets the minimum requirements) and we can both sit up front. :)

[Bob Gardner]

Yes, many times. Instructional flights in the Seneca or Cherokee Six always
required a case of oil in the back.

Bob Gardner

"Kirk" > wrote in message
...
> Anyone ever throw a weight in the back to get within allowable weight and
> balance? I am flying a C182 with 430 pounds (pilot & passenger) in the
> front row. The point is I would like both of us to sit up front for the
> flight. I have other aircraft that I can fly, and this is not a required
> flight (no safety flaming please). :)
>
> Calculated arm is 37.99, and minimum arm at that weight is 38.15. I am
> 144.85 pounds UNDER gross weight at this point.
>
> If I throw a 20 pound weight in the main baggage compartment the arm is
38.4
> (meets the minimum requirements) and we can both sit up front. :)
>
>

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Kirk > wrote:
>Anyone ever throw a weight in the back to get within allowable weight and
>balance? I am flying a C182 with 430 pounds (pilot & passenger) in the

I'm a little suspicious of your W&B for that 182, but obviously I
don't have all the numbers, so you may be right.

If you're that close, I'd consider a few things:

1) Most Cessnas have some knees in the CG curve as gross weight
increases. Make sure you aren't narrowing your CG range by making
the plane heavier and consequently subject to a tighter range.

2) Look at what's going to happen to the CG as the fuel burns off
during your flight.

But sure, you can put weight in the back. The plane doesn't know
the difference between real baggage and CG-fixing baggage...

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[G.R. Patterson III]

Kirk wrote:
>
> Anyone ever throw a weight in the back to get within allowable weight and
> balance?

Never done it, but I've read of cases. I've considered doing it myself to
make my Maule a bit less squirrelly. Shouldn't be a problem.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[MikeM]

I'm suspicious of your calculations or W&B info. In my 182L, there
is no way I can get out of the envelope with 430# forward, nothing
aft, regardless of fuel load.

MikeM
Skylane '1MM


Kirk wrote:
>
> Anyone ever throw a weight in the back to get within allowable weight and
> balance? I am flying a C182 with 430 pounds (pilot & passenger) in the
> front row. The point is I would like both of us to sit up front for the
> flight. I have other aircraft that I can fly, and this is not a required
> flight (no safety flaming please). :)
>
> Calculated arm is 37.99, and minimum arm at that weight is 38.15. I am
> 144.85 pounds UNDER gross weight at this point.
>
> If I throw a 20 pound weight in the main baggage compartment the arm is 38.4
> (meets the minimum requirements) and we can both sit up front. :)

[Maule Driver]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> > Anyone ever throw a weight in the back to get within allowable weight
and
> > balance?
>
> Never done it, but I've read of cases. I've considered doing it myself to
> make my Maule a bit less squirrelly. Shouldn't be a problem.
>
Weight in the back (rearward cg) will tend to make an a/c squirrelly. A
more forward cg makes it more brick-like. Flying with 4 and baggage and
almost full fuel (gotta love it), I have to aggressively move baggage
forward to get it inbounds (flt bag underneath front passengers knees, small
dense items underneath rear seat, rear seat passengers may have a light item
on their laps or around feet). At the rear limit, it definitely gets
squirrelly. Feels unstable. Hunts a bit in pitch. Very sensitive on the
controls.

But it is nicer to fly just inside that rear limit.

[Kirk]

Just a guess, but I am probably carrying about 138 more pounds in the fuel
tanks than the 182L (65 gallon tanks?). This aircraft is a 1979 Cessna 182Q
with 88 gallons of useable fuel. Thanks for eveyones feedback!

