Building it in China, OH JOY! I would think this would be a negative.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Cessna_Skycatcher_MadeInChina_196672-1.html

Cessna has chosen the Chinese-government owned Shenyang Aircraft Corp. to
build the Model 162 Skycatcher. Earlier this week, Cessna announced it would
be building the Light Sport Aircraft offshore. In a news release, Cessna CEO
Jack Pelton said the company needed top quality at a competitive price and
SAC put it all together. "Our solution is to partner with SAC, a company
with excellent facilities, state-of-the-art technologies and a workforce
highly experienced in aircraft manufacturing. SkyCatcher customers will get
an advanced design, high-quality workmanship and world-class product
support, all at an affordable price from Cessna, a brand known and trusted
worldwide." The move, coupled with Cessna's acquisition of Columbia Aircraft
has dominated Cessna's profile in recent months as it continues to pile up
record sales for its business jets.

Can all those fools who put down deposits at Oshkosh get their money
refunded?

Darkwing wrote:
> Building it in China, OH JOY! I would think this would be a negative.
>
> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Cessna_Skycatcher_MadeInChina_196672-1.html
>
> Cessna has chosen the Chinese-government owned Shenyang Aircraft
> Corp. to build the Model 162 Skycatcher. Earlier this week, Cessna
> announced it would be building the Light Sport Aircraft offshore. In
> a news release, Cessna CEO Jack Pelton said the company needed top
> quality at a competitive price and SAC put it all together. "Our
> solution is to partner with SAC, a company with excellent facilities,
> state-of-the-art technologies and a workforce highly experienced in
> aircraft manufacturing. SkyCatcher customers will get an advanced
> design, high-quality workmanship and world-class product support, all
> at an affordable price from Cessna, a brand known and trusted
> worldwide." The move, coupled with Cessna's acquisition of Columbia
> Aircraft has dominated Cessna's profile in recent months as it
> continues to pile up record sales for its business jets.


I'd demand my deposit back.

On Nov 28, 11:56 am, wrote:
> Can all those fools who put down deposits at Oshkosh get their money
> refunded?

Hmm, responding to my own post... (scratches head).

If I was one of those fools, I'd seriously now be looking at this
instead:

http://www.remos.com/en/news.php?item=092707

> I'd demand my deposit back.

Me, too.

Dang, it's hard to find ANYTHING not made in China anymore. I've
noticed that even many of the books I've been buying lately are from
China now...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Darkwing wrote:
>> Building it in China, OH JOY! I would think this would be a negative.
>>
>> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Cessna_Skycatcher_MadeInChina_196672-1.html
>>
>> Cessna has chosen the Chinese-government owned Shenyang Aircraft
>> Corp. to build the Model 162 Skycatcher. Earlier this week, Cessna
>> announced it would be building the Light Sport Aircraft offshore. In
>> a news release, Cessna CEO Jack Pelton said the company needed top
>> quality at a competitive price and SAC put it all together. "Our
>> solution is to partner with SAC, a company with excellent facilities,
>> state-of-the-art technologies and a workforce highly experienced in
>> aircraft manufacturing. SkyCatcher customers will get an advanced
>> design, high-quality workmanship and world-class product support, all
>> at an affordable price from Cessna, a brand known and trusted
>> worldwide." The move, coupled with Cessna's acquisition of Columbia
>> Aircraft has dominated Cessna's profile in recent months as it
>> continues to pile up record sales for its business jets.
>
>
> I'd demand my deposit back.

Yeah. More interesting than anything else
is that they took all that money from people
and didn't tell them or even know where they
were going to build it.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
...
>> I'd demand my deposit back.
>
> Me, too.
>
> Dang, it's hard to find ANYTHING not made in China anymore. I've
> noticed that even many of the books I've been buying lately are from
> China now...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


This will be a PR nightmare for Cessna IMO. How long until the Skycatcher is
known as a Chinese POS? Even if I chose an overseas builder I would NEVER of
chose a Chinese company only through perception alone.

We sold some Chinese made scooters a couple years back. Total pieces of
****. Constantly breaking down, had to reset the valve lash and timing
straight from the company, nothing but problems. The carbs were ALWAYS
plugged from the factory and had to be rebuilt and devarnished from the
factory. We bailed on that deal pretty quick.

Yeah, the Remos. That's hillarious. We had a Remos and company demo
pilot stop by here a couple months ago and stayed for a few days giving
demo rides. Quite possibly the dumbest pilot ever. This guy couldn't
fly and talk on the radio at the same time. A real asset to the company.



wrote:

> On Nov 28, 11:56 am, wrote:
>
>>Can all those fools who put down deposits at Oshkosh get their money
>>refunded?
>
>
> Hmm, responding to my own post... (scratches head).
>
> If I was one of those fools, I'd seriously now be looking at this
> instead:
>
> http://www.remos.com/en/news.php?item=092707
>

This might not be the best thing for "Rosie the Riveter" in
ICT but then, the legal system stole her job a long
time ago.



Jay Honeck wrote:

>>I'd demand my deposit back.
>
>
> Me, too.
>
> Dang, it's hard to find ANYTHING not made in China anymore. I've
> noticed that even many of the books I've been buying lately are from
> China now...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

On Nov 28, 12:16 pm, Newps > wrote:
> Yeah, the Remos. That's hillarious. We had a Remos and company demo
> pilot stop by here a couple months ago and stayed for a few days giving
> demo rides. Quite possibly the dumbest pilot ever. This guy couldn't
> fly and talk on the radio at the same time. A real asset to the company.
>
> wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 11:56 am, wrote:
>
> >>Can all those fools who put down deposits at Oshkosh get their money
> >>refunded?
>
> > Hmm, responding to my own post... (scratches head).
>
> > If I was one of those fools, I'd seriously now be looking at this
> > instead:
>
> > http://www.remos.com/en/news.php?item=092707

Yeah, but what about the plane itself?

Salesmen/demo pilots are a dime a dozen and easily replaced.

The FlightDesign CT is also a contender, and if my memory serves me is
presently the sales leader in the market right now today. Just don't
land one too hard and plonk it down on the gear ;-)

wrote:


> Yeah, but what about the plane itself?
>
> Salesmen/demo pilots are a dime a dozen and easily replaced.

So are LSA manufacturers and that's why Cessna will sell a million of
them. You can quibble over the weight of the plane or where its
components are made but the fact is you know Cessna did their homework
and will kill the competition. Just like with their latest jet, the
Mustang.

Newps wrote:
>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Yeah, but what about the plane itself?
>>
>> Salesmen/demo pilots are a dime a dozen and easily replaced.
>
> So are LSA manufacturers and that's why Cessna will sell a million of
> them. You can quibble over the weight of the plane or where its
> components are made but the fact is you know Cessna did their homework
> and will kill the competition. Just like with their latest jet, the
> Mustang.

Yeah, but so far all they seem to be good at is F.U.D

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:

> In a news release, Cessna CEO Jack Pelton said the company needed
> top quality at a competitive price and SAC put it all together.

Translation: Price was the only consideration.

> "Our solution is to partner with SAC, a company with excellent facilities,
> state-of-the-art technologies and a workforce highly experienced in
> aircraft manufacturing.

Translation: We have to give the Chinese what few technological trade secrets
we possess as part of the deal, so that they can eventually make their own
airplanes and throw us out of business. That's more than one fiscal quarter
in the future, though, so we don't care.

> SkyCatcher customers will get
> an advanced design, high-quality workmanship and world-class product
> support, all at an affordable price from Cessna, a brand known and trusted
> worldwide." The move, coupled with Cessna's acquisition of Columbia Aircraft
> has dominated Cessna's profile in recent months as it continues to pile up
> record sales for its business jets.

Time to look elsewhere for safe aircraft.

Darkwing wrote:
>
>This will be a PR nightmare for Cessna IMO. How long until the Skycatcher is
>known as a Chinese POS? Even if I chose an overseas builder I would NEVER of
>chose a Chinese company only through perception alone.

To be fair, Cessna did chose an old and reputable Chinese aircraft
manufacturer. Those Chinese CJ-6 trainers and the Chinese versions of the
MiGs have been made by Shenyang since the 50s.

>
>We sold some Chinese made scooters a couple years back. Total pieces of
>****. Constantly breaking down, had to reset the valve lash and timing
>straight from the company, nothing but problems. The carbs were ALWAYS
>plugged from the factory and had to be rebuilt and devarnished from the
>factory. We bailed on that deal pretty quick.

Are you really comparing an established aircraft manufacturer with the
makers of cheap scooters? Most of those low quality scooters are built in
backyard sheds throughout China. Not exactly the same thing.

While it would be nice for Cessna to manufacture their LSA in the U.S.,
it's just not going to happen in the current competitive climate. When the
LSA market finally shakes out, I'm betting that the players left standing
will be the ones manufacturing somewhere in Asia.


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

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

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:7be77acf17473@uwe...
> Darkwing wrote:
>>
>>This will be a PR nightmare for Cessna IMO. How long until the Skycatcher
>>is
>>known as a Chinese POS? Even if I chose an overseas builder I would NEVER
>>of
>>chose a Chinese company only through perception alone.
>
> To be fair, Cessna did chose an old and reputable Chinese aircraft
> manufacturer. Those Chinese CJ-6 trainers and the Chinese versions of the
> MiGs have been made by Shenyang since the 50s.
>
>>
>>We sold some Chinese made scooters a couple years back. Total pieces of
>>****. Constantly breaking down, had to reset the valve lash and timing
>>straight from the company, nothing but problems. The carbs were ALWAYS
>>plugged from the factory and had to be rebuilt and devarnished from the
>>factory. We bailed on that deal pretty quick.
>
> Are you really comparing an established aircraft manufacturer with the
> makers of cheap scooters? Most of those low quality scooters are built in
> backyard sheds throughout China. Not exactly the same thing.
>
> While it would be nice for Cessna to manufacture their LSA in the U.S.,
> it's just not going to happen in the current competitive climate. When
> the
> LSA market finally shakes out, I'm betting that the players left standing
> will be the ones manufacturing somewhere in Asia.


