Let's get high.

[Dan Luke]

Took the airplane up to 16.5K today to see what she'd do and have my first
experience sucking oxygen. It is truly satisfying to sit back and watch the
airplane hold 800 FPM all the way up.

Performance was a bit better than book: 164 KTAS at 27" and 2400 RPM, 14.6
GPH, 50 deg. ROP.

I'm in love with this airplane; it's a dream to fly and performs beautifully.
Heading back to Mobile, I took the headphones off, turned off the autopilot
and enjoyed the unusual 60+ mile visibility as I banked left and right all the
way down to 1,000 ft. over Dauphin Island.

Jeez, I love flying.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
"Dan Luke" > wrote:

> Took the airplane up to 16.5K today to see what she'd do and have my first
> experience sucking oxygen. It is truly satisfying to sit back and watch the
> airplane hold 800 FPM all the way up.
>
> Performance was a bit better than book: 164 KTAS at 27" and 2400 RPM, 14.6
> GPH, 50 deg. ROP.
>
> I'm in love with this airplane; it's a dream to fly and performs beautifully.
> Heading back to Mobile, I took the headphones off, turned off the autopilot
> and enjoyed the unusual 60+ mile visibility as I banked left and right all
> the
> way down to 1,000 ft. over Dauphin Island.
>
> Jeez, I love flying.

Sounds like fun Dan.
How long did it take to climb up to 16.5K?
How long to descend?
How did the controls feet at 16.5K? Did the airplane feel like it was
balancing on the tip of pin, or solid like it does down low?
Did you do any steep turns or stalls?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2007 17:52:14 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote in
>:

>I'm in love with this airplane

Would that be an '83 C-172RG?

[Jay Honeck]

> Jeez, I love flying.

I'm with you, Dan.

Today, after another sold-out weekend with not one, but TWO family
reunions at the inn (one of them Mary's family!), it was time to get
some air beneath our wings.

We had already eaten a huge family brunch (made by Mary's pro-chef
brother), so we didn't need to find food (for a change!). Thus we
aimed to visit some little-used, out of the way airports.

West Union, IA and Cresco, IA became our 54th and 55th Iowa airports
we've visited, respectively. Both are old-fashioned relics from the
1960s, with hand-painted signs that have long-since faded, written by
men from my father's generation who no-doubt thought others would
follow in their footsteps.

They were wrong, but we were able to enjoy the fruits of their labor
today. The sign-in book in Cresco was poignant -- we were their
first transient visitor since May.

After announcing our intention to land from ten miles out, another
pilot queried us to see where we were coming in from. (Very
unusual!) We told him Iowa City, and he excitedly announced that he'd
be landing in Cresco shortly, too.

After touching down and stretching our legs, a cherry Cessna 150 soon
landed on the grass runway, and taxied up to the hangars near where we
were stopped. The pilot almost *ran* up to shake our hand -- he was
based there, and it seemed like he hadn't seen anyone land in a very
long time!

We enjoyed a good long chat -- as we had done earlier in West Union
(with a Quickie home-builder who admitted to having the airport pretty
much to himself nowadays) -- and then headed over to Prairie du Chein,
WI for their marvelous Sunday Prime Rib special.

The air was still, the visibility unlimited, and the temperature was
in the mid-70s. The four of us flew home, stuffed to the gills and
totally decompressed after a VERY hectic few days.

Flying is life, and July is simply the best.

Glad you're enjoying your new plane, Dan!

(Still no cancellations for the Pool Party -- but I'm trying! :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave S]

Dan Luke wrote:
> Took the airplane up to 16.5K today to see what she'd do and have my first
> experience sucking oxygen. It is truly satisfying to sit back and watch the
> airplane hold 800 FPM all the way up.
>
> Performance was a bit better than book: 164 KTAS at 27" and 2400 RPM, 14.6
> GPH, 50 deg. ROP.
>
> I'm in love with this airplane; it's a dream to fly and performs beautifully.
> Heading back to Mobile, I took the headphones off, turned off the autopilot
> and enjoyed the unusual 60+ mile visibility as I banked left and right all the
> way down to 1,000 ft. over Dauphin Island.
>
> Jeez, I love flying.
>

Just for grins, did you happen to notice your OAT? Any problems staying
warm?

What did you use? Cannula? Mask? Any conserving devices?

We are doing initial engine runs/tests on our auto conversion velocity,
and once everything is sorted out, We intend to equip for flight as far
as the low flight levels.

Dave

[Dan Luke]

"john smith" wrote:

> Sounds like fun Dan.
> How long did it take to climb up to 16.5K?

I don't know; I didn't do a max performance climb.

> How long to descend?

Didn't time that either. I was having too much fun swooping back and forth
and enjoying the almost crystal clear view -- we very seldom get that down
here.

> How did the controls feet at 16.5K? Did the airplane feel like it was
> balancing on the tip of pin, or solid like it does down low?

I didn't notice any difference.

> Did you do any steep turns or stalls?

Great idea. I'll do that next time. If I spin it, there should be plenty of
room to recover. ;^)

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Larry Dighera" wrote:

>
>>I'm in love with this airplane
>
> Would that be an '83 C-172RG?

Nope. The '84 Cutlass is long gone.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Dave S" wrote:

>
> Just for grins, did you happen to notice your OAT? Any problems staying
> warm?

2 deg. C, IIRC. No prob' staying warm, just turned down the vents (oh, man;
what an improvement over the old Cessna orange juice cans!) and let the
sunshine do the rest. I wasn't up there long enough for my feet to get cold.

> What did you use? Cannula? Mask? Any conserving devices?

Cannula with a Precise Flight conserver.

> We are doing initial engine runs/tests on our auto conversion velocity, and
> once everything is sorted out, We intend to equip for flight as far as the
> low flight levels.