Item Gallons Capacity Weight
Capacity Arm Moment
Empty Aircraft 1842.15 35.4719362 65344.62
Main Fuel 88 88 528 47 24816
Main Baggage 25 60 97 2425
Aft Baggage 0 20 115 0
Seating Row 1 430 37 15910
Seating Row 2 0 74 0
Totals 88 88 2825.15 38.4 108495.62
Allowable 2950 38.34 to 48.5
% of Allowable 96% 0%
Status OK OK
Zero Fuel 0 88 2297.15 36.43 83679.62
Zero Fuel Allow 33.44 to 48.5
Verify all numbers with the Pilot Operating Handbook


> I'm suspicious of your calculations or W&B info. In my 182L, there
> is no way I can get out of the envelope with 430# forward, nothing
> aft, regardless of fuel load.
>
> MikeM
> Skylane '1MM

[Todd Pattist]

"Kirk" > wrote:

>Anyone ever throw a weight in the back to get within allowable weight and
>balance?

I have a small tank in the base of my glider fin. I fill it
with water when needed to get the W&B correct.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Maule Driver wrote:
>
> Flying with 4 and baggage and
> almost full fuel (gotta love it), .......

You pig! I can get four adults in mine. I can even taxi around with them!

> I have to aggressively move baggage
> forward to get it inbounds (flt bag underneath front passengers knees, small
> dense items underneath rear seat, rear seat passengers may have a light item
> on their laps or around feet).

Yep. Heaviest person in front, heaviest baggage between the seats, flight
bag under my legs, I know the drill.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[Roger Tracy]

Yes. In my Sundowner I put weight in the back .. helped a lot.

In a Bell 47 for solo I used to put weight down in the bubble in
front of copilot pedals. I was a lot lighter then. ;-)



"Kirk" > wrote in message
...
> Anyone ever throw a weight in the back to get within allowable weight and
> balance? I am flying a C182 with 430 pounds (pilot & passenger) in the
> front row. The point is I would like both of us to sit up front for the
> flight. I have other aircraft that I can fly, and this is not a required
> flight (no safety flaming please). :)
>
> Calculated arm is 37.99, and minimum arm at that weight is 38.15. I am
> 144.85 pounds UNDER gross weight at this point.
>
> If I throw a 20 pound weight in the main baggage compartment the arm is
38.4
> (meets the minimum requirements) and we can both sit up front. :)
>
>

[Lou Ramsay]

Todd Pattist wrote:
>
> "Kirk" > wrote:
>
> >Anyone ever throw a weight in the back to get within allowable weight and
> >balance?
>
> I have a small tank in the base of my glider fin. I fill it
> with water when needed to get the W&B correct.


When ferrying the Lockheed L1649, we used to have to
load 4000 pounds of water in 55 gallon drums AFT of
the rear cabin door. Without that weight in the tail
and a hydraulic boost failure, you couldn't get the
nose high enough, or tail low enough, to keep from
landing on the nosegay first.

Lou.

[Ross Richardson]

Why not? I sure was able to read it better?

Montblack wrote:
>
> (Kirk wrote)
> >Testing HTML format....
>
> As your return e-mail address says - "No Thanks"
>
> Please do not post HTML to this newsgroup. Maybe someday, but not yet.
>
> Thank you.
>
> --
> Montblack

[Al Gerharter]

Sure, do it. It'll fly better. The old turbo 206 I flew had the same
problem, and just a little weight aft sure helped. Walmart sells 5 gallon
foldable plastic containers for about 3 bucks. It'll put 40 lbs where you
want it, is easily desposed of, and if you park short of the airport, you'll
have 5 gallons of drinking water. Al Gerharter


"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
. com...
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> > > Anyone ever throw a weight in the back to get within allowable weight
> and
> > > balance?
> >
> > Never done it, but I've read of cases. I've considered doing it myself
to
> > make my Maule a bit less squirrelly. Shouldn't be a problem.
> >
> Weight in the back (rearward cg) will tend to make an a/c squirrelly. A
> more forward cg makes it more brick-like. Flying with 4 and baggage and
> almost full fuel (gotta love it), I have to aggressively move baggage
> forward to get it inbounds (flt bag underneath front passengers knees,
small
> dense items underneath rear seat, rear seat passengers may have a light
item
> on their laps or around feet). At the rear limit, it definitely gets
> squirrelly. Feels unstable. Hunts a bit in pitch. Very sensitive on the
> controls.
>
> But it is nicer to fly just inside that rear limit.
>
>

[blanche cohen]

I got one of those 8 gallon (7?) blue plastic tanks from the
sporting goods store for water on camping trips. Filled it with
water, about 50 pounds worth. It's strapped down in the baggage
area and is perfect ballast. Plus, living out in the desert
area, most convenient if something goes wrong and I need to land.