No and I was going to qualify that post but didn't think about it until
afterwards. Of course with Usenet there is no going back, this isn't
Ultimate BB.

I just think that Cessna is making a mistake from at least the MARKETING end
of things. Chinese build aero-plane? Screw that! Ever seen Back to the
Future Part III? Look at this part, no wonder it failed it says made in
Japan! What do you mean? All the best stuff is made in Japan! I'm sure over
time the good Chinese factories will rise up and the crap builders will die
off just like in any business but it will take a lot of time for Chinese
made goods to be considered equal to many other countries in the world.

Darkwing schrieb:

> Even if I chose an overseas builder I would NEVER of
> chose a Chinese company only through perception alone.

As a starter you might want to check http://www.sac.com.cn/eng/

In the customers section, I read among others:
　737-700 Empennage
Customer: Boeing
Contract concluded: 1995

I understand you will never again fly in a Boeing 737-700, through
perception alone.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
...
>> I'd demand my deposit back.
>
> Me, too.
>
> Dang, it's hard to find ANYTHING not made in China anymore. I've
> noticed that even many of the books I've been buying lately are from
> China now...

Chairman Mao's book?

The are going to regret not building these in the US if the $ continues its
downward spiral.

Mike Schumann

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:7be77acf17473@uwe...
> Darkwing wrote:
>>
>>This will be a PR nightmare for Cessna IMO. How long until the Skycatcher
>>is
>>known as a Chinese POS? Even if I chose an overseas builder I would NEVER
>>of
>>chose a Chinese company only through perception alone.
>
> To be fair, Cessna did chose an old and reputable Chinese aircraft
> manufacturer. Those Chinese CJ-6 trainers and the Chinese versions of the
> MiGs have been made by Shenyang since the 50s.
>
>>
>>We sold some Chinese made scooters a couple years back. Total pieces of
>>****. Constantly breaking down, had to reset the valve lash and timing
>>straight from the company, nothing but problems. The carbs were ALWAYS
>>plugged from the factory and had to be rebuilt and devarnished from the
>>factory. We bailed on that deal pretty quick.
>
> Are you really comparing an established aircraft manufacturer with the
> makers of cheap scooters? Most of those low quality scooters are built in
> backyard sheds throughout China. Not exactly the same thing.
>
> While it would be nice for Cessna to manufacture their LSA in the U.S.,
> it's just not going to happen in the current competitive climate. When
> the
> LSA market finally shakes out, I'm betting that the players left standing
> will be the ones manufacturing somewhere in Asia.
>
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> --
> Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
.. .
> The are going to regret not building these in the US if the $ continues
> its downward spiral.
>
> Mike Schumann

The Chinese money (the Yian or something?) is tied to the price of the US
dollar so even if the dollar falls the percentage doesn't change. That is
actually something that is a matter of contention with other countries at
the moment.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:40:11 -0500, Darkwing wrote:

> I just think that Cessna is making a mistake from at least the MARKETING end
> of things. Chinese build aero-plane? Screw that! Ever seen Back to the
> Future Part III? Look at this part, no wonder it failed it says made in
> Japan! What do you mean? All the best stuff is made in Japan! I'm sure over
> time the good Chinese factories will rise up and the crap builders will die
> off just like in any business but it will take a lot of time for Chinese
> made goods to be considered equal to many other countries in the world.

Not really since they own and mfg the leading business laptops from Lenovo
(was IBM). Cessna knows what they are doing. My bet is that this is a
positive thing.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:27:27 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> In a news release, Cessna CEO Jack Pelton said the company needed
>> top quality at a competitive price and SAC put it all together.
>
> Translation: Price was the only consideration.
>
>> "Our solution is to partner with SAC, a company with excellent facilities,
>> state-of-the-art technologies and a workforce highly experienced in
>> aircraft manufacturing.
>
> Translation: We have to give the Chinese what few technological trade secrets
> we possess as part of the deal, so that they can eventually make their own
> airplanes and throw us out of business. That's more than one fiscal quarter
> in the future, though, so we don't care.
>
>> SkyCatcher customers will get
>> an advanced design, high-quality workmanship and world-class product
>> support, all at an affordable price from Cessna, a brand known and trusted
>> worldwide." The move, coupled with Cessna's acquisition of Columbia Aircraft
>> has dominated Cessna's profile in recent months as it continues to pile up
>> record sales for its business jets.
>
> Time to look elsewhere for safe aircraft.

Mx, you're an interesting fellow. But then so is a monkey throwing bananas
out his cage door.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> According to this mornings WSJ, Cessna's Pelton is quoted as saying that
> by building the Skycatcher in China, the cost is $71k less than it would
> cost to build in the USA.
> I wonder how much of that is liability insurance and how much is labor?

What does a new C172 go for these days? Just over $200,00-$225,000? So the
Skycatcher if built in the states would have been close to $200,000?

john smith wrote:
> According to this mornings WSJ, Cessna's Pelton is quoted as saying
> that by building the Skycatcher in China, the cost is $71k less than
> it would cost to build in the USA.
> I wonder how much of that is liability insurance and how much is
> labor?

$71k on a $100k+ airplane? That seems a little much. But Cessna's product
liability won't be reduced by building in China.

Me thinks Cessna is looking at the soon to be much more lucrative Chinese (read Asian) training market...

No way the cheep scooter compares, maybe, at least the engine is O-200...



"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message news:7be77acf17473@uwe...
> Darkwing wrote:
>>
>>This will be a PR nightmare for Cessna IMO. How long until the Skycatcher is
>>known as a Chinese POS? Even if I chose an overseas builder I would NEVER of
>>chose a Chinese company only through perception alone.
>
> To be fair, Cessna did chose an old and reputable Chinese aircraft
> manufacturer. Those Chinese CJ-6 trainers and the Chinese versions of the
> MiGs have been made by Shenyang since the 50s.
>
>>
>>We sold some Chinese made scooters a couple years back. Total pieces of
>>****. Constantly breaking down, had to reset the valve lash and timing
>>straight from the company, nothing but problems. The carbs were ALWAYS
>>plugged from the factory and had to be rebuilt and devarnished from the
>>factory. We bailed on that deal pretty quick.
>
> Are you really comparing an established aircraft manufacturer with the
> makers of cheap scooters? Most of those low quality scooters are built in
> backyard sheds throughout China. Not exactly the same thing.
>
> While it would be nice for Cessna to manufacture their LSA in the U.S.,
> it's just not going to happen in the current competitive climate. When the
> LSA market finally shakes out, I'm betting that the players left standing
> will be the ones manufacturing somewhere in Asia.
>
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> --
> Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com
>

"john smith" > wrote in message ...
> According to this mornings WSJ, Cessna's Pelton is quoted as saying that by building the Skycatcher in China, the cost
> is $71k less than it would cost to build in the USA.
> I wonder how much of that is liability insurance and how much is labor?


hmmm, so Cessna says they wanted to sell it for 110,000 originally, and they did not know where they were going to build
it. So now, minus the 71,000, they will sell for, just to be nice with extra margins, ~60,000? That would kill the
competition...

> wrote in message
...
> On Nov 28, 11:56 am, wrote:
>> Can all those fools who put down deposits at Oshkosh get their money
>> refunded?
>
> Hmm, responding to my own post... (scratches head).
>
> If I was one of those fools, I'd seriously now be looking at this
> instead:
>
> http://www.remos.com/en/news.php?item=092707

A lot to like, except......

the damn rotax.
--
Jim in NC

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> In a news release, Cessna CEO Jack Pelton said the company needed
>> top quality at a competitive price and SAC put it all together.
>
> Translation: Price was the only consideration.
>
>> "Our solution is to partner with SAC, a company with excellent
>> facilities, state-of-the-art technologies and a workforce highly
>> experienced in aircraft manufacturing.
>
> Translation: We have to give the Chinese what few technological trade
> secrets we possess as part of the deal,


What's this "we"?

I thought you were French now.


Bertie

Now here is a question I have. How come Cessna says that they can't
build the Skycatcher profitably in the USA and meet the price point
they set but yet AMD is able to build their ZODIAC in the states and
advertise an IFR variant for under 100k. It's not like the aircraft
are all that different. Both are made of aluminum and both have the
O-200. Cessna's logic just dosen't make much sense to me.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
<..>
> Time to look elsewhere for safe aircraft.

Right. Like you would actually get in one if it was made in the U.S. and
someone offered to let you fly it for free.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Morgans wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Nov 28, 11:56 am, wrote:
>>> Can all those fools who put down deposits at Oshkosh get their money
>>> refunded?
>> Hmm, responding to my own post... (scratches head).
>>
>> If I was one of those fools, I'd seriously now be looking at this
>> instead:
>>
>> http://www.remos.com/en/news.php?item=092707
>
> A lot to like, except......
>
> the damn rotax.

Have you ever flown behind a 912 or a
914? I have never had a nicer engine
in any vehicle I've owned. Smooth,
strong and light, 5 gallons an hour in
cruise, absolutely *no* issues to date.

If you have a Rotax 912 horror story,
just tell it.

On 2007-11-28 13:37:55 -0800, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> said:

>
> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> The are going to regret not building these in the US if the $ continues
>> its downward spiral.
>>
>> Mike Schumann
>
> The Chinese money (the Yian or something?) is tied to the price of the US
> dollar so even if the dollar falls the percentage doesn't change. That is
> actually something that is a matter of contention with other countries at
> the moment.

After much pressure by the United States, as of July 21, 2005 the yuan
was no longer directly tied to the dollar, although it is not quite
free-floating, either. The yuan has been rising against the dollar of
late, although it was down slightly today.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2007-11-28 09:52:52 -0800, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> said:

> Building it in China, OH JOY! I would think this would be a negative.
>
> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Cessna_Skycatcher_MadeInChina_196672-1.html

Cessna
>
> has chosen the Chinese-government owned Shenyang Aircraft Corp. to
> build the Model 162 Skycatcher.