What engine?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Jay Honeck" wrote:


>
> (Still no cancellations for the Pool Party -- but I'm trying! :-)



Maybe FEMA could loan you some trailers. ;^)


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Peter R.]

On 7/1/2007 6:52:16 PM, "Dan Luke" wrote:

> I'm in love with this airplane; it's a dream to fly and performs
> beautifully.

It's nice to read of your seemingly rejuvenated spirit with regards to
flying.

How is the glass cockpit learning curve progressing?

--
Peter

[Dan Luke]

"Peter R." wrote:

>
> How is the glass cockpit learning curve progressing?
>

Nicely. Once you get used to where the buttons are and what they do, the fog
really starts to lift.

Other people have said the things can be a hazard in VMC because there's so
much to play with that you keep your head down too much. I have definitely
found this to be true. Saturday, while fiddling with the MFD, I flew right
through the approach path to an uncontrolled airport before I realized what I
was doing. Very bad!! So now I'm concentrating on keeping my VMC scan
outside where it belongs, especially at low altitude.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[[email protected]]

Here's an awful thought. The ultimate glass cockpit might have the
image of outside projected on your screen.

Flying could become like a video game.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

wrote:
> Here's an awful thought. The ultimate glass cockpit might have the
> image of outside projected on your screen.
>
> Flying could become like a video game.

With the exception of other aircraft and a tower or two (hundred thousand)
it's already there.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> Here's an awful thought. The ultimate glass cockpit might have the
>> image of outside projected on your screen.
>>
>> Flying could become like a video game.
>
> With the exception of other aircraft and a tower or two (hundred thousand)
> it's already there.

I believe he's thinking along the lines of a glass elevator.

[Dave S]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Dave S" wrote:

>>We are doing initial engine runs/tests on our auto conversion velocity, and
>>once everything is sorted out, We intend to equip for flight as far as the
>>low flight levels.
>
>
> What engine?
>

Used Mazda RX7 rotary engine, 1989-1992 year range. 4 port/Turbo block.
Estimating 180-200 hp normally aspirated, and we will
turbocharge/normalize it as things progress.

I bought 3 imported j-spec engines off Ebay, condition unknown from a
private seller for $700 USD and got 1.75 useable engines. This was a
gamble that paid off.

Rebuilt and hand ported by moi. After much research and study.

Used the factory manual and haynes manual for specs.
Used a video from Bruce Turrentine in North Carolina for the rebuild
itself - its a great bargain.
http://www.actechbooks.com/mazda_overhaul_13B_dvd.htm

The entire rebuild kit came from him too, about $1100 in seals, springs
and gaskets. As long as the metal is within wear specs, this is the cost
of a rebuild. A brand new engine can be had for $4-5,000 USD. But it
still has to be opened to make some mods that optimize it for
racing/aviation use. Best bet is to get a 1st run JDM engine, or a
wrecked car (not a burnt one, in the case of the RX8)

Using PSRU (2 amu), Engine Controller (1 amu) and Engine Monitor (1 amu)
from Tracy Crook's Real World Solutions, in Florida. he also sells the
rebuild kits. http://www.rotaryaviation.com

Have a cast aluminum intake from Mistral in Switzerland. 2.2 AMU, after
having tried several other homebrew attempts. Its a beautiful,
engineered work of art. Mistral is graciously providing parts support to
the rotary homebuilders, since their engine is heavily based on the same
core concept - the 4 port 1992 mazda block. http://www.mistral-engines.com/

Using engine mount from Fred Breeze from Conversion Concepts.
Unfortunately Fred has been unable to deliver on work for quite a while,
and I hear he's heading for bankruptcy. Lots of guys lost their deposits
with him, and are out $$$. The Cozy Girls are picking up this market
http://www.cozygirrrl.com/


Runs VERY VERY SMOOTH. The plane doesnt shake rattle and roll when
starting (like a horizontally opposed piston engine). Had an air leak in
the MP sense line causing it to run over-rich. Didn't detect that on the
first runs because it was un-instrumented at that point, but with the
engine monitor online with a partial sensor package connected, its
running smoother than ever. When we plug in the oxygen sensor, we will
tune the engine controller to stoich as a baseline for ground and flight
test.

Prolly much more than you wanted to hear about.. but hey.. its our
baby.. And not a whole lot of new innovation on our part. We are
following in the footsteps of other trailbrazers.

Dave

[Dan Luke]

"Dave S" wrote:

[snip lots of good stuff]
>
> Runs VERY VERY SMOOTH. The plane doesnt shake rattle and roll when starting
> (like a horizontally opposed piston engine).

I had a little rotary Mazda coupe (RX-4?) about 30 yrs ago that was one of my
favorite cars ever. Very smooth and powerful, if a bit thirsty. Had a 4 bbl
carb the size of a washtub on it. I had it up to 120 mph one time and
chickened out with plenty of room to go before redline. Great engine.

[snip]

> Prolly much more than you wanted to hear about..

No way! I hope you'll keep us posted on your progress.

> but hey.. its our baby.. And not a whole lot of new innovation on our part.
> We are following in the footsteps of other trailbrazers.

That's going to be a great airplane. Can't wait to see it at OSH.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Peter R.]

On 7/2/2007 11:25:43 AM, "Dan Luke" wrote:

> Nicely. Once you get used to where the buttons are and what they do, the
> fog really starts to lift.

I understand. An acquaintance of mine purchased an A36 Bonanza and replaced
the stack with a Garmin GNS480 and Garmin moving map. Coming from a GNS430
background, he is struggling to learn the 480's approach-related features. I
have offered to ride right seat for him while he plays with it, but he has
yet to take me up on it. He also has yet to fly an actual instrument
approach.

--
Peter

[Gatt]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...

> I'm in love with this airplane; it's a dream to fly and performs
> beautifully. Heading back to Mobile, I took the headphones off, turned off
> the autopilot and enjoyed the unusual 60+ mile visibility as I banked left
> and right all the way down to 1,000 ft. over Dauphin Island.

