Throw a Weight in the Back?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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, ...

"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.

"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