No doubt it will have lead-based paint and the composites will be made
of toxic waste. It should be a real hit.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Come on people, usually I give pilots some accepted base line of
intelligence and reasoning, but it seems it's largely gone out the
window on this one. Chinese manufacturers of CONSUMER products have
had more than thier fair share of problems to be sure, but it's a hell
of a stretch to compare consumer products with aircraft manufacture.

Do you honestly think that CESSNA is going to stake thier name,
reputation, and conceivably risk the entire business by going with an
aircraft manufacturer who would produce shoddy unreliable or dangerous
aircraft?!

More so, do you honestly think that either Cessna OR your country's
respective aviation authorities are going to let obviously shoddy
unreliable or dangerous aircraft get anywhere near the hands of Joe
Bloggs the pilot?!

Please, at least show some common sense here.

Cessna have obviously done thier homework, they have weighed the pros
and cons, and at the end of the day, the most effective solution
presented itself.

To decry the aircraft on the sole fact that it will be constructed in
China simply smacks of xenophobia. If you have a criticism of the
aircraft, at least make it something worth criticising!

On Nov 28, 3:05 pm, john smith > wrote:
> According to this mornings WSJ, Cessna's Pelton is quoted as saying that
> by building the Skycatcher in China, the cost is $71k less than it would
> cost to build in the USA.
> I wonder how much of that is liability insurance and how much is labor?

Jeezuz. They said they would sell this plane for just under $100K?
So ... WTF? They are going for serious MARGIN.

> To decry the aircraft on the sole fact that it will be constructed in
> China simply smacks of xenophobia. If you have a criticism of the
> aircraft, at least make it something worth criticising!

If I were interested in one I'd wait and see how many fall out of the
sky. But I do that for any aircraft, so, I guess I'd give the Chinese
just what I'd give any other maker.

On Nov 28, 3:53 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
If I was one of those fools, I'd seriously now be looking at this
> > instead:
>
> > http://www.remos.com/en/news.php?item=092707
>
> A lot to like, except......
>
> the damn rotax.
> --
> Jim in NC

I'll take that Rotax over an O-200 any day. We had nothing
but cylinder and valve trouble with O-200s in C150s and a Champ. It's
typical of the small Continentals. I've flown a 912 only once, but it
was smooth as silk and for about the same power-to-weight ratio, it
pulled much better than the O-200. I've long suspected that the 200
doesn't produce a full 100 hp. Even an old Aircoupe with a C90
accelerated better than the 150, again with about the same power/
weight ratio.

Dan
Dan

>>>>> "JS" == James Sleeman > writes:

JS> Do you honestly think that CESSNA is going to stake thier
JS> name, reputation, and conceivably risk the entire business by
JS> going with [a] manufacturer who would produce shoddy
JS> unreliable or dangerous [product]?!

Oh, probably not, no more than Mattel or other internationally known
companies.

JS> More so, do you honestly think that either Cessna OR your
JS> country's respective aviation authorities are going to let
JS> obviously shoddy unreliable or dangerous aircraft get anywhere
JS> near the hands of Joe Bloggs the pilot?!

Good point. Thank Gawd at least in the US we've beefed up import
inspection under the Bush regime and we caught all that dangerous
stuff before it hit the retail shelves!!

JS> Please, at least show some common sense here.

Preach it brudda.

JS> Cessna have obviously done thier homework, they have weighed
JS> the pros and cons, and at the end of the day, the most
JS> effective solution presented itself.

Cessna sniffed big profits to be made by outsourcing is what happened.

Anyway I'm just about to start building an RV-9A so all moot for me.

--
The wise man can pick up a grain of sand and envision a whole
universe. But the stupid man will just lie down on some seaweed
and roll around until he's completely draped in it. Then he'll
stand up and go, "Hey, I'm Vine Man."
- Jack Handey

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
> Building it in China, OH JOY! I would think this would be a negative.
>
> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Cessna_Skycatcher_MadeInChina_196672-1.html
>
> Cessna has chosen the Chinese-government owned Shenyang Aircraft Corp. to
> build the Model 162 Skycatcher. Earlier this week, Cessna announced it
> would be building the Light Sport Aircraft offshore. In a news release,
> Cessna CEO Jack Pelton said the company needed top quality at a
> competitive price and SAC put it all together. "Our solution is to partner
> with SAC, a company with excellent facilities, state-of-the-art
> technologies and a workforce highly experienced in aircraft manufacturing.
> SkyCatcher customers will get an advanced design, high-quality workmanship
> and world-class product support, all at an affordable price from Cessna, a
> brand known and trusted worldwide." The move, coupled with Cessna's
> acquisition of Columbia Aircraft has dominated Cessna's profile in recent
> months as it continues to pile up record sales for its business jets.

Cool, you will be able to get replacement parts in the mower department at
Wal Mart.

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
> Building it in China, OH JOY! I would think this would be a negative.


I have seen some pretty damn good airframes that were built in third world
countries. Plus, it is going to be supported by Cessna. Don't knock it until
you have seen it.

Vaughn

> wrote in message
...
> Now here is a question I have. How come Cessna says that they can't
> build the Skycatcher profitably in the USA and meet the price point
> they set but yet AMD is able to build their ZODIAC in the states and
> advertise an IFR variant for under 100k. It's not like the aircraft
> are all that different. Both are made of aluminum and both have the
> O-200. Cessna's logic just dosen't make much sense to me.

Probably Cessna's executives are MBAs so they need a much higher salary for
their important decisions.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:53:24 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>
>
wrote:
>
>
>> Yeah, but what about the plane itself?
>>
>> Salesmen/demo pilots are a dime a dozen and easily replaced.
>
>So are LSA manufacturers and that's why Cessna will sell a million of
>them. You can quibble over the weight of the plane or where its
>components are made but the fact is you know Cessna did their homework

We can hope so, but remember all the quality control issues when they
first went back into the single engine prop plane business.

>and will kill the competition. Just like with their latest jet, the
>Mustang.
Roger (K8RI)

On Nov 28, 12:53 pm, Newps > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Yeah, but what about the plane itself?
>
> > Salesmen/demo pilots are a dime a dozen and easily replaced.
>
> So are LSA manufacturers and that's why Cessna will sell a million of
> them. You can quibble over the weight of the plane or where its
> components are made but the fact is you know Cessna did their homework
> and will kill the competition. Just like with their latest jet, the
> Mustang.

Way back in the 80s there was a Word processing program called
Wordperfect. At that time it was the market-leading word processing
software. It was actually inferior to a number of other programs, but
it had really great technical support and lots of people used it
because they needed the support. The Skycatcher strikes me the same
way. It has some real liabilities compared to other LSAs on the
market, but it will have the Cessna network behind it and a lot of
people will probably buy it for that reason.

Eventually Wordperfect lost out in the market to superior products.
Time will tell if this happens to the Skycatcher. I think if Cessna
had really done their homework they would have designed a plane that
was a little more competitive.

Phil

wrote:
> Now here is a question I have. How come Cessna says that they can't
> build the Skycatcher profitably in the USA and meet the price point
> they set but yet AMD is able to build their ZODIAC in the states and
> advertise an IFR variant for under 100k. It's not like the aircraft
> are all that different. Both are made of aluminum and both have the
> O-200. Cessna's logic just dosen't make much sense to me.

My theory:

When Chris Heinz designed his first aircraft, he designed it so that _he_
(a non-machinist) would be able to build it on his own. All other
requirements were secondary to the "easy manufacturability" requirement. No
doubt he maintained that principle in subsequent designs.

By contrast, the designers of the Skycatcher almost certainly didn't have
"easy manufacturability" as their primary requirement. Probably way down
the list. Assuming the Skycatcher uses solid rivets (first invented back in
the Bronze age), that already causes a labor cost disadvantage over the
blind rivets used in Chris Heinz designs.

wrote:
> Now here is a question I have. How come Cessna says that they can't
> build the Skycatcher profitably in the USA and meet the price point
> they set but yet AMD is able to build their ZODIAC in the states and
> advertise an IFR variant for under 100k. It's not like the aircraft
> are all that different. Both are made of aluminum and both have the
> O-200. Cessna's logic just dosen't make much sense to me.

I'll wager a guess that it might make
more sense if we knew what Cessna's
definition of "profit" is.

My concern, aside from the lack of jobs in Kansas, is weight. The LSA must
be light and lead paint is heavy.




"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
| ...
| > Building it in China, OH JOY! I would think this would be a negative.
|
|
| I have seen some pretty damn good airframes that were built in third
world
| countries. Plus, it is going to be supported by Cessna. Don't knock it
until
| you have seen it.
|
| Vaughn
|
|

writes:

> Now here is a question I have. How come Cessna says that they can't
> build the Skycatcher profitably in the USA and meet the price point
> they set but yet AMD is able to build their ZODIAC in the states and
> advertise an IFR variant for under 100k. It's not like the aircraft
> are all that different. Both are made of aluminum and both have the
> O-200. Cessna's logic just dosen't make much sense to me.

What Cessna probably means is that they cannot build the aircraft with the
profit margin they want in the U.S. To maximize profit they must build
abroad.

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> writes:

> Right. Like you would actually get in one if it was made in the U.S. and
> someone offered to let you fly it for free.

A Chinese aircraft is likely to be even less safe than an American aircraft.

john smith writes:

> According to this mornings WSJ, Cessna's Pelton is quoted as saying that
> by building the Skycatcher in China, the cost is $71k less than it would
> cost to build in the USA.
> I wonder how much of that is liability insurance and how much is labor?

And how much is profit?

James Sleeman writes:

> Do you honestly think that CESSNA is going to stake thier name,
> reputation, and conceivably risk the entire business by going with an
> aircraft manufacturer who would produce shoddy unreliable or dangerous
> aircraft?!

Yes. The quest for short-term profits makes companies do strange things.

> More so, do you honestly think that either Cessna OR your country's
> respective aviation authorities are going to let obviously shoddy
> unreliable or dangerous aircraft get anywhere near the hands of Joe
> Bloggs the pilot?!

Yes. Just because it passes a few tests doesn't mean that it's safe.

> Cessna have obviously done thier homework, they have weighed the pros
> and cons, and at the end of the day, the most effective solution
> presented itself.