[JerryK]

"Ross Richardson" > wrote in message
...
> Why not? I sure was able to read it better?
>
Same here. It was actually kind of a pretty table.

[Maule Driver]

What is the problem with HTML? Is it that various reader programs don't
support it? Or service providers that don't support? Looked great on my
screen - MS Outlook Express and Roadrunner

"Montblack" > wrote in message
.. .
> (Kirk wrote)
> >Testing HTML format....
>
>
> As your return e-mail address says - "No Thanks"
>
> Please do not post HTML to this newsgroup. Maybe someday, but not yet.
>
> Thank you.
>
> --
> Montblack
>
>

[MikeM]

Kirk wrote:
>
> Just a guess, but I am probably carrying about 138 more pounds in the fuel
> tanks than the 182L (65 gallon tanks?). This aircraft is a 1979 Cessna 182Q
> with 88 gallons of useable fuel. Thanks for eveyones feedback!

I have 79 gal (long range tanks) in the L model.

I have flown several Q models owned by the CAP, and they make us work
the W&B before each flight. I still dont remember that any of them were
close to the front limit even with two lard asses in the front.
(Takes one to know one: I'm 210#)

I'm still suspicious of your numbers.
Perhaps the empty weight and moment on your Q got messed up somewhere
along the inevitable added/removed chain.

MikeM
Skylane '1MM

[Lou Ramsay]

Lou Ramsay wrote:
>
> Todd Pattist wrote:
> >
> > "Kirk" > wrote:
> >
> > >Anyone ever throw a weight in the back to get within allowable weight and
> > >balance?
> >
> > I have a small tank in the base of my glider fin. I fill it
> > with water when needed to get the W&B correct.
>
> When ferrying the Lockheed L1649, we used to have to
> load 4000 pounds of water in 55 gallon drums AFT of
> the rear cabin door. Without that weight in the tail
> and a hydraulic boost failure, you couldn't get the
> nose high enough, or tail low enough, to keep from
> landing on the nosegay first.
>
> Lou.

Sorry about the mistake - meant "nosegear".

[Bob Gardner]

Tastes better than oil, too.

Bob

"blanche cohen" > wrote in message
...
> I got one of those 8 gallon (7?) blue plastic tanks from the
> sporting goods store for water on camping trips. Filled it with
> water, about 50 pounds worth. It's strapped down in the baggage
> area and is perfect ballast. Plus, living out in the desert
> area, most convenient if something goes wrong and I need to land.
>

[Rick Durden]

Kirk,

Sounds like you have an extra nose heavy 182, but that happens from
time to time. With fuel burn on that airplane the c.g. does not move
much during flight, so it's time for uou to toss some weight aft
(which will also make the airplane faster in cruise.) If you have a
heavy flight case, as many pilots do, strapping it into one of the
rear seats may take care of it for you.

When I flew freight in the Cessna 404 the airplane was out of c.g.
forward with just a pilot aboard, so I carried two collapsible, five
gallon water jugs. When the airplane was empty I filled up the jugs
(there's always a spigot somewhere on the airport) and put them under
the baggage net in the back end of the airplane. Once I got the
freight, if it took me to gross, I dumped the water. Otherwise I just
moved the jugs forward if needed to keep the c.g. from going out the
aft end if I knew I had another empty leg coming up.

I've still got the jugs and use them for camping trips, but haven't
flown an airplane in quite a while in which I needed them for c.g.
adjustment.