How did Ft. Gaines handle Katrina?

-c

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Gatt" wrote:

>> 1,000 ft. over Dauphin Island.
>
> How did Ft. Gaines handle Katrina?

Came through ok. The west end of the island really got hammered, though.
Lots of beach homes lost and a new pass cut through to Mississippi Sound.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Gatt]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gatt" wrote:
>
>>> 1,000 ft. over Dauphin Island.
>>
>> How did Ft. Gaines handle Katrina?
>
> Came through ok. The west end of the island really got hammered, though.
> Lots of beach homes lost and a new pass cut through to Mississippi Sound.

Thanks. I visited New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast in February,
and have this to say:

If America as a whole is ever hit with a disaster as heavily as Katrina hit
the gulf coast states, I hope that we as a nation are able to endure and
rebuild with the tenacity, resiliance and determination that I saw from the
people in Gulfport, Biloxi, etc. Talk about a stiff upper lip; southerners
are some tough f'ing people!

-c

[Dan Luke]

"Gatt" wrote:

> If America as a whole is ever hit with a disaster as heavily as Katrina hit
> the gulf coast states, I hope that we as a nation are able to endure and
> rebuild with the tenacity, resiliance and determination that I saw from the
> people in Gulfport, Biloxi, etc. Talk about a stiff upper lip; southerners
> are some tough f'ing people!

I think Americans everywhere are tougher than they realize.


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[B A R R Y]

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 18:02:45 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>I think Americans everywhere are tougher than they realize.

So do I.

We bitch, we moan...

But when Katrina, 9/11, Andrew, the NYC blackouts, name a disaster...
hit, people step up and suck it up. I wasn't there for Katrina, but I
was there for 9/11, and I saw it with my own eyes.

Sometimes, I think our comfortable lifestyle, as well as our ability
and freedom to bitch and moan is taken as softness. Try to take it
away...

Look at the people who simply show up unorganized from 100's of miles
away to help at a disaster like Katrina and 9/11.

[Gatt]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...

>>I think Americans everywhere are tougher than they realize.

> Look at the people who simply show up unorganized from 100's of miles
> away to help at a disaster like Katrina and 9/11.

Motivational stuff, guys, and I hope it's true.

My cousin who lives in Gulfport (refuses to leave because she works with
animals there) said that the first responders after Katrina were the good
ol' rebel flag types from upstate who came down in pickup trucks loaded with
food, water, shovels, etc. Then she had a knock on her door; it was a
National Guard humvee distributing MREs, more or less without official
orders. Like the heroes of New Orleans--the US Coast Guard helicopter
crews--they didn't waste time waiting for the bureaucracy to give them
permission to mobilize. There's glory in that.

-c

[B A R R Y]

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 18:07:47 -0700, "Gatt" >
wrote:


>Motivational stuff, guys, and I hope it's true.

I SAW IT MYSELF on 9/12 in Fairfield County, CT.

Folks were showing up at organizational areas along I-95 in CT and NY
asking "what can I do?" I'm sure the same happened down south, after
Katrina.

The USCG has a long history of dumping bureaucracy and getting it
done.

[Jack Allison]

Sounds cool Dan. I must have missed the "bought a new plane"
post...assuming this is your bird. Yeah, higher/faster...very cool.
For now, however, I'll live in the 12K ft range and high 130's/low 140's
KTAS in the Arrow as it fits in the budget. Still...if I won the
lotto, er something, higher/faster sounds nice.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Jack Allison" wrote:

> Sounds cool Dan. I must have missed the "bought a new plane"
> post...assuming this is your bird.

Yep:

http://rides.webshots.com:80/album/559437187xuvaYf


> Yeah, higher/faster...very cool. For now, however, I'll live in the 12K ft
> range and high 130's/low 140's KTAS in the Arrow as it fits in the budget.
> Still...if I won the lotto, er something, higher/faster sounds nice.

Nothing wrong with that. That's a fast Arrow you've got.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Jack Allison]

Dan Luke wrote:
>> Sounds cool Dan. I must have missed the "bought a new plane"
>> post...assuming this is your bird.
>
> Yep:
>
> http://rides.webshots.com:80/album/559437187xuvaYf

Man, and a glass panel to boot! That's one nice ride you have there Dan.

>> Yeah, higher/faster...very cool. For now, however, I'll live in the 12K ft
>> range and high 130's/low 140's KTAS in the Arrow as it fits in the budget.
>> Still...if I won the lotto, er something, higher/faster sounds nice.
>
> Nothing wrong with that. That's a fast Arrow you've got.
>
Speed mods: plane came with aileron/flap/stabilator gap seals, wing root
fairings, gear lobe fairings and hubcaps.

Yeah, I can't complain about the speed/fuel burn tradeoff we have. When
I can cruse at these speeds burning right at 8 gph, it's pretty decent.

[Mxsmanic]

Bill Watson writes:

> I was thinking the other day as to how piloting is already nearing
> obsolescence. Things like the Predator have already demonstrated remote
> piloting.. a noncom sitting in a bunker in Colorado or something
> piloting a aircraft over in Iraq. Autopilots able to fly from chock to
> chock are clearly possible if not already demonstrable.

Such systems have already been developed and demonstrated, but they are not
currently cost-effective for commercial air travel.

Nevertheless, the fondest dream of the airlines is that they'll one day be
able to eliminate human pilots. I don't see any insurmountable technical
obstacle that will prevent this.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Bill Watson writes:

> > I was thinking the other day as to how piloting is already nearing
> > obsolescence. Things like the Predator have already demonstrated remote
> > piloting.. a noncom sitting in a bunker in Colorado or something
> > piloting a aircraft over in Iraq. Autopilots able to fly from chock to
> > chock are clearly possible if not already demonstrable.

> Such systems have already been developed and demonstrated, but they are not
> currently cost-effective for commercial air travel.