The most profitable, you mean.

> To decry the aircraft on the sole fact that it will be constructed in
> China simply smacks of xenophobia.

Sometimes xenophobia is justified.

On Nov 28, 11:07 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> Dang, it's hard to find ANYTHING not made in China anymore. I've
> noticed that even many of the books I've been buying lately are from
> China now...

Jay, I didnt know you could read. ;)

Gig 601XL Builder schrieb:
> Darkwing wrote:
>> Building it in China, OH JOY! I would think this would be a negative.
>>
>> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Cessna_Skycatcher_MadeInChina_196672-1.html
>>
>>(...)
> I'd demand my deposit back.

why? just because it is made in China?

#m
--
I am not a terrorist <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>

James,

> To decry the aircraft on the sole fact that it will be constructed in
> China simply smacks of xenophobia.
>

Yup. Also, if the quality of US-built cars (or piston aircraft engines)
is any kind of measure, maybe one should be happy about Cessna's
decision.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

James Sleeman schrieb:

> Come on people, usually I give pilots some accepted base line of
> intelligence and reasoning,

You obviously don't read this group very often.

On 2007-11-28, Morgans > wrote:
> A lot to like, except......
>
> the damn rotax.

What's wrong with the 4-stroke Rotaxes?
I've crossed the north Irish Sea numerous times behind a Rotax 914S,
a smooth and reliable engine.

I've also flown the Nangchang CJ6, which was built by the company that's
been contracted by Cessna. A very solidly built and good flying
aircraft.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

Jim Logajan wrote:

> My theory:

> By contrast, the designers of the Skycatcher almost certainly didn't
> have "easy manufacturability" as their primary requirement.

You are probably dead on. That doesn't make it smart.

Jim Stewart wrote:
>
> Have you ever flown behind a 912 or a
> 914? I have never had a nicer engine
> in any vehicle I've owned. Smooth,
> strong and light, 5 gallons an hour in
> cruise, absolutely *no* issues to date.


If you want smooth you ought to fly behind a Jabiru or the poor man's
version the Corvair. 6 is better than 4 for smoothness.

Martin Hotze wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder schrieb:

>> I'd demand my deposit back.
>
> why? just because it is made in China?
>

Yes and No. I doubt any one of those x00 people that paid the deposit at OSH
thought they were ordering an aircraft that was going to be built in China
by a third party. They were willing to pay a premium because they were
buying an airplane built by Cessna. They are not.

That said I might consider an aircraft contracted to an outside builder but
not if it was built in China. I'm forced to buy many things built in China
because either they are the only option or because of price. In this case
there are aircraft just as capable if not more so at a lower price either
built in the US or other countries where social and political beliefs are
not odds with my own.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Jim Stewart wrote:
>
>>Have you ever flown behind a 912 or a
>>914? I have never had a nicer engine
>>in any vehicle I've owned. Smooth,
>>strong and light, 5 gallons an hour in
>>cruise, absolutely *no* issues to date.
>
>
>
> If you want smooth you ought to fly behind a Jabiru or the poor man's
> version the Corvair. 6 is better than 4 for smoothness.

I've heard good things about them and
it's simple physics that 6 would be
smoother than 4. OTOH, my plane wouldn't
be a Light Sport if it had that much
power. The 912 has to be derated by
reducing the prop pitch as it is.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Now here is a question I have. How come Cessna says that they can't
>> build the Skycatcher profitably in the USA and meet the price point
>> they set but yet AMD is able to build their ZODIAC in the states and
>> advertise an IFR variant for under 100k. It's not like the aircraft
>> are all that different. Both are made of aluminum and both have the
>> O-200. Cessna's logic just dosen't make much sense to me.
>
> What Cessna probably means is that they cannot build the aircraft with
> the profit margin they want in the U.S. To maximize profit they must
> build abroad.
>


Wow you must have gone to bizness school or sumpin, eh?

Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> writes:
>
>> Right. Like you would actually get in one if it was made in the U.S.
>> and someone offered to let you fly it for free.
>
> A Chinese aircraft is likely to be even less safe than an American
> aircraft.
>

Bull****.


How would you know, fukkkwit?

You know nothing whatsoever about aviation.


Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> john smith writes:
>
>> According to this mornings WSJ, Cessna's Pelton is quoted as saying
>> that by building the Skycatcher in China, the cost is $71k less than
>> it would cost to build in the USA.
>> I wonder how much of that is liability insurance and how much is
>> labor?
>
> And how much is profit?
>

Oh, maybe you didn;t go to bizness skool after all.


Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> James Sleeman writes:
>
>> Do you honestly think that CESSNA is going to stake thier name,
>> reputation, and conceivably risk the entire business by going with an
>> aircraft manufacturer who would produce shoddy unreliable or dangerous
>> aircraft?!
>
> Yes. The quest for short-term profits makes companies do strange things.
>
>> More so, do you honestly think that either Cessna OR your country's
>> respective aviation authorities are going to let obviously shoddy
>> unreliable or dangerous aircraft get anywhere near the hands of Joe
>> Bloggs the pilot?!
>
> Yes. Just because it passes a few tests doesn't mean that it's safe.
>
>> Cessna have obviously done thier homework, they have weighed the pros
>> and cons, and at the end of the day, the most effective solution
>> presented itself.
>
> The most profitable, you mean.
>
>> To decry the aircraft on the sole fact that it will be constructed in
>> China simply smacks of xenophobia.
>
> Sometimes xenophobia is justified.


Yeh, right, you racist fjukkwit.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> James Sleeman writes:
>
>> Do you honestly think that CESSNA is going to stake thier name,
>> reputation, and conceivably risk the entire business by going with an
>> aircraft manufacturer who would produce shoddy unreliable or dangerous
>> aircraft?!
>
> Yes. The quest for short-term profits makes companies do strange things.
>
>> More so, do you honestly think that either Cessna OR your country's
>> respective aviation authorities are going to let obviously shoddy
>> unreliable or dangerous aircraft get anywhere near the hands of Joe
>> Bloggs the pilot?!
>
> Yes. Just because it passes a few tests doesn't mean that it's safe.


You know nothing about engineering, nothing about flying,

You're a fjukkwit.


Bertie

"F. Baum" > wrote in news:3fb9ecf9-ef79-470e-a8f8-
:

> On Nov 28, 11:07 am, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>
>> Dang, it's hard to find ANYTHING not made in China anymore. I've
>> noticed that even many of the books I've been buying lately are from
>> China now...
>
> Jay, I didnt know you could read. ;)
>

He can't


Bertie

There goes my respect for Cessna.

-c

"Phil" > wrote in message
...

> Eventually Wordperfect lost out in the market to superior products.
> Time will tell if this happens to the Skycatcher.

It was purchased and destroyed. Notice how much Microsoft Word looked like
old Wordperfect? Sorta like how Excel looked a lot like the early Windows
versions of Lotus 1-2-3. Buy 'em, make an "update" that turns to product
to total crap and then sell your conspicuously-identical version that
actually works.

Who would do a thing like that?

-c

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:f0bde2e2-1572-484e-b741-
>> I'd demand my deposit back.
>
> Me, too.
>
> Dang, it's hard to find ANYTHING not made in China anymore. I've
> noticed that even many of the books I've been buying lately are from
> China now...

That's because we alre allowing ourselves to become the United States of
China. They could use the profits, though. Lots of underprivelaged and
oppressed people there, so they need the money to build ships, tanks and
nukes to keep everybody in line.


-c

"Jim Stewart" > wrote in message
.. .
> wrote:
>> Now here is a question I have. How come Cessna says that they can't
>> build the Skycatcher profitably in the USA and meet the price point
>> they set but yet AMD is able to build their ZODIAC in the states and
>> advertise an IFR variant for under 100k. It's not like the aircraft
>> are all that different. Both are made of aluminum and both have the
>> O-200. Cessna's logic just dosen't make much sense to me.
>
> I'll wager a guess that it might make
> more sense if we knew what Cessna's
> definition of "profit" is.

Bingo. They can make it for less in China. That makes more profit.

"James Sleeman" > wrote in message
news:76d22612-6a3b-447b-b268-

> Do you honestly think that CESSNA is going to stake thier name,
> reputation, and conceivably risk the entire business by going with an
> aircraft manufacturer who would produce shoddy unreliable or dangerous
> aircraft?!

Mattel did.

It's not about the company reputation, it's about maximizing profit for the
investors and the upper management. (Remember "Wal-Mart: Made in USA"?)
We had this discussion with a real-live MBA here earlier this week.

> Please, at least show some common sense here.

We are giving our country away and elevating a communist super power with
some of the largest human rights abuse issues in the world. They're taking
our money and making missiles, aircraft and guns to sell to our enemies
while they tolerate software, music and movie piracy. If you dissent you
disappear.

Trade with China is not about common sense. It's about profits and bonuses.

-c

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
...
>> I'd demand my deposit back.
>
> Me, too.
>
> Dang, it's hard to find ANYTHING not made in China anymore. I've
> noticed that even many of the books I've been buying lately are from
> China now...

So is the Garlic you buy from Wall-Mart.

> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Garrmin builds all there circuit boards there. They have ther own factory.

On Nov 29, 9:12 am, "aluckyguess" > wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> I'd demand my deposit back.
>
> > Me, too.
>
> > Dang, it's hard to find ANYTHING not made in China anymore. I've
> > noticed that even many of the books I've been buying lately are from
> > China now...
>
> So is the Garlic you buy from Wall-Mart.
>
> > --
> > Jay Honeck
> > Iowa City, IA
> > Pathfinder N56993
> >www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > "Your Aviation Destination"

I grew up in south Central British Columbia, Canada. It's
fruit-growing country. Lately, the orchard owners have complained that
the supermarket chains are importing apples from China. What could
possibly drive that, other than greed?
I wonder if those Chinese apples have pesticides in them that
are banned here? Like lead in paint...