All the best,
Rick

"Kirk" > wrote in message >...
> Anyone ever throw a weight in the back to get within allowable weight and
> balance? I am flying a C182 with 430 pounds (pilot & passenger) in the
> front row. The point is I would like both of us to sit up front for the
> flight. I have other aircraft that I can fly, and this is not a required
> flight (no safety flaming please). :)
>
> Calculated arm is 37.99, and minimum arm at that weight is 38.15. I am
> 144.85 pounds UNDER gross weight at this point.
>
> If I throw a 20 pound weight in the main baggage compartment the arm is 38.4
> (meets the minimum requirements) and we can both sit up front. :)

[G.R. Patterson III]

Maule Driver wrote:
>
> Looked great on my
> screen - MS Outlook Express and Roadrunner

Ditto here. Netscape 4.79 on Windows 95.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[Newps]

Kirk wrote:

> Anyone ever throw a weight in the back to get within allowable weight and
> balance? I am flying a C182 with 430 pounds (pilot & passenger) in the
> front row. The point is I would like both of us to sit up front for the
> flight. I have other aircraft that I can fly, and this is not a required
> flight (no safety flaming please). :)
>
> Calculated arm is 37.99, and minimum arm at that weight is 38.15. I am
> 144.85 pounds UNDER gross weight at this point.
>
> If I throw a 20 pound weight in the main baggage compartment the arm is 38.4
> (meets the minimum requirements) and we can both sit up front. :)

The real question is how do you go out the front limit with weight
anywhere else in a 182 besides the front seats? With full tanks and 430
pounds in my 182's front seats I do not go out the front limit. Any
weight anywhere else moves it back. Removing some fuel is another option.

[Newps]

Why not? That was a hell of a lot better than the first unreadable attempt.

Montblack wrote:

> (Kirk wrote)
>
>>Testing HTML format....
>
>
>
> As your return e-mail address says - "No Thanks"
>
> Please do not post HTML to this newsgroup. Maybe someday, but not yet.
>
> Thank you.
>

[blanche cohen]

Maule Driver > wrote:
>What is the problem with HTML? Is it that various reader programs don't
>support it? Or service providers that don't support? Looked great on my
>screen - MS Outlook Express and Roadrunner

The issue is NOT the provider. HTML is entirely dependent on the
mail reader. And not everyone uses an HTML-friendly mail reader.
Why? For starter, time and effort. Not everyone has a high-speed
internet connection.

Any mail reader (HTML or otherwise) can easily deal with plain text.
Plain text mail readers see all the HTML tags when the message
is HTML.

[news-server]

Mike:

I'll have to dig a bit further beyond the spreadsheets, calculator, and w&b
insert that we have for this airplane (logs, etc.).

I have found two CAP C182Q aircraft on the web that weigh in at 1831 lbs.
and 1848 lbs. respectivly with 88 gal. useable fuel. Loaded with 430 lbs for
pilot and copilot they are within limits according to the documentation for
those airplanes.

It could be, as suggested in other posts, that the empty aircraft moment/arm
is off.

Regards,
Kirk

[G.R. Patterson III]

Newps wrote:
>
> Get Netscape 7.1, you'll love it.

Won't run on '95.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Kirk wrote:
> Anyone ever throw a weight in the back to get within allowable weight and
> balance?

Or in the front (our usual), or any place where it's needed.

Sure. It's no problem. Just, if you need it to be at the right
station for a critical reason, make sure it's an accurate weight
and make sure it's strapped down so it can't relocate itself
at a critical moment. We once had a dog, thought to be strapped
in the rear seat, relocate herself to the baggage compartment
on short final. Fortunately in the plane we were flying it only
improved the flare, in today's plane it would be ruinous.

Just identify something you can use (dogfood, driveway salt,
sand) toss it in and strap it down. If the plane you're flying
doesn't allow secure strapping of a purchased bag, throw 'em in
a duffel and strap that down.