> Nevertheless, the fondest dream of the airlines is that they'll one day be
> able to eliminate human pilots. I don't see any insurmountable technical
> obstacle that will prevent this.

That's because your depth of knowledge only extends to a brief skimming
of wikipedia articles and playing flight simulator.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> That's because your depth of knowledge only extends to a brief skimming
> of wikipedia articles and playing flight simulator.

No, it's because I know what the technology can actually do.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> That's because your depth of knowledge only extends to a brief skimming
>> of wikipedia articles and playing flight simulator.
>
> No, it's because I know what the technology can actually do.

No you don't, you don't know anything. You're an idiot.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > That's because your depth of knowledge only extends to a brief skimming
> > of wikipedia articles and playing flight simulator.

> No, it's because I know what the technology can actually do.

No, you think you know a lot when actually you have a very superficial
understanding of most everything you post about, and that is quite
obvious to just about everybody now.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jay Honeck]

> Sooner or later most flying will become a video game and actually
> piloting an aircraft will become a niche hobby.

There was (yet another) article on "flying cars" in Smithsonian Air &
Space magazine recently, in which this was discussed at length. The
conclusion was that although flying cars can be built today, the skill
and training it would take to operate them safely present an
insurmountable obstacle to their ready acceptance.

The solution? Fully automated flight. Hop in and simply *tell* the
car where to fly you, eliminating the stupid pilots. When this is
achieved in twenty years, today's UAVs will look like "Pong" games by
comparison, and the age of piloting will be over.

From that point on the only people still manually "flying" will be
enthusiasts and oddballs -- like us!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim Macklin]

Welcome to the first automated Moon flight. Except for the cabin staff,
there is no flight crew. Your flight is fully automatic, but do not be
alarmed, nothing can go wrong go wrong go wrong go wrong go wrong....




"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
...
|> Sooner or later most flying will become a video game and actually
| > piloting an aircraft will become a niche hobby.
|
| There was (yet another) article on "flying cars" in Smithsonian Air &
| Space magazine recently, in which this was discussed at length. The
| conclusion was that although flying cars can be built today, the skill
| and training it would take to operate them safely present an
| insurmountable obstacle to their ready acceptance.
|
| The solution? Fully automated flight. Hop in and simply *tell* the
| car where to fly you, eliminating the stupid pilots. When this is
| achieved in twenty years, today's UAVs will look like "Pong" games by
| comparison, and the age of piloting will be over.
|
| From that point on the only people still manually "flying" will be
| enthusiasts and oddballs -- like us!
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > Sooner or later most flying will become a video game and actually
> > piloting an aircraft will become a niche hobby.

> There was (yet another) article on "flying cars" in Smithsonian Air &
> Space magazine recently, in which this was discussed at length. The
> conclusion was that although flying cars can be built today, the skill
> and training it would take to operate them safely present an
> insurmountable obstacle to their ready acceptance.

> The solution? Fully automated flight. Hop in and simply *tell* the
> car where to fly you, eliminating the stupid pilots. When this is
> achieved in twenty years, today's UAVs will look like "Pong" games by
> comparison, and the age of piloting will be over.

> From that point on the only people still manually "flying" will be
> enthusiasts and oddballs -- like us!

Trains have one dimension of freedom while airplanes have three.

Trains are pretty much impervious to weather effects while airplanes
are highly sensitive to them, e.g. turbulance, ice, etc.

The technology to totally automate trains has been around for at least
fifty years.

There are few people carrying, fully automatted, no safety operator
aboard trains in the world.

While the requirement to hand fly large, i.e. airliners with the backing
resources to afford the automation, will decrease, you won't see planes
carrying humans without at least a safety pilot aboard unless Mr. Data
gets invented.

But Mr. Data, having no emotions, wouldn't fly long hours at poor pay
just for thrill of flying and would quit and go into a more lucrative
field.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>The solution? Fully automated flight. Hop in and simply *tell* the
>car where to fly you, eliminating the stupid pilots. When this is
>achieved in twenty years, today's UAVs will look like "Pong" games by
>comparison, and the age of piloting will be over.
>
>From that point on the only people still manually "flying" will be
>enthusiasts and oddballs -- like us!

Do you really think a dangerous human pilot would be allowed to share the
skies with fully automated aircraft? Not likely. Automated systems cannot
easily compensate for humans that cannot be counted on to strictly adhere to
the rules of the automated system. It's kind of an all or nothing situation.
Imagine one of those "Highways of the future" that have been touted for
decades, where the cars do all driving. Introduce a car driven by Joe
Schmoe and you'll have chaos in no time.

Fortunately for us, I don't see the whole automated aviation thing
happening in twenty years.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Tina]

there is a car being advertised that has some features driven by
microsoft. I don't know about you, but my XP system and vista basic
system both experience crashes. The thought of microsoft programming
being used on my car scares me.

How often do you hear "The system is down" when working with someone?

"When she's good she's very very good, and when she's bad she's the
blue screen of death."



n Dec 4, 5:45 pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> >The solution? Fully automated flight. Hop in and simply *tell* theing used on
> >car where to fly you, eliminating the stupid pilots. When this is
> >achieved in twenty years, today's UAVs will look like "Pong" games by
> >comparison, and the age of piloting will be over.
>
> >From that point on the only people still manually "flying" will be
> >enthusiasts and oddballs -- like us!
>
> Do you really think a dangerous human pilot would be allowed to share the
> skies with fully automated aircraft? Not likely. Automated systems cannot
> easily compensate for humans that cannot be counted on to strictly adhere to
> the rules of the automated system. It's kind of an all or nothing situation.
> Imagine one of those "Highways of the future" that have been touted for
> decades, where the cars do all driving. Introduce a car driven by Joe
> Schmoe and you'll have chaos in no time.
>
> Fortunately for us, I don't see the whole automated aviation thing
> happening in twenty years.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> --
> Message posted viahttp://www.aviationkb.com

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> The solution? Fully automated flight. Hop in and simply *tell* the
> car where to fly you, eliminating the stupid pilots. When this is
> achieved in twenty years, today's UAVs will look like "Pong" games by
> comparison, and the age of piloting will be over.