Dan

Jim Stewart wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> Jim Stewart wrote:
>>
>>> Have you ever flown behind a 912 or a
>>> 914? I have never had a nicer engine
>>> in any vehicle I've owned. Smooth,
>>> strong and light, 5 gallons an hour in
>>> cruise, absolutely *no* issues to date.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you want smooth you ought to fly behind a Jabiru or the poor man's
>> version the Corvair. 6 is better than 4 for smoothness.
>
> I've heard good things about them and
> it's simple physics that 6 would be
> smoother than 4. OTOH, my plane wouldn't
> be a Light Sport if it had that much
> power. The 912 has to be derated by
> reducing the prop pitch as it is.

What are you flying?

aluckyguess wrote:
> Garrmin builds all there circuit boards there. They have ther own
> factory.

Garmin Asia is in Taiwan. Do they also have a plane in China?


Garmin (Asia) Corporation
No 68, Jangshu 2nd Road
Shijr, Taipei County, Taiwan,
Phone: 886 2-26429199
FAX: 886 2-26429099

> We are giving our country away and elevating a communist super power with
> some of the largest human rights abuse issues in the world. They're taking
> our money and making missiles, aircraft and guns to sell to our enemies
> while they tolerate software, music and movie piracy. If you dissent you
> disappear.
>

So.... basically all the corporate executives who are making these
decisions to outsource to China are in a sense committing a long,
slow, drawn-out act of treason in return for profit, eh?

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> Jim Stewart wrote:
>
>>Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>>>Jim Stewart wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Have you ever flown behind a 912 or a
>>>>914? I have never had a nicer engine
>>>>in any vehicle I've owned. Smooth,
>>>>strong and light, 5 gallons an hour in
>>>>cruise, absolutely *no* issues to date.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>If you want smooth you ought to fly behind a Jabiru or the poor man's
>>>version the Corvair. 6 is better than 4 for smoothness.
>>
>>I've heard good things about them and
>>it's simple physics that 6 would be
>>smoother than 4. OTOH, my plane wouldn't
>>be a Light Sport if it had that much
>>power. The 912 has to be derated by
>>reducing the prop pitch as it is.
>
>
> What are you flying?

2006 Flight Design CTSW

wrote:

>
> So.... basically all the corporate executives who are making these
> decisions to outsource to China are in a sense committing a long,
> slow, drawn-out act of treason in return for profit, eh?

In a word, yes.

> wrote in message
...

> So.... basically all the corporate executives who are making these
> decisions to outsource to China are in a sense committing a long,
> slow, drawn-out act of treason in return for profit, eh?

Well, I'd say that commission has been happening for awhile.

China has some of the worst human rights records in the world. Hey, let's
all empower China. With a track record like that, they NEED to be a rival
superpower.

-c

On 2007-11-28 16:36:19 -0800, James Sleeman > said:

> Come on people, usually I give pilots some accepted base line of
> intelligence and reasoning, but it seems it's largely gone out the
> window on this one. Chinese manufacturers of CONSUMER products have
> had more than thier fair share of problems to be sure, but it's a hell
> of a stretch to compare consumer products with aircraft manufacture.

The LSA is a consumer product.

>
> Do you honestly think that CESSNA is going to stake thier name,
> reputation, and conceivably risk the entire business by going with an
> aircraft manufacturer who would produce shoddy unreliable or dangerous
> aircraft?!

Yep.

>
> More so, do you honestly think that either Cessna OR your country's
> respective aviation authorities are going to let obviously shoddy
> unreliable or dangerous aircraft get anywhere near the hands of Joe
> Bloggs the pilot?!

Yep.

>
> Please, at least show some common sense here.

What makes you think that aircraft manufacturers or government
regulators will suddenly start doing any better than they have in the
past?

>
> Cessna have obviously done thier homework, they have weighed the pros
> and cons, and at the end of the day, the most effective solution
> presented itself.
>
> To decry the aircraft on the sole fact that it will be constructed in
> China simply smacks of xenophobia. If you have a criticism of the
> aircraft, at least make it something worth criticising!

I think that the fact that the aircraft will be made in a country that
is hostile the United States, whose military leaders have publicly
threatened to use nuclear weapons on our forces, which has possibly the
worst environmental record in history, uses slave labor, supplies arms
and advice to terrorists, has the worst reputation for patent and
copyright piracy, launders counterfeit American currency for the North
Koreans, has shown callous disregard for consumer safety in its
industrial standards, and has a horrible human rights record is
something worth criticizing.

Frankly, Cessna would have done better to have let the contract out to
Satan himself.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2007-11-29 08:39:46 -0800, said:

>> We are giving our country away and elevating a communist super power with
>> some of the largest human rights abuse issues in the world. They're taking
>> our money and making missiles, aircraft and guns to sell to our enemies
>> while they tolerate software, music and movie piracy. If you dissent you
>> disappear.
>>
>
> So.... basically all the corporate executives who are making these
> decisions to outsource to China are in a sense committing a long,
> slow, drawn-out act of treason in return for profit, eh?

Not to put too fine a point on it, yes.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2007-11-29 08:12:52 -0800, "aluckyguess" > said:

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> I'd demand my deposit back.
>>
>> Me, too.
>>
>> Dang, it's hard to find ANYTHING not made in China anymore. I've
>> noticed that even many of the books I've been buying lately are from
>> China now...
>
> So is the Garlic you buy from Wall-Mart.

Not the garlic I buy.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Nov 29, 10:02 am, "Gatt" > wrote:
> "Phil" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Eventually Wordperfect lost out in the market to superior products.
> > Time will tell if this happens to the Skycatcher.
>
> It was purchased and destroyed. Notice how much Microsoft Word looked like
> old Wordperfect? Sorta like how Excel looked a lot like the early Windows
> versions of Lotus 1-2-3. Buy 'em, make an "update" that turns to product
> to total crap and then sell your conspicuously-identical version that
> actually works.
>
> Who would do a thing like that?
>
> -c

What I remember about Wordperfect was it had no menus. Everything was
based on keyboard commands. There were competing products with much
better user interfaces, but they didn't have the support that
Wordperfect had. Lots of people bought the inferior product because
of the support. I suspect that's what may happen with the Skycatcher.

Phil

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message

> And how much is profit?

That would be selling price minus cost. Maybe you need to check wikipedia
for 'subtraction'.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007112910141116807-

>> To decry the aircraft on the sole fact that it will be constructed in
>> China simply smacks of xenophobia.

> I think that the fact that the aircraft will be made in a country that is
> hostile the United States, whose military leaders have publicly threatened
> to use nuclear weapons on our forces, which has possibly the worst
> environmental record in history, uses slave labor, >supplies arms and
> advice to terrorists, has the worst reputation for patent and copyright
> piracy, launders counterfeit American currency >for the North Koreans,
> has shown callous disregard for consumer safety in its industrial
> standards, and has a horrible human rights >record is something worth
> criticizing.

Nicely stated.

Do they still abandon baby girls on the side of rivers or eat engangered
tiger penises to give themselves a hard-on? Do they still imprison
political dissidents, spy on their own people or censor the media?

Xenophobia? They're no better than the Soviet Union. At least the USSR
helped win World War II.

Last week I went to the mall looking for work shoes, and literally -every-
pair I looked at was made in China. The last pair I bought there lasted
about six months, but that's not why I didn't buy Chinese shoes this time.
I went home, dug out my old circa-1988 Marine Corps GI work boots, put a
coat of polish on them and that's what I've been wearing all week. Made in
America. They're not pretty but I know they weren't made in some communist
sweatshop.

-c

Gatt wrote:

>
> Do they still abandon baby girls on the side of rivers...

Only the ones that are lucky or not lucky to be born in the first place.

On 2007-11-28 16:36:19 -0800, James Sleeman > said:

>
> Cessna have obviously done thier homework, they have weighed the pros
> and cons, and at the end of the day, the most effective solution
> presented itself.
>
>

The most effective solution being the use of slave labor and not having
to comply with any environmental laws? No wonder things are cheaper
when manufactured in China!
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

"Jim Stewart" > wrote in message
. ..
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> Jim Stewart wrote:
>>
>>>Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>>
>>>>Jim Stewart wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Have you ever flown behind a 912 or a
>>>>>914? I have never had a nicer engine
>>>>>in any vehicle I've owned. Smooth,
>>>>>strong and light, 5 gallons an hour in
>>>>>cruise, absolutely *no* issues to date.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If you want smooth you ought to fly behind a Jabiru or the poor man's
>>>>version the Corvair. 6 is better than 4 for smoothness.
>>>
>>>I've heard good things about them and
>>>it's simple physics that 6 would be
>>>smoother than 4. OTOH, my plane wouldn't
>>>be a Light Sport if it had that much
>>>power. The 912 has to be derated by
>>>reducing the prop pitch as it is.
>>
>>
>> What are you flying?
>
> 2006 Flight Design CTSW/

That thing is cute! Sorry couldn't resist.

Darkwing wrote:
> "Jim Stewart" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Stewart wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jim Stewart wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you ever flown behind a 912 or a
>>>>>> 914? I have never had a nicer engine
>>>>>> in any vehicle I've owned. Smooth,
>>>>>> strong and light, 5 gallons an hour in
>>>>>> cruise, absolutely *no* issues to date.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want smooth you ought to fly behind a Jabiru or the poor man's
>>>>> version the Corvair. 6 is better than 4 for smoothness.
>>>> I've heard good things about them and
>>>> it's simple physics that 6 would be
>>>> smoother than 4. OTOH, my plane wouldn't
>>>> be a Light Sport if it had that much
>>>> power. The 912 has to be derated by
>>>> reducing the prop pitch as it is.
>>>
>>> What are you flying?
>> 2006 Flight Design CTSW/
>
> That thing is cute! Sorry couldn't resist.

I know. My wife was joking that she's
jealous that the airplane gets all the
compliments.

I've described it as the plane Walt Disney
would have designed for the littlest mermaid.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:2007112911225837709-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> On 2007-11-28 16:36:19 -0800, James Sleeman > said:
>
>>
>> Cessna have obviously done thier homework, they have weighed the pros
>> and cons, and at the end of the day, the most effective solution
>> presented itself.

> The most effective solution being the use of slave labor and not having to
> comply with any environmental laws? No wonder things are cheaper when
> manufactured in China!