If you need 20 lbs to be "just within", personally I'd throw
30 or 40 lbs in the baggage and be comfortably within. The
W&B tends to be a little inaccurate as planes age (unrecorded
instrument or radio changes, engine accessory changes etc)

Best,
Sydney

[Steve House]

Why in the world would you need to DL all the message bodies in an entire
group?? Seems like a real waste of time and storage space. I'm using OE at
the moment on a cable connect that the test on BandwidthPlace reports is
currently running 2.4 megabits / sec. Even that speed doesn't justify
grabbing all the bodies off a newsgroup to read the ones I might be
interested in. DL just the fresh headers when opening a group and a click
on a header of interest dl's and loads the message body with a time lag that
is just fractionally longer than if it was already on disk. IMHO, one of
the main benefits of high bandwidth full time connections is that it allows
you to work online in real time. That is, BTW, also an advantage of top
posting - throw away bodies for dl'd messages when exiting the news reader,
next time around when reading a reply the history is there regardless of
whether any of the earlier thread is still on the server or not or in your
local database. Sure it wastes a bit of bandwidth - maybe 1 or 2
milliseconds worth - but that's far less wasteful than keeping the history
of ALL the message bodies in a newsgroup of interest on your local storage.
Bulk storage retrieved as needed is the job of the server, not the client.

Even with a dialup connection, it makes more sense to do three passes - dl
headers, mark threads of interest, dl bodies, read and reply, and upload
replies, then purge read bodies on exit.


"Addison Laurent" > wrote in message
...
> For a host of reasons.
>
> Largely because mostly its a lot of extra bandwidth used, for no real
> informational increase. There are exceptions, and cases where it would be
> useful. But those are rare. Many people download whole groups, due to
> their setup - I'm on super-high-speed cable, and that's how I need to do
> it - and downloading 5-40 times the information, ...

[Steve House]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> "Steve House" > wrote:
>
> > I'm using OE at
> > the moment
>
> the big outing?
>
> > on a cable connect that the test on BandwidthPlace reports is
> > currently running 2.4 megabits / sec. Even that speed doesn't justify
> > grabbing all the bodies off a newsgroup to read the ones I might be
>
> well, there are many out there going online and pay per time. And while
> online they have a lousy modem connection.
> I have a dedicated access in my office, but only modem at home.
>
>
> > interested in. DL just the fresh headers when opening a group and a
click
> > on a header of interest dl's and loads the message body with a time lag
that
> > is just fractionally longer than if it was already on disk. IMHO, one
of
> > the main benefits of high bandwidth full time connections is that it
allows
> > you to work online in real time. That is, BTW, also an advantage of top
> > posting
>
> ?
> top
> the
> to
> bottom
> from
> read
> you
> do
> or
> good,
> very
> really
> not
> are
> postings
> Top
>
I read from the top down, but I prefer to read the instant poster's comments
is a single, cohesive, contiguous block of text rather than interspersed
within with the text being responded to. Whether it's at the top or the
bottom of the message thread is generally irrelevant - what is more
important is it is clearly and distinctly differentiated from the messages
that came before and not interwoven within them. Allthough top posting does
make it a lot easier to find. Top posting reads well from the top down,
each message block following below another being one step father back into
the history of the thread. The first message in line is the one being
replied to, the next is the one that the number 2 position was responding
to, that in turn is the the response to the next previous and so forth. I
submit to you that is a more clearly delineated chain of logic than a
message that jumps about at random, the chain forms more of a sequence of
episodes developing logically over time. Top posting reminds me more of a
formal seminar or a n initial premis - supporting evidence - conclusion
style of structured presentation - interwoven posting reminds me of a
cocktail party where everyone is talking at once.

[Peter Duniho]

"Steve House" > wrote in message
...
> Frankly I don't CARE what the cost to the ISP is. If they can't make a
> profit charging me what they do, that's their problem, not mine.

Of course you do. If you don't think that the only person who, in the end,
pays for the bandwidth is you, then you are just plain delusional. Whatever
your ISP pays, you eventually wind up paying. Bandwidth is NOT free. Just
because you don't pay for it this month, that doesn't mean you won't pay for
it.