Technically feasible, but I don't think that automated flying alone would make
flying acceptable for the masses. Think of the possibilities for errors and
malfunctions, and think of the liability issues and opportunities for
mischief.

> From that point on the only people still manually "flying" will be
> enthusiasts and oddballs -- like us!

The question is whether or not manual flying will even be allowed once
automated flying is commonplace. You may end up being restricted to a small
airfield for your manual flying.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The technology to totally automate trains has been around for at least
> fifty years.

The technology to fully automate flight has been around for about thirty
years. But it's expensive, and not cost-effective at this time.

> There are few people carrying, fully automatted, no safety operator
> aboard trains in the world.

Many subway systems are unattended, but it is true that the pioneers like BART
were plagued with problems.

> While the requirement to hand fly large, i.e. airliners with the backing
> resources to afford the automation, will decrease, you won't see planes
> carrying humans without at least a safety pilot aboard unless Mr. Data
> gets invented.

Agreed, at least for the foreseeable future. But one cannot speculate on the
unforeseeable future.

[Mxsmanic]

JGalban via AviationKB.com writes:

> Do you really think a dangerous human pilot would be allowed to share the
> skies with fully automated aircraft? Not likely. Automated systems cannot
> easily compensate for humans that cannot be counted on to strictly adhere to
> the rules of the automated system.

But conversely, automated systems based on digital computers tend to fail
catastrophically when they encounter unforeseen circumstances. Human beings
do not have this problem and are highly adaptable, making them extremely
useful backups.

An automated system must be reliable indeed to allow operation with no human
intervention possible at all. Such systems must depend on software written by
human beings, which is the key factor holding them back.

[Aluckyguess]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Watson writes:
>
>> I was thinking the other day as to how piloting is already nearing
>> obsolescence. Things like the Predator have already demonstrated remote
>> piloting.. a noncom sitting in a bunker in Colorado or something
>> piloting a aircraft over in Iraq. Autopilots able to fly from chock to
>> chock are clearly possible if not already demonstrable.
>
> Such systems have already been developed and demonstrated, but they are
> not
> currently cost-effective for commercial air travel.
>
> Nevertheless, the fondest dream of the airlines is that they'll one day be
> able to eliminate human pilots. I don't see any insurmountable technical
> obstacle that will prevent this.

an emergency

[Aluckyguess]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:7c34194951ac0@uwe...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>The solution? Fully automated flight. Hop in and simply *tell* the
>>car where to fly you, eliminating the stupid pilots. When this is
>>achieved in twenty years, today's UAVs will look like "Pong" games by
>>comparison, and the age of piloting will be over.
>>
>>From that point on the only people still manually "flying" will be
>>enthusiasts and oddballs -- like us!
>
> Do you really think a dangerous human pilot would be allowed to share
> the
> skies with fully automated aircraft? Not likely. Automated systems
> cannot
> easily compensate for humans that cannot be counted on to strictly adhere
> to
> the rules of the automated system. It's kind of an all or nothing
> situation.
> Imagine one of those "Highways of the future" that have been touted for
> decades, where the cars do all driving. Introduce a car driven by Joe
> Schmoe and you'll have chaos in no time.
>
> Fortunately for us, I don't see the whole automated aviation thing
> happening in twenty years.

lets see computers went from floppy drives to memory drives. A 86 to a quad
core super duper chip that you cant slow down. the new quad core processor
can process more info than the buss can feed it. This has been 20 years.
The next 20 will be amazing. Your cell phone will be linked to satellite
receive TV radio and diagnose any illness you have. A body scan will have
such a high resolution and the software will be able to find an illness
years before it ever is going to kill you. Minimum wage will be 15, cars
will run on electricity and planes will be a luxury only the super rich will
have. Gas will be over 10 a gallon an I will be almost 70 (67). Dam that's
old.
And solar power will run your house.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> --
> Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com
>

[[email protected]]

aluckyguess > wrote:

> "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
> news:7c34194951ac0@uwe...
> > Jay Honeck wrote:
> >>
> >>The solution? Fully automated flight. Hop in and simply *tell* the
> >>car where to fly you, eliminating the stupid pilots. When this is
> >>achieved in twenty years, today's UAVs will look like "Pong" games by
> >>comparison, and the age of piloting will be over.
> >>
> >>From that point on the only people still manually "flying" will be
> >>enthusiasts and oddballs -- like us!
> >
> > Do you really think a dangerous human pilot would be allowed to share
> > the
> > skies with fully automated aircraft? Not likely. Automated systems
> > cannot
> > easily compensate for humans that cannot be counted on to strictly adhere
> > to
> > the rules of the automated system. It's kind of an all or nothing
> > situation.
> > Imagine one of those "Highways of the future" that have been touted for
> > decades, where the cars do all driving. Introduce a car driven by Joe
> > Schmoe and you'll have chaos in no time.
> >
> > Fortunately for us, I don't see the whole automated aviation thing
> > happening in twenty years.

> lets see computers went from floppy drives to memory drives. A 86 to a quad
> core super duper chip that you cant slow down. the new quad core processor
> can process more info than the buss can feed it. This has been 20 years.
> The next 20 will be amazing. Your cell phone will be linked to satellite
> receive TV radio and diagnose any illness you have. A body scan will have
> such a high resolution and the software will be able to find an illness
> years before it ever is going to kill you. Minimum wage will be 15, cars
> will run on electricity and planes will be a luxury only the super rich will
> have. Gas will be over 10 a gallon an I will be almost 70 (67). Dam that's
> old.
> And solar power will run your house.