Exactly. If you just: don't pay your employees anything; lie about using,
say, toxic paint; pirate, copy or steal other people's technology and; kill
anybody who speaks out in dissent, you can save a lot of money.

Money, at the end of the day, is all that matters to most people.

-c

"Gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> news:2007112911225837709-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
>
>> The most effective solution being the use of slave labor and not having
>> to comply with any environmental laws? No wonder things are cheaper when
>> manufactured in China!
>
> Exactly. If you just: don't pay your employees anything; lie about using,
> say, toxic paint; pirate, copy or steal other people's technology and;
> kill anybody who speaks out in dissent, you can save a lot of money.
>
> Money, at the end of the day, is all that matters to most people.


At least money in the short-term.

On Nov 28, 4:47 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> In a news release, Cessna CEO Jack Pelton said the company needed
> >> top quality at a competitive price and SAC put it all together.
>
> > Translation: Price was the only consideration.
>
> >> "Our solution is to partner with SAC, a company with excellent
> >> facilities, state-of-the-art technologies and a workforce highly
> >> experienced in aircraft manufacturing.
>
> > Translation: We have to give the Chinese what few technological trade
> > secrets we possess as part of the deal,
>
> What's this "we"?
>
> I thought you were French now.
>
> Bertie

He meant "oui", it just sounds like "we"... :-)

> Exactly. If you just: don't pay your employees anything; lie about using,
> say, toxic paint; pirate, copy or steal other people's technology and; kill
> anybody who speaks out in dissent, you can save a lot of money.
>
Now let's be fair about this. They also killed the guy who allowed
glycol to find its way into toothpaste. Bigshot Minister one day --
KAPOW -- dead the next.

In the States when an executive f0ks up real bad, they "resign"and
walk off with $150 million. Think of CitiCorp and it's crap loan
program.

Maybe the Chinese haven't got it ALL wrong.

>>>>> "DT" == Dan Thomas > writes:
DT> Even an old Aircoupe with a C90 accelerated better
DT> than the 150, again with about the same power/ weight ratio.

Hey! That's my Aircoupe yer talkin' about. Correct, the Alon
Aircoupes (not so true of the ERCO 415 Ercoupes, the original and far
more common variant) are much more efficient than the C-150. It's not
the engine as much as the aircraft. On a
good day I can get 100kts TAS from my Aircoupe, but that's with a
cruise prop (52" pitch).

A friend has a 415 model Ercoupe with an O-200. I can still outrun
him but it's not quite a fair comparison, because I think he has a
climb prop. He will outclimb me, but not my a lot. The 415s are
fairly draggy.
--
Mythology is what we call someone else's religion.
~ Joseph Campbell

>>>>> "Phil" == Phil > writes:

Phil> Way back in the 80s there was a Word processing program
Phil> called Wordperfect. At that time it was the market-leading
Phil> word processing software. It was actually inferior to a
Phil> number of other programs, but it had really great technical
Phil> support and lots of people used it because they needed the
Phil> support. The Skycatcher strikes me the same way. It has
Phil> some real liabilities compared to other LSAs on the market,
Phil> but it will have the Cessna network behind it and a lot of
Phil> people will probably buy it for that reason.

Phil> Eventually Wordperfect lost out in the market to superior
Phil> products. Time will tell if this happens to the Skycatcher.
Phil> I think if Cessna had really done their homework they would
Phil> have designed a plane that was a little more competitive.

That's a stretch to call MS Word "superior". At any rate, Microsoft
has conclusively demonstrated, over and over, that superior hype and
marketing can more than compensate for an inferior product.

I'm sure Cessna could have made a profit producing their LSA in the
US, but the margin would have been small. Even Van's assembles their
Quick Build kits in the Phillipines. Cessna wanted a fat margin and
they'll get that making their LSA in China. Quality may be better or
worse than a USA built plane; but I'd be quite worried about
variability. Most of the Chinese supply problems in the headlines seem
to be suppliers starting out OK but slipping in illegal or cheap stuff
later.
--
"There's nothing wrong with you that reincarnation won't cure."
-Jack E. Leonard

I wouldn't buy a Cessna Skycatcher if they were $500. Not if they're built
in China. Not if I knew any of the parts came from China. I think Cessna has
made a colossal mistake. But they probably didn't.

Gatt writes:

> It was purchased and destroyed.

Actually, the competition improved, but WordPerfect did not.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gatt writes:
>
>> It was purchased and destroyed.
>
> Actually, the competition improved, but WordPerfect did not.
>

You're an idiot.


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .

>>> It was purchased and destroyed.
>>
>> Actually, the competition improved, but WordPerfect did not.
>>
> You're an idiot.

I was a contractor at Netscape when IE4.0 came out. Basically, it looked
just like somebody stole the internal alpha copy of Netscape Communicator.

(After Internet Exploder's release party in San Francisco, they dropped a
giant blue paper-mache-and-chickenwire "e" on the front lawn of Netscape.
Which would add trespassing and littering to theft, except that by noon the
7' Netscape lizard, "Mozilla" was standing on the yard among the smashed
remains of the Microsoft "e".)

In Netscape's case, the competition didn't "improve." They stole
proprietary code and used massive personnel resources to get it to market
before the smaller company. I wouldn't expect people in Europe to
understand how that sort of thing happened in terms of web browsers, word
processors, spreadsheets and other "Microsoft products" that bear striking
resemblances to former competitors.

-c

> wrote in message
...

> Now let's be fair about this. They also killed the guy who allowed
> glycol to find its way into toothpaste. Bigshot Minister one day --
> KAPOW -- dead the next.
>
> In the States when an executive f0ks up real bad, they "resign"and
> walk off with $150 million. Think of CitiCorp and it's crap loan
> program.
>
> Maybe the Chinese haven't got it ALL wrong.

Good point!

-c

"Gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>>> It was purchased and destroyed.
>>>
>>> Actually, the competition improved, but WordPerfect did not.
>>>
>> You're an idiot.
>
> I was a contractor at Netscape when IE4.0 came out. Basically, it looked
> just like somebody stole the internal alpha copy of Netscape Communicator.
>
> (After Internet Exploder's release party in San Francisco, they dropped a
> giant blue paper-mache-and-chickenwire "e" on the front lawn of Netscape.
> Which would add trespassing and littering to theft, except that by noon
> the 7' Netscape lizard, "Mozilla" was standing on the yard among the
> smashed remains of the Microsoft "e".)
>
> In Netscape's case, the competition didn't "improve." They stole
> proprietary code and used massive personnel resources to get it to market
> before the smaller company. I wouldn't expect people in Europe to
> understand how that sort of thing happened in terms of web browsers, word
> processors, spreadsheets and other "Microsoft products" that bear striking
> resemblances to former competitors.
>
Gatt,

Maybe you could verify something for me: I've heard for some time that,
though MS is quick to prosecute piracy and reverse engineering MS stuff,
they expend copious amounts of money reverse engineering competitors
products.

True or trash?

"Gatt" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>>> It was purchased and destroyed.
>>>
>>> Actually, the competition improved, but WordPerfect did not.
>>>
>> You're an idiot.
>
> I was a contractor at Netscape when IE4.0 came out. Basically, it
> looked just like somebody stole the internal alpha copy of Netscape
> Communicator.


>
> (After Internet Exploder's release party in San Francisco, they
> dropped a giant blue paper-mache-and-chickenwire "e" on the front lawn
> of Netscape. Which would add trespassing and littering to theft,
> except that by noon the 7' Netscape lizard, "Mozilla" was standing on
> the yard among the smashed remains of the Microsoft "e".)
>
> In Netscape's case, the competition didn't "improve." They stole
> proprietary code and used massive personnel resources to get it to
> market before the smaller company.


Who cares? I use wahtever works best and that's still mozilla for me..

I wouldn't expect people in
> Europe to understand how that sort of thing happened in terms of web
> browsers, word processors, spreadsheets and other "Microsoft products"
> that bear striking resemblances to former competitors.
>

Yeah, they're still using two tin cans and piecs of string there.


Bertie
>

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
...

> Maybe you could verify something for me: I've heard for some time that,
> though MS is quick to prosecute piracy and reverse engineering MS stuff,
> they expend copious amounts of money reverse engineering competitors
> products.
>
> True or trash?

Well, my only experience to that end was with Netscape Communicator/Internet
Explorer, but, once you catch a thief you might as well always assume
they're thieves, especially when their other products look so much like,
say, Lotus 1-2-3 (Excel) or Word Perfect (Word.)
I would say that's very accurate.

Microsoft didn't invent the word processor, spreadsheet, e-mail application
or web browser, but they sure sell a lot. I know people who work for
companies under the Microsoft-owned umbrella who don't reverse-engineer
code, but it clearly happens.

-c

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .

>> In Netscape's case, the competition didn't "improve." They stole
>> proprietary code and used massive personnel resources to get it to
>> market before the smaller company.
>
> Who cares? I use wahtever works best and that's still mozilla for me..

That was a dark week. I was there the day they came in and told a bunch of
the engineers that AOL was integrating their software (Instant Messenger),
which was the harbinger. They knew it was a matter of time before AOL
merged with Netscape. It all went downhill from there, which is how there's
Firefox.

'Course, I hear the new Internet Explorer has many of the internal and
external features of Firefox.

>> I wouldn't expect people in Europe to understand how that sort of thing
>> happened in terms of web
>> browsers, word processors, spreadsheets and other "Microsoft products"
>> that bear striking resemblances to former competitors.

>Yeah, they're still using two tin cans and piecs of string there.

Well, more importantly, they don't have exposure to the Silicon Valley or
Seattle scuttlebutt that you find on the West Coast as technology types
shift jobs and interact over time. One time, Netscape and Microsoft shared
an outsourced call center in Oregon under a rule that they couldn't be in
the same room together. Not only were they in the same room, only a cube
wall separated them. I was there as a technical writer. A Netscape
contractor turned on a computer, the circuit-breaker flipped....and Win95
technical support went down.