As far as Martin's comments about Microsoft, you're right, they are filled
with obvious prejudice. Frankly, I find Usenet posters to be just as
ill-mannered in newsgroups like this one as in the Microsoft-specific ones.
You are a perfect example.

Pete

[Addison Laurent]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:00:30 -0400, Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Steve House" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Why in the world would you need to DL all the message bodies in an
>> entire group?
>
> Well, at least for a couple of reasons:

> 2) Because the Internet is not 100% infalliable. If you have a good

Good answers, and ones that Steve should have thought about, IMO, before
getting indignant.

In my case, its because while I get super-fast cable - they outsourced
the newsserver to someone else (one of the big names). But... I'm limited
to less than a 14.4k modem would be. So its better for me to
grab everything I'm interested in.. because otherwise, it takes several
seconds to get each message.

But that's me. (And my refusal so far to buy a seperate connection).

So you see Steve, that's part of the whole point here. Different people
have different requirements, and newer isn't always better. Heck,
usenet's supposed to have been dead 10 years now, because the web
replaced it, remember?

Addison

[Martin Hotze]

On 26 Jul 2003 19:37:13 -0500, Steve House wrote:

you can't trim the quoted test, can you?

>You seem to be more concerned about cost to the ISP than cost to the
>consumer.


As I am a (very small) ISP I do care, yes.

> The ISP promises unlimited access for a fixed fee - kewl, let's
>do it! If you can't deliver it, don't advertise it. Consumers who USE the
>bandwidth advertised are a PITA I guess, especially those that actually
>expect that when they pay for something promised it's cheerfully delivered?
>LOL

Cancelling a contract is gladly not only a one way possibility.

>Frankly I don't CARE what the cost to the ISP is.

The industriy for sure needs more guys like you.

> If they can't make a
>profit charging me what they do, that's their problem, not mine.

true

> All I care
>about is that they provide the service they promised when I pay their bill,
>24/7 - it's up to them to figure out how. MY marginal cost to DL a file,
>regardless of size, is zero. I'm paying for the connection to the network,
>not the data passing over it.

I do care that my ISP also survives the next month.

>Let's see if I understand your message here - if it comes from or has
>anything to do with or even tangentially touches MS it's evil, wrong
>thinking, subversive perhaps? "Real" computer people won't touch it? Ahhh,
>of course...
>

No, you have to deal with M$. You can earn your money supporting M$.
Haven't made a buck up til today with supporting Apple.

>Life is evolving and evolution is the definition of life.

Evolution? But the bible ...

:-)

#m

--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/

24 "Deceptions" In 704 words: Bush's 2003 SOTU
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_sotu.html

[Steve House]

I may not agree with some postings, Peter, but to my recollection I've never
been ill mannered nor engaged in ad hominem attacks on any other person.
Discussing whether traditional ways of doing things should perhaps be
reconsidered, especially in the context of a thread that posed that exact
question as its seeder, and offering ideas and examples of alternatives that
may indeed run counter those of the group's old timers is not bad manners,
it's participation. It's one thing to say that a point of view is perhaps
outmoded and based on the way things were in the past rather than the way
they are today, it's quite another to say the person holding that viewpoint
is ill mannered or stupid. I have done the former, mea culpa, but I have
never done the latter. On the other hand, some who hold those traditional
views .... well, if the shoe fits...

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Steve House" > wrote in message
>
> As far as Martin's comments about Microsoft, you're right, they are filled
> with obvious prejudice. Frankly, I find Usenet posters to be just as
> ill-mannered in newsgroups like this one as in the Microsoft-specific
ones.
> You are a perfect example.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Steve House]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Jul 2003 19:37:13 -0500, Steve House wrote:
>
> you can't trim the quoted test, can you?
>