And all you need for flying airplanes is artificial intelligence which
is right around the corner any day now and has been for about 3 decades.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Aluckyguess]

> wrote in message
...
> aluckyguess > wrote:
>
>> "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
>> news:7c34194951ac0@uwe...
>> > Jay Honeck wrote:
>> >>
>> >>The solution? Fully automated flight. Hop in and simply *tell* the
>> >>car where to fly you, eliminating the stupid pilots. When this is
>> >>achieved in twenty years, today's UAVs will look like "Pong" games by
>> >>comparison, and the age of piloting will be over.
>> >>
>> >>From that point on the only people still manually "flying" will be
>> >>enthusiasts and oddballs -- like us!
>> >
>> > Do you really think a dangerous human pilot would be allowed to share
>> > the
>> > skies with fully automated aircraft? Not likely. Automated systems
>> > cannot
>> > easily compensate for humans that cannot be counted on to strictly
>> > adhere
>> > to
>> > the rules of the automated system. It's kind of an all or nothing
>> > situation.
>> > Imagine one of those "Highways of the future" that have been touted for
>> > decades, where the cars do all driving. Introduce a car driven by
>> > Joe
>> > Schmoe and you'll have chaos in no time.
>> >
>> > Fortunately for us, I don't see the whole automated aviation thing
>> > happening in twenty years.
>
>> lets see computers went from floppy drives to memory drives. A 86 to a
>> quad
>> core super duper chip that you cant slow down. the new quad core
>> processor
>> can process more info than the buss can feed it. This has been 20 years.
>> The next 20 will be amazing. Your cell phone will be linked to satellite
>> receive TV radio and diagnose any illness you have. A body scan will have
>> such a high resolution and the software will be able to find an illness
>> years before it ever is going to kill you. Minimum wage will be 15, cars
>> will run on electricity and planes will be a luxury only the super rich
>> will
>> have. Gas will be over 10 a gallon an I will be almost 70 (67). Dam
>> that's
>> old.
>> And solar power will run your house.
>
> And all you need for flying airplanes is artificial intelligence which
> is right around the corner any day now and has been for about 3 decades.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
I think you will still need a human to program the computer, but you will
talk to it.

[[email protected]]

aluckyguess > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> > aluckyguess > wrote:
> >
> >> "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
> >> news:7c34194951ac0@uwe...
> >> > Jay Honeck wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>The solution? Fully automated flight. Hop in and simply *tell* the
> >> >>car where to fly you, eliminating the stupid pilots. When this is
> >> >>achieved in twenty years, today's UAVs will look like "Pong" games by
> >> >>comparison, and the age of piloting will be over.
> >> >>
> >> >>From that point on the only people still manually "flying" will be
> >> >>enthusiasts and oddballs -- like us!
> >> >
> >> > Do you really think a dangerous human pilot would be allowed to share
> >> > the
> >> > skies with fully automated aircraft? Not likely. Automated systems
> >> > cannot
> >> > easily compensate for humans that cannot be counted on to strictly
> >> > adhere
> >> > to
> >> > the rules of the automated system. It's kind of an all or nothing
> >> > situation.
> >> > Imagine one of those "Highways of the future" that have been touted for
> >> > decades, where the cars do all driving. Introduce a car driven by
> >> > Joe
> >> > Schmoe and you'll have chaos in no time.
> >> >
> >> > Fortunately for us, I don't see the whole automated aviation thing
> >> > happening in twenty years.
> >
> >> lets see computers went from floppy drives to memory drives. A 86 to a
> >> quad
> >> core super duper chip that you cant slow down. the new quad core
> >> processor
> >> can process more info than the buss can feed it. This has been 20 years.
> >> The next 20 will be amazing. Your cell phone will be linked to satellite
> >> receive TV radio and diagnose any illness you have. A body scan will have
> >> such a high resolution and the software will be able to find an illness
> >> years before it ever is going to kill you. Minimum wage will be 15, cars
> >> will run on electricity and planes will be a luxury only the super rich
> >> will
> >> have. Gas will be over 10 a gallon an I will be almost 70 (67). Dam
> >> that's
> >> old.
> >> And solar power will run your house.
> >
> > And all you need for flying airplanes is artificial intelligence which
> > is right around the corner any day now and has been for about 3 decades.
> >
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
> >
> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
> I think you will still need a human to program the computer, but you will
> talk to it.

Interesting concept; talk this to a computer:

#ifndef SOCKSET_DOT_H
#define SOCKSET_DOT_H

#include "socket.h"


struct _sockset_st {
fd_set active_fds; /* FD's passed into and out of select() */
fd_set preserve_fds; /* FD's copied into active_fds */
int nPreserve_fds; /* Number of fds in preserve_fds */
int preserve_arr[ FD_SETSIZE ]; /* Array from 0 < nPreserve_fds of each
fd currently in preserve_fds */
/* Array of managed sockets. Indexed to match preserve_arr */
Socket *managed_sockets[ FD_SETSIZE ];
/* Array of clientdatas associated with sockets being managed.
Indexed to match managed_sockets */
void *managed_cldatas[ FD_SETSIZE ];

/* Information about which file descriptors which are on 'hold' */
struct {
int nHeld;
Socket *held_sockets[ FD_SETSIZE ];
void *held_cldatas[ FD_SETSIZE ];
} hold_info;
};

typedef struct _sockset_st SockSet;

extern SockSet *sockset_new();
extern void sockset_dest( SockSet *sset );
extern int sockset_add_fd( SockSet *sset, Socket *sock,
void *cldata );
extern int sockset_del_fd( SockSet *sset, Socket *sock );
extern void **sockset_query_socks( SockSet *sset );
extern int sockset_query_nsocks( SockSet *sset );
extern void sockset_reset( SockSet *sset );
extern int sockset_select( int highest_fd,
SockSet *readset, SockSet *writeset,
struct timeval *tout );
extern int sockset_hold( SockSet *sset, Socket *sock );
extern void sockset_unhold_all( SockSet *sset );

#endif



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bill Watson writes:
>
>> I was thinking the other day as to how piloting is already nearing
>> obsolescence. Things like the Predator have already demonstrated
>> remote piloting.. a noncom sitting in a bunker in Colorado or
>> something piloting a aircraft over in Iraq. Autopilots able to fly
>> from chock to chock are clearly possible if not already demonstrable.
>
> Such systems have already been developed and demonstrated, but they
> are not currently cost-effective for commercial air travel.
>
> Nevertheless, the fondest dream of the airlines is that they'll one
> day be able to eliminate human pilots. I don't see any insurmountable
> technical obstacle that will prevent this.