Stream International lied bigtime to cover that one up, and separated the
teams, but for awhile Netscape tech support could hear Win95 support techs
on the telephone. Some of those guys jumped from one team to the other.

(If that wasn't sleazy enough, they sold a contract to a great
company--Adobe--who required domestic, US-based technical support. So the
calls came into the Oregon office and then auto-forwarded to Nova Scotia or
somewhere. Right now I work with guys who were sent to Canada on a project,
only to learn that they were there to train their replacements. A
non-disclosure agreement prevented them from divulging what was happening to
Adobe.)

-c

Gatt wrote:
> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Maybe you could verify something for me: I've heard for some time that,
>> though MS is quick to prosecute piracy and reverse engineering MS stuff,
>> they expend copious amounts of money reverse engineering competitors
>> products.
>>
>> True or trash?
>
> Well, my only experience to that end was with Netscape Communicator/Internet
> Explorer, but, once you catch a thief you might as well always assume
> they're thieves, especially when their other products look so much like,
> say, Lotus 1-2-3 (Excel) or Word Perfect (Word.)
> I would say that's very accurate.

I heard a wonderful story a few years ago.

Microsoft found some IBM technology that
appeared to infringe on a Microsoft patent.
The Microsoft lawyers called the IBM lawyers
and arranged a meeting. The Microsoft
lawyers handed the IBM lawyers the patent
in question and in return, the IBM lawyers
reached under the table, picked up a banker's
box filled with patents and gave it to the
Microsoft lawyers...

"Gatt" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>> In Netscape's case, the competition didn't "improve." They stole
>>> proprietary code and used massive personnel resources to get it to
>>> market before the smaller company.
>>
>> Who cares? I use wahtever works best and that's still mozilla for
>> me..
>
> That was a dark week. I was there the day they came in and told a
> bunch of the engineers that AOL was integrating their software
> (Instant Messenger), which was the harbinger. They knew it was a
> matter of time before AOL merged with Netscape. It all went downhill
> from there, which is how there's Firefox.
>
> 'Course, I hear the new Internet Explorer has many of the internal and
> external features of Firefox.
>
>>> I wouldn't expect people in Europe to understand how that sort of
>>> thing happened in terms of web
>>> browsers, word processors, spreadsheets and other "Microsoft
>>> products" that bear striking resemblances to former competitors.
>
>>Yeah, they're still using two tin cans and piecs of string there.
>
> Well, more importantly, they don't have exposure to the Silicon Valley
> or Seattle scuttlebutt that you find on the West Coast as technology
> types shift jobs and interact over time.


I think you might find that they do.


Bertie
>
>

"Jim Stewart" > wrote in message
.. .
> Gatt wrote:
>> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Maybe you could verify something for me: I've heard for some time that,
>>> though MS is quick to prosecute piracy and reverse engineering MS stuff,
>>> they expend copious amounts of money reverse engineering competitors
>>> products.
>>>
>>> True or trash?
>>
>> Well, my only experience to that end was with Netscape
>> Communicator/Internet Explorer, but, once you catch a thief you might as
>> well always assume they're thieves, especially when their other products
>> look so much like, say, Lotus 1-2-3 (Excel) or Word Perfect (Word.)
>> I would say that's very accurate.
>
> I heard a wonderful story a few years ago.
>
> Microsoft found some IBM technology that
> appeared to infringe on a Microsoft patent.
> The Microsoft lawyers called the IBM lawyers
> and arranged a meeting. The Microsoft
> lawyers handed the IBM lawyers the patent
> in question and in return, the IBM lawyers
> reached under the table, picked up a banker's
> box filled with patents and gave it to the
> Microsoft lawyers...

Sure it wasn't TI (Texas Instruments)? I vaguely remember the TI files tens
of thousands of patents each year on stuff that is nothing more than
notions, Sci-Fi fantasies, concepts and "smoke over the horizon" in hopes
that some where, somehow, some day, they can file a patent infringement case
after the real R&D has been done.

Gatt writes:

> I was a contractor at Netscape when IE4.0 came out. Basically, it looked
> just like somebody stole the internal alpha copy of Netscape Communicator.

You may be thinking of an earlier version. The earlier versions of IE were
very inferior to Netscape, but IE4 was better. Netscape continued to goof
off, and Microsoft steamrollered them. Netscape will go down in history as
one of the worst-managed companies that ever existed.

> In Netscape's case, the competition didn't "improve."

Yes, it did. Netscape had an early success because it had no competition, and
a later failure when it finally did have competition. Netscape made just
about every mistake one could imagine. They could have had it all, but they
settled for nothing.

> They stole proprietary code ...

Ever heard of NCSA Mosaic?

> ... and used massive personnel resources to get it to market before the
> smaller company.

No, they just wrote a better browser. Netscape was so busy patting itself on
the back that it didn't notice, and it never even tried to catch up.

Matt W. Barrow writes:

> Maybe you could verify something for me: I've heard for some time that,
> though MS is quick to prosecute piracy and reverse engineering MS stuff,
> they expend copious amounts of money reverse engineering competitors
> products.
>
> True or trash?

False. They are also extremely careful about avoiding piracy of software
themselves.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gatt writes:
>
>> I was a contractor at Netscape when IE4.0 came out. Basically, it
>> looked just like somebody stole the internal alpha copy of Netscape
>> Communicator.
>
> You may be thinking of an earlier version. The earlier versions of IE
> were very inferior to Netscape, but IE4 was better. Netscape
> continued to goof off, and Microsoft steamrollered them. Netscape
> will go down in history as one of the worst-managed companies that
> ever existed.
>
>> In Netscape's case, the competition didn't "improve."
>
> Yes, it did. Netscape had an early success because it had no
> competition, and a later failure when it finally did have competition.
> Netscape made just about every mistake one could imagine. They could
> have had it all, but they settled for nothing.
>
>> They stole proprietary code ...
>
> Ever heard of NCSA Mosaic?
>
>> ... and used massive personnel resources to get it to market before
>> the smaller company.
>
> No, they just wrote a better browser. Netscape was so busy patting
> itself on the back that it didn't notice, and it never even tried to
> catch up.
>

You're an idiot.


Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Matt W. Barrow writes:
>
>> Maybe you could verify something for me: I've heard for some time
>> that, though MS is quick to prosecute piracy and reverse engineering
>> MS stuff, they expend copious amounts of money reverse engineering
>> competitors products.
>>
>> True or trash?
>
> False. They are also extremely careful about avoiding piracy of
> software themselves.
>



Idiot


Bertie

In article >,
"Gatt" > wrote:

> 'Course, I hear the new Internet Explorer has many of the internal and
> external features of Firefox.

Do you mean IE 7 looks like firefox?

It doesn't seem like firefox at all.

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

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Matt W. Barrow writes:
>>
>>> Maybe you could verify something for me: I've heard for some time
>>> that, though MS is quick to prosecute piracy and reverse engineering
>>> MS stuff, they expend copious amounts of money reverse engineering
>>> competitors products.
>>>
>>> True or trash?
>>
>> False. They are also extremely careful about avoiding piracy of
>> software themselves.
>>
>
>
>
> Idiot
>
>
> Bertie

Jeez. Like he would know but lets post anyway!

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Gatt" > wrote:
>
>> 'Course, I hear the new Internet Explorer has many of the internal and
>> external features of Firefox.
>
> Do you mean IE 7 looks like firefox?
>
> It doesn't seem like firefox at all.
>
> --
> Bob Noel

....and thank god for that! Firefox 4 life.

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Matt W. Barrow writes:
>>>
>>>> Maybe you could verify something for me: I've heard for some time
>>>> that, though MS is quick to prosecute piracy and reverse engineering
>>>> MS stuff, they expend copious amounts of money reverse engineering
>>>> competitors products.
>>>>
>>>> True or trash?
>>>
>>> False. They are also extremely careful about avoiding piracy of
>>> software themselves.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Idiot
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Jeez. Like he would know but lets post anyway!
>

It's what I do

Bertie

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:

> ...and thank god for that! Firefox 4 life.

Firefox is lacking in security features, but I've been using it for several
years now, after I got tired of ActiveX security issues with MSIE.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> ...and thank god for that! Firefox 4 life.
>
> Firefox is lacking in security features, but I've been using it for
> several years now, after I got tired of ActiveX security issues with
> MSIE.
>

Awwwww. On the bright side, you have nothing anyone wants to steal.



Bertie

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> ...and thank god for that! Firefox 4 life.
>
> Firefox is lacking in security features, but I've been using it for
> several
> years now, after I got tired of ActiveX security issues with MSIE.


I like it because of its shortcomings not in spite of them.

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
:

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> ...and thank god for that! Firefox 4 life.
>>
>> Firefox is lacking in security features, but I've been using it for
>> several
>> years now, after I got tired of ActiveX security issues with MSIE.
>
>
> I like it because of its shortcomings not in spite of them.
>
>


Me too.

Oh you meant Firefox, and not Anthony.


Never mind.


Bertie

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> ...and thank god for that! Firefox 4 life.
>>>>
>>>> Firefox is lacking in security features, but I've been using it for
>>>> several
>>>> years now, after I got tired of ActiveX security issues with MSIE.
>>>
>>>
>>> I like it because of its shortcomings not in spite of them.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Me too.
>>
>> Oh you meant Firefox, and not Anthony.
>>
>>
>> Never mind.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> His only redeeming quality is that he has no redeeming qualities!
>
>
Except his talent of walking right into it time after time after time...


Bertie
>
>

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> ...and thank god for that! Firefox 4 life.
>>>
>>> Firefox is lacking in security features, but I've been using it for
>>> several
>>> years now, after I got tired of ActiveX security issues with MSIE.
>>
>>
>> I like it because of its shortcomings not in spite of them.
>>
>>
>
>
> Me too.
>
> Oh you meant Firefox, and not Anthony.
>
>
> Never mind.
>
>
> Bertie


His only redeeming quality is that he has no redeeming qualities!

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
news:ihatessppaamm-of Firefox.
>
> Do you mean IE 7 looks like firefox?
>
> It doesn't seem like firefox at all.