Sure I can. Is this better? Now, of course, no one reading this message
sees any of what you wrote except that one line and unless they have been
faithfully reading this thread for the last several days they have no idea
of the contexts of your remark or my reply to it. I suspect that the vast
majority of people reading these words are lurkers who visit maybe once or
twice a week. Most ISPs that I'm aware of have just a few days dwell time
for the messages on their news servers. By tomorrow or the day after many
people reading this would not be able to go back and retrieve your message
that prompted this response to if they wished to see what you had written.
They certainly would not be able to get back to the even earlier messages in
the thread. (Yes, I know about Google and I know other subscription servers
have much longer retention times, that's one reason I use one myself). By
not trimming the quotes to any great extent, OTOH, other readers in the
thread would be able to see your comments in their entirety, and if
interested my comments that had prompted yours and so forth back in line,
without have to search Google and irrespective of whether their ISP is
retaining the thread or not. I've suggested that when data comms were
expensive the "no top post, trim all the quotes to the bone" approach made
perfect sense but now that data transfer is cheaper than dirt the
disadvantages outway the advantages.

[Steve House]

I don't think that was an indignant remark - it was a real question, not a
rhetorical one - and certainly wasn't intended to be interpreted as an
insult. Why indeed would one waste the time and disk space to dl several
hundred or several thousand message bodies when only a portion of them held
any interest? Screen headers first and only bother retrieving the bodies
you actually intend to read.

I'm just amazed at the poor performance you cite for your newsgroup access.
Your header shows SuperNews is your server and IMHO something is decidedly
wrong as they have a reputation of being quite speedy. I use NewScene as
you can see below and a cable modem. Just timed my connection sped this
morning as I write this and picking up 2500 new headers in a group takes
about 5 seconds, a message in a binary group with a 5+ meg file, 121286
lines, takes 28 seconds, and an ordinary text message with only a few
hundred lines is virtually instantaneous << 1 sec. You really need to get
on your ISPs case because you *should* be getting similar performance I
would think.

Yes, I agree that newer isn't always better, but sometimes it is. I'm a
trainer/consultant on PC apps and when it comes to MS Office, realistically
90% of the users I see will never need to use anything introduced to the
package since Office 97. OTOH, Access developers really do have useful new
features in more recent versions, and when it comes to my particular
specialty, project management and MS Project, it is incredibly foolish
(IMHO) to go with anything less than the current release, due both to the
complexity of the product, the squashing of bugs with each release, and to
the complexity of the overall project scheduling and managing process.

"Addison Laurent" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:00:30 -0400, Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> > "Steve House" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Why in the world would you need to DL all the message bodies in an
> >> entire group?
> >
> > Well, at least for a couple of reasons:
>
> > 2) Because the Internet is not 100% infalliable. If you have a good
>
> Good answers, and ones that Steve should have thought about, IMO, before
> getting indignant.
>
> In my case, its because while I get super-fast cable - they outsourced
> the newsserver to someone else (one of the big names). But... I'm limited
> to less than a 14.4k modem would be. So its better for me to
> grab everything I'm interested in.. because otherwise, it takes several
> seconds to get each message.
>
> But that's me. (And my refusal so far to buy a seperate connection).
>
> So you see Steve, that's part of the whole point here. Different people
> have different requirements, and newer isn't always better. Heck,
> usenet's supposed to have been dead 10 years now, because the web
> replaced it, remember?
>
> Addison

[Martin Hotze]

On 27 Jul 2003 07:51:06 -0500, Steve House wrote:

>> you can't trim the quoted test, can you?
^^^^

should have been "rest". sorry - a typo.

>Sure I can. Is this better?


a litle bit. you cutted away the text you are _referring_ to.

> Now, of course, no one reading this message
>sees any of what you wrote except that one line and unless they have been
>faithfully reading this thread for the last several days they have no idea
>of the contexts of your remark or my reply to it. I suspect that the vast
>majority of people reading these words are lurkers who visit maybe once or
>twice a week.

wild guesses

> Most ISPs that I'm aware of have just a few days dwell time
>for the messages on their news servers.


you mean those who offer flat high speed access for very little money? you
get what you pay for.

> By tomorrow or the day after many
>people reading this would not be able to go back and retrieve your message
>that prompted this response to if they wished to see what you had written.

bad news servers. their problem, not mine.