Of course you don't, since you're an idiot.

Bertie
>

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Welcome to the first automated Moon flight. Except for the cabin staff,
> there is no flight crew. Your flight is fully automatic, but do not be
> alarmed, nothing can go wrong go wrong go wrong go wrong go wrong....

I'm afraid I can't do that, Jim...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> The solution? Fully automated flight. Hop in and simply *tell* the
>> car where to fly you, eliminating the stupid pilots. When this is
>> achieved in twenty years, today's UAVs will look like "Pong" games by
>> comparison, and the age of piloting will be over.
>
> Technically feasible, but I don't think that automated flying alone
> would make flying acceptable for the masses.

Flying is acceptable to the masses.

Also accessible.


But not to failures like you.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

>

>
> Agreed, at least for the foreseeable future. But one cannot speculate
> on the unforeseeable future.
>
Aaaangh. wrong, your next question in the subject the bleedin obvous is,
"Which way is up?"


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> JGalban via AviationKB.com writes:
>
>> Do you really think a dangerous human pilot would be allowed to share
>> the skies with fully automated aircraft? Not likely. Automated
>> systems cannot easily compensate for humans that cannot be counted on
>> to strictly adhere to the rules of the automated system.
>
> But conversely, automated systems based on digital computers tend to
> fail catastrophically when they encounter unforeseen circumstances.

Still they are beter than you. You fail catastrophically trying to do
anything..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> That's because your depth of knowledge only extends to a brief skimming
>> of wikipedia articles and playing flight simulator.
>
> No, it's because I know what the technology can actually do.
>

No, you don't.



Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> No, you think you know a lot when actually you have a very superficial
> understanding of most everything you post about, and that is quite
> obvious to just about everybody now.

Absolutely right.

So you respond,... why?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> But Mr. Data, having no emotions, wouldn't fly long hours at poor pay
> just for thrill of flying and would quit and go into a more lucrative
> field.

Not up on THG (Startrek) are you? <g>

There is no money at the time Data is around. Nothing more lucrative can
exist, with no money. ;-)

I suspect that by the time something like Data does exist, there will be no
money here, for real, too.

I won't hold my breath while waiting, in other words. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

aluckyguess writes:

> an emergency

Fully automated systems tend to rapidly increase in complexity, until it is no
longer possible for a human being to make useful decisions in an emergency.

For example, some FBW high-performance military aircraft are designed to be
inherently unstable in order to improve their ability to maneuver quickly.
However, this design requires continuous computer command of control surfaces
in order to keep the aircraft from crashing. If the computers fail, there is
no way for a human pilot to keep the aircraft stable.

Many other examples could be cited.

It's true that automated systems can be designed with a human back-up in mind,
but sometimes they are not, and once they aren't, they tend to go off the
deeep end.

[Mxsmanic]

aluckyguess writes:

> lets see computers went from floppy drives to memory drives. A 86 to a quad
> core super duper chip that you cant slow down. the new quad core processor
> can process more info than the buss can feed it. This has been 20 years.
> The next 20 will be amazing.

But that is all hardware. There have been virtually no improvements in
software at all, and you need software to automate flight.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> aluckyguess writes:
>
>> an emergency
>
> Fully automated systems tend to rapidly increase in complexity, until
> it is no longer possible for a human being to make useful decisions in
> an emergency.
>
> For example, some FBW high-performance military aircraft are designed
> to be inherently unstable in order to improve their ability to
> maneuver quickly. However, this design requires continuous computer
> command of control surfaces in order to keep the aircraft from
> crashing. If the computers fail, there is no way for a human pilot to
> keep the aircraft stable.
>
> Many other examples could be cited.
>
> It's true that automated systems can be designed with a human back-up
> in mind, but sometimes they are not, and once they aren't, they tend
> to go off the deeep end.
>




Nope


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> aluckyguess writes:
>
>> lets see computers went from floppy drives to memory drives. A 86 to
>> a quad core super duper chip that you cant slow down. the new quad
>> core processor can process more info than the buss can feed it. This
>> has been 20 years. The next 20 will be amazing.
>
> But that is all hardware. There have been virtually no improvements
> in software at all, and you need software to automate flight.
>



Nope

Bertie

[Aluckyguess]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> aluckyguess writes:
>
>> lets see computers went from floppy drives to memory drives. A 86 to a
>> quad
>> core super duper chip that you cant slow down. the new quad core
>> processor
>> can process more info than the buss can feed it. This has been 20 years.
>> The next 20 will be amazing.
>
> But that is all hardware. There have been virtually no improvements in
> software at all, and you need software to automate flight.

I dont know my blackberry doesnt need to reboot everyday. To me thats
progress.

[the warlock society]

Bill Watson wrote:
> Things like the Predator have already demonstrated remote
> piloting.. a noncom sitting in a bunker in Colorado or something
> piloting a aircraft over in Iraq.

"noncom" meaning a non commissioned officer?

I was pretty sure that UAVs were operated by field-grade officers...
O2s and O3s... is that not true?

I dont mean to question your integrity... I was just under the
impression that UAVs were operated by commisioned officers but I could
be completely wrong and I want to be corrected if so. :)

[Mxsmanic]

aluckyguess writes:

> I dont know my blackberry doesnt need to reboot everyday. To me thats
> progress.