Well, if you think about it, "Mozilla" (Firefox) is a descendant of
Netscape, which except for Mosaic was the first real web browswer.

All other programs that are web browsers look like the original Consider
the backend coding, bookmarks, navigator buttons and particularly
"cookies.":

"Together with John Giannandrea, Montulli wrote the initial Netscape cookie
specification the same year. Version 0.9beta of Mosaic Netscape, released on
October 13, 1994[23][24], supported cookies. The first actual use of cookies
(out of the labs) was made for checking whether visitors to the Netscape Web
site had already visited the site. Montulli applied for a patent for the
cookie technology in 1995; it was granted in 1998. Support for cookies was
integrated in Internet Explorer in version 2, released in October 1995
[one year after Netscape's amazing new app, IE already had an
amazingly-similar technology, but they didn't develop the cookie
technology.]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_cookie#History

In terms of how that relates to Mozilla, Mozilla was not only the name of
Netscape's official mascot, it was the name of the original Netscape
sourcecode. AOL bought Netscape and destroyed the mascot and Netscape. AOL
still sucks, IE still rips off other web browsers (Firefox's tab bar, for
example) and ol' Mozilla still leads the industry.

-c

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:36:19 -0800 (PST), James Sleeman wrote:

> Do you honestly think that CESSNA is going to stake thier name,
> reputation, and conceivably risk the entire business by going with an
> aircraft manufacturer who would produce shoddy unreliable or dangerous
> aircraft?!
>
> More so, do you honestly think that either Cessna OR your country's
> respective aviation authorities are going to let obviously shoddy
> unreliable or dangerous aircraft get anywhere near the hands of Joe
> Bloggs the pilot?!
>
> Please, at least show some common sense here.
>
> Cessna have obviously done thier homework, they have weighed the pros
> and cons, and at the end of the day, the most effective solution
> presented itself.

The anti-Chinese backlash here isn't surprising, it's probably more
anti-anythingoverseas and that's understandable. But it is the ebb-flow of
international economics and the USA certainly has had its share of that
upside in the past.

No, Cessna damn well knows what they are doing and even if it is a
calculated risk, hey can survive it but they might less well survive their
competition beating them to this Chinese punch.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 06:39:06 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

> Yes. The quest for short-term profits makes companies do strange things.

The quest to meet quarterlies, dividends, etc make corporations do exactly
what they have to. Nothing strange about that.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

> Mxsmanic > wrote in

>>> They stole proprietary code ...
>>
>> Ever heard of NCSA Mosaic?

I worked in the same building as Marc Andreeson. At Netscape. Ever heard
of him?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mosaic_browser_plaque_ncsa.jpg

Are you suggesting he stole his own code? Do you have any idea WTF you're
talking about?

>>> ... and used massive personnel resources to get it to market before
>>> the smaller company.
>>
>> No, they just wrote a better browser.

No, you really don't know what you're talking about. I had friends working
at Microsoft while I was working at Netscape.

>> Netscape was so busy patting itself on the back that it didn't notice,
>> and it never even tried to catch up.

To reiterate, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and
once again you're talking to somebody who does.

-c

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:18:26 -0800, Gatt wrote:

>>> Cessna have obviously done thier homework, they have weighed the pros
>>> and cons, and at the end of the day, the most effective solution
>>> presented itself.
>
>> The most effective solution being the use of slave labor and not having to
>> comply with any environmental laws? No wonder things are cheaper when
>> manufactured in China!
>
> Exactly. If you just: don't pay your employees anything; lie about using,
> say, toxic paint; pirate, copy or steal other people's technology and; kill
> anybody who speaks out in dissent, you can save a lot of money.
>
> Money, at the end of the day, is all that matters to most people.
>
> -c

All true. All could be said of the USA a century ago.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Matt W. Barrow writes:
>>>
>>>> Maybe you could verify something for me: I've heard for some time
>>>> that, though MS is quick to prosecute piracy and reverse engineering
>>>> MS stuff, they expend copious amounts of money reverse engineering
>>>> competitors products.
>>>>
>>>> True or trash?
>>>
>>> False. They are also extremely careful about avoiding piracy of
>>> software themselves.
>>
>> Idiot
>> Bertie
>
> Jeez. Like he would know but lets post anyway!

And I doubt he knows the difference between "software piracy" and "reverse
engineering".

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Matt W. Barrow writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you could verify something for me: I've heard for some time
>>>>> that, though MS is quick to prosecute piracy and reverse
>>>>> engineering MS stuff, they expend copious amounts of money reverse
>>>>> engineering competitors products.
>>>>>
>>>>> True or trash?
>>>>
>>>> False. They are also extremely careful about avoiding piracy of
>>>> software themselves.
>>>
>>> Idiot
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Jeez. Like he would know but lets post anyway!
>
> And I doubt he knows the difference between "software piracy" and
> "reverse engineering".
>

Who, me or Anthony?

I'm a luddite and I know the difference..


Bertie
>

"Gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>
>>>> They stole proprietary code ...
>>>
>>> Ever heard of NCSA Mosaic?
>
> I worked in the same building as Marc Andreeson. At Netscape. Ever heard
> of him?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mosaic_browser_plaque_ncsa.jpg
>
> Are you suggesting he stole his own code? Do you have any idea WTF
> you're talking about?
>
>>>> ... and used massive personnel resources to get it to market before
>>>> the smaller company.
>>>
>>> No, they just wrote a better browser.
>
> No, you really don't know what you're talking about. I had friends
> working at Microsoft while I was working at Netscape.
>
>>> Netscape was so busy patting itself on the back that it didn't notice,
>>> and it never even tried to catch up.
>
> To reiterate, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and
> once again you're talking to somebody who does.
>

Gatt! Please!! Shoot him and put him out of our misery.

Gatt writes:

> I worked in the same building as Marc Andreeson. At Netscape. Ever heard
> of him?

Yes.

> Are you suggesting he stole his own code?

I'm pointing out that no software is developed in a vacuum.

> Do you have any idea WTF you're talking about?

Yes.

> No, you really don't know what you're talking about. I had friends working
> at Microsoft while I was working at Netscape.

Friends at Microsoft? Very impressive.

> To reiterate, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and
> once again you're talking to somebody who does.

Netscape is a textbook example of how not to run a company. That's why
Netscape is history, and Microsoft is not.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gatt writes:
>
>> I worked in the same building as Marc Andreeson. At Netscape. Ever
>> heard of him?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Are you suggesting he stole his own code?
>
> I'm pointing out that no software is developed in a vacuum.
>
>> Do you have any idea WTF you're talking about?
>
> Yes.


No, you don't



Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Matt W. Barrow writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe you could verify something for me: I've heard for some time
>>>>>> that, though MS is quick to prosecute piracy and reverse
>>>>>> engineering MS stuff, they expend copious amounts of money reverse
>>>>>> engineering competitors products.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True or trash?
>>>>>
>>>>> False. They are also extremely careful about avoiding piracy of
>>>>> software themselves.
>>>>
>>>> Idiot
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Jeez. Like he would know but lets post anyway!
>>
>> And I doubt he knows the difference between "software piracy" and
>> "reverse engineering".
>>
>
> Who, me or Anthony?
>
> I'm a luddite and I know the difference..
>
>
> Bertie
>>
>

Tony. Toni. Tone'.

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in news:29CdnS6uf-
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>>> .. .
>>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Matt W. Barrow writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe you could verify something for me: I've heard for some
time
>>>>>>> that, though MS is quick to prosecute piracy and reverse
>>>>>>> engineering MS stuff, they expend copious amounts of money
reverse
>>>>>>> engineering competitors products.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True or trash?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> False. They are also extremely careful about avoiding piracy of
>>>>>> software themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> Idiot
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>> Jeez. Like he would know but lets post anyway!
>>>
>>> And I doubt he knows the difference between "software piracy" and
>>> "reverse engineering".
>>>
>>
>> Who, me or Anthony?
>>
>> I'm a luddite and I know the difference..
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>>
>>
>
> Tony. Toni. Tone'.
>

Kay, /I figgered


Bertie
>
>

Darkwing wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>I'd demand my deposit back.
>>
>>Me, too.
>>
>>Dang, it's hard to find ANYTHING not made in China anymore. I've
>>noticed that even many of the books I've been buying lately are from
>>China now...
>>--
>>Jay Honeck
>>Iowa City, IA
>>Pathfinder N56993
>>www.AlexisParkInn.com
>>"Your Aviation Destination"
>
>
>
> This will be a PR nightmare for Cessna IMO. How long until the Skycatcher is
> known as a Chinese POS? Even if I chose an overseas builder I would NEVER of
> chose a Chinese company only through perception alone.
>


And yet you'll gladly plunk down the money for that new Garmin.

On 2007-11-30 15:34:15 -0800, WJRFlyBoy > said:

> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:18:26 -0800, Gatt wrote:
>
>>>> Cessna have obviously done thier homework, they have weighed the pros
>>>> and cons, and at the end of the day, the most effective solution
>>>> presented itself.
>>
>>> The most effective solution being the use of slave labor and not having to
>>> comply with any environmental laws? No wonder things are cheaper when
>>> manufactured in China!
>>
>> Exactly. If you just: don't pay your employees anything; lie about using,
>> say, toxic paint; pirate, copy or steal other people's technology and; kill
>> anybody who speaks out in dissent, you can save a lot of money.
>>
>> Money, at the end of the day, is all that matters to most people.
>>
>> -c
>
> All true. All could be said of the USA a century ago.

Then, perhaps in a century, China will be worth doing business with.
Until then, why should I be expected to buy a Cessna when the money
from that transaction will go to bullets with our soldiers' names on
them?
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Bob Noel schrieb:
> In article >,
> "Gatt" > wrote:
>
>> 'Course, I hear the new Internet Explorer has many of the internal and
>> external features of Firefox.
>
> Do you mean IE 7 looks like firefox?
>
> It doesn't seem like firefox at all.
>

give ie7pro.com a try. this is a nice plugin for IE 6 and above and adds
many good features.

#m

--
I am not a terrorist <http://www.casualdisobedience.com/>