>They certainly would not be able to get back to the even earlier messages in
>the thread. (Yes, I know about Google and I know other subscription servers
>have much longer retention times, that's one reason I use one myself). By

ok

>not trimming the quotes to any great extent, OTOH, other readers in the
>thread would be able to see your comments in their entirety, and if
>interested my comments that had prompted yours and so forth back in line,
>without have to search Google and irrespective of whether their ISP is
>retaining the thread or not.


the references are in the header.

> I've suggested that when data comms were
>expensive the "no top post, trim all the quotes to the bone" approach made
>perfect sense but now that data transfer is cheaper than dirt the
>disadvantages outway the advantages.

you know how usenet works? how often is your posting duplicated all over
the world?
Besides these are the rules of the usenet. Go and build your usenet and
apply your rules there, it is rather easy to do. Just start your own - for
example - stevehouse.* hierarchy.

OK, what is your estimate on what bandwidth costs? what do you think is the
cost for one megabit transit? (and now we haven't even calculated expenses
for operating the network, etc.)

And bandwidth is only a fraction of the total cost. Just check your
hardware vendor for some storage systems to hold several gigs. Then go for
the hardware to spool it. Then also count the feed-traffic and also the
'get' traffic.

It would be best if everybody would just log on to a big terminal server in
Redmont, eh? This would solve many problems.

#m
--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/

24 "Deceptions" In 704 words: Bush's 2003 SOTU
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_sotu.html

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:44:11 +0200, Martin Hotze wrote:

>On 27 Jul 2003 07:51:06 -0500, Steve House wrote:
>
>>> you can't trim the quoted test, can you?
> ^^^^
>
>should have been "rest". sorry - a typo.

bullsh** .. s/test/text

*arrggg* ... and supersede does not work here. *hmpf*

f-up2poster

#m

--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/

24 "Deceptions" In 704 words: Bush's 2003 SOTU
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_sotu.html

[Steve House]

Not necessarily keeping the entire thread - but certainly the previous
message in its entirely and perhaps several other steps back in the thread
if relevant. (The "snip" you see below is the block of text from my message
you had quoted in your reply.) Trimming the history is another reason for
top posting, by the way. Far easier to simply go down to the point in the
history it loses relevance and delete the quote from there to the end of the
message than it is to go line by line deciding what to keep and what to
erase. It's also a lot easier to locate the current message's contents if
they're in a group at the top.

An interesting analogy to email because I think that hits it on the head -
newsgroup postings are virtually identical to an exchange of a series of
emails that are in a public folder rather than a private mailbox, with
anyone reading it invited to contribute and comment. But the dynamic of the
exchange is the same - the only real difference is in its public nature.

Yes, I have software that maintains the thread structure. But only for
those messages that are still active in the server - when a message is
purged from the server its header is purged from my reader. I use both OE
and Agent and they're set up the same. Messages headers are grouped by
thread. No bodies are retained from session to session, only headers. Only
headers for unread messages are displayed.

For clairity, I'd suggest that top posting is first, bottom posting second,
and "interwoven" posting where the reply is interspersed in amongst the
quoted text is a distant third. That being said and contrary to some, I
don't think any of it is a "rule" that must be obeyed. Different messages
and different topics lend themselves to different styles and I find I use
all three, whichever I think will best communicate the thoughts at hand.



"David" > wrote in message
...
....snip....
>
> I would like to get this clear. Are you proposing that an entire thread
> of discussion should always be contained in one message so that the
> latest message always contains all the previous ones on that topic?
>
> That _might_ be appropriate in an e-mail discussion between a few
> friends but it seems to me it is totally wrong for a newsgroup. Does it
> indicate that you do not have software that maintains the structure of
> threads?
>
> The thing I hate most is the one line comment added to a 1000 line
> complex of messages. Bottom quoting, with just enough quoted for clarity
> I find infinitely easier to handle. Since many messages contain
> irrelevant dross keeping that hardly adds to clarity.

I agree with you there, especially if the one line is at the bottom. <grin>