Modern desktop computers reboot a lot more often than clunky computers of
forty years ago. The state of the art in software has barely moved.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> aluckyguess writes:
>
>> I dont know my blackberry doesnt need to reboot everyday. To me thats
>> progress.
>
> Modern desktop computers reboot a lot more often than clunky computers of
> forty years ago. The state of the art in software has barely moved.




As a torll, you're completely useless, you doknow that, right?

Oh wait.

Of course you don;t


Bertie

[[email protected]]

Morgans > wrote:

> > wrote

> > But Mr. Data, having no emotions, wouldn't fly long hours at poor pay
> > just for thrill of flying and would quit and go into a more lucrative
> > field.

> Not up on THG (Startrek) are you? <g>

> There is no money at the time Data is around. Nothing more lucrative can
> exist, with no money. ;-)

Then why were Quark and Nog always fighting over gold-pressed latinum?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
>Modern desktop computers reboot a lot more often than clunky computers of
>forty years ago.

I suppose you came up with this gem from your vast experience working on
computers of the '60s? Those of us who actually did are laughing our asses
off.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Bob Noel]

In article >, wrote:

> Morgans > wrote:
>
> > > wrote
>
> > > But Mr. Data, having no emotions, wouldn't fly long hours at poor pay
> > > just for thrill of flying and would quit and go into a more lucrative
> > > field.
>
> > Not up on THG (Startrek) are you? <g>
>
> > There is no money at the time Data is around. Nothing more lucrative can
> > exist, with no money. ;-)
>
> Then why were Quark and Nog always fighting over gold-pressed latinum?

I don't think the Farengi were (will be?) part of the Federation.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[[email protected]]

Bob Noel > wrote:
> In article >, wrote:

> > Morgans > wrote:
> >
> > > > wrote
> >
> > > > But Mr. Data, having no emotions, wouldn't fly long hours at poor pay
> > > > just for thrill of flying and would quit and go into a more lucrative
> > > > field.
> >
> > > Not up on THG (Startrek) are you? <g>
> >
> > > There is no money at the time Data is around. Nothing more lucrative can
> > > exist, with no money. ;-)
> >
> > Then why were Quark and Nog always fighting over gold-pressed latinum?

> I don't think the Farengi were (will be?) part of the Federation.

No, the weren't, but the Federation had a monetary unit called the "Credit".

The implication was it was used in "foreign trade" and obtaining things
not produced by a replicator.

Three hots and a flop on the Enterprise was free, but if you wanted to
go to Quark's bar, get a real drink, and pick up girls you needed either
Credits or gold-pressed latinum.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> Morgans > wrote:
>>
>>> > wrote
>>
>>>> But Mr. Data, having no emotions, wouldn't fly long hours at poor
>>>> pay just for thrill of flying and would quit and go into a more
>>>> lucrative field.
>>
>>> Not up on THG (Startrek) are you? <g>
>>
>>> There is no money at the time Data is around. Nothing more
>>> lucrative can exist, with no money. ;-)
>>
>> Then why were Quark and Nog always fighting over gold-pressed
>> latinum?
>
> I don't think the Farengi were (will be?) part of the Federation.

That was a big hole in the whole money isn't an issue in the Federation
thing. There sure were a lot of Star Fleet officers betting at Quark's bar
and then there was the weekly poker game on the Enterprise.

[Mxsmanic]

JGalban via AviationKB.com writes:

> I suppose you came up with this gem from your vast experience working on
> computers of the '60s?

It is partly based on experience, yes.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> JGalban via AviationKB.com writes:
>
>> I suppose you came up with this gem from your vast experience working on
>> computers of the '60s?
>
> It is partly based on experience, yes.
>



No it isn't

Bertie

[george]

On Dec 6, 2:44 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > writes:
>
> >> That's because your depth of knowledge only extends to a brief skimming
> >> of wikipedia articles and playing flight simulator.
>
> > No, it's because I know what the technology can actually do.
>
> No, you don't.
>
Whoa. Stop.
Set park brake.
Mixed up mistrusts automated systems to a point where he would be
unhappy to use such systems.
In his bedroom on his computor.
Riiight

[george]

On Dec 6, 12:23 pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> >Modern desktop computers reboot a lot more often than clunky computers of
> >forty years ago.
>
> I suppose you came up with this gem from your vast experience working on
> computers of the '60s? Those of us who actually did are laughing our asses
> off.

VAX any-one ?
As I recall it Win95 introduced us to the Blue Screen of Death again
and again and again.
But the modern machines are pretty bullet proof - IF- the operator
knows what they're doing and here we're talking about mixed up

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

george > wrote in
:

> On Dec 6, 2:44 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > writes:
>>
>> >> That's because your depth of knowledge only extends to a brief
>> >> skimming of wikipedia articles and playing flight simulator.
>>
>> > No, it's because I know what the technology can actually do.
>>
>> No, you don't.
>>
> Whoa. Stop.
> Set park brake.
> Mixed up mistrusts automated systems to a point where he would be
> unhappy to use such systems.
> In his bedroom on his computor.
> Riiight
>
>
>
>



Missed that... 'Course i don't spend a whole lot of time reading his ****.

Bertie

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

george wrote:

>
>VAX any-one ?

VAX machines were from the 70s, and pretty stable for their day (compared
the the earlier PDP series). I was thinking more along the lines of the
UNIVAC 1108 and the IBM System/360.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote

> That was a big hole in the whole money isn't an issue in the Federation
> thing. There sure were a lot of Star Fleet officers betting at Quark's bar
> and then there was the weekly poker game on the Enterprise.

Many people thought that DS 9 was a hole in the whole Star Trek family of
shows. I would have to agree, on the most part.

As far as the poker game on the Enterprise, that was just for chips; no
money involved, right? <g>
--
Jim in NC