The propwash puts downward pressure on the horizontal stabilizer.

mike

"Tom Young" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mxsmanic" <...> wrote in message
> ...
>> I'm surprised that propwash would matter, since the airflow from the
>> prop should stay in roughly the same place no matter what the attitude
>> of the aircraft. That is, it would be like putting a big fan on a
>> sailboat to drive it forward.
>
> Propwash matters, and you can definitely feel the effect in the controls.
> As for the affect at different airspeeds and a lot of other questions you
> might have, a picture tells a thousand words and I'd really recommend
> reading "Stick and Rudder" by Wolfgang Langewiesche. The book is almost 60
> years old, but his explanations and illustrations are so good at cutting
> through misconceptions that it's stood up very well with time.
>
> Tom Young
>

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...

..

> The sim is better than real life. I've done both. In the little planes,
> when u need to urinate, you do it in your pants or into a container. As
> for the other bodily functions, you just gotta hold it and hope that there
> isn't alot of traffic ahead of you before its your turn to land. (And the
> pilots wonder why more women don't want to deal with this).

I go before I take off. No brainer.
>
> In the little planes, you are oftentimes dealing with 1960s technology.
> The little planes are either too hot or too cold. They can't get you
> where you want to go unless you have an IFR license and a capable plane.
> In the little planes, you have to worry about other marginally trained
> pilots running into you (either on the ground, mid-air, or in the traffic
> pattern).

Most places I want to go, I wouldn't go to if the weather was bad anyway.
(like Block Island)
>
> In the little planes, you will waste at least $100K between the training,
> equipment, insurance, gas, etc. (Better off buying a really nice BMW or
> Audi or Porsche, which will get you where you want in less time, and where
> you can pull over at a rest stop when you want).

My plane cost $17,500 for 4 seats. Storage, insurance and maintenance are
comparable to the expenses of a small boat and I can use it all year round.
>
> And, best of all, in the sim world you can fly into and out of Megis Field
> to your heart's content!

It's (was) Meigs-not Megis.

mike
>

Unless you're going to an island.

mike

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> On trips shorter than 100 miles I can beat the plane with the Audi. Longer
> trips the plane does much better. I also don't risk getting a speeding
> ticket with the Navion.
>
> Margy

The wheels shouldn't touch until the plane stops flying. If you bounce, the
plane wasn't done flying or your wheels were too high when it did.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> A bounce in not inherent in a landing. It's a mistake.
>
> It's inherent in the design of the landing gear and the aircraft, in
> order to spare the rest of the airframe on hard landings.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Marty Shapiro writes:
>
>
>>In the SF Bay area here are the web sites of two FBO's at PAO where
>>you can rent wet (fuel included):
>>
>> http:\\www.shorelineflyingclub.com
>> http:\\www.wvfc.org
>
>
> At Shoreline, the lowest rates are a hundred times higher than those
> for a car (which you can rent by the day, not by the hour, for about
> the same prices). Plus you have to factor in (or amortize) the $9000
> cost of your license and all the overhead expenses.
>
> It looks like an extremely costly hobby, and an even more costly form
> of transportation. I'm not happy about that, but there's no denying
> it.
>
How can it be 100 times higher? You seem to think if you rent a plane
for the weekend that's 48 hours of rental, when it's FLIGHT TIME, not
clock time you rent by. So if there is a 2 hour per day minimum it's 4
hours, not 48. So let's see 4 X $70 (get a cheap plane!) is $280 for
two days. Find me a car I can rent for $2.80 a day!

Margy

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Margy Natalie writes:
>
>
>>Depends on the airplane.
>
>
> How about a 737-800?
>
If you want to fly in a tin can go commercial. Why would I want to ride
in a Greyhound bus when I can drive my Audi?

Margy

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>
>>Much less. 10k will buy you something halfway decent.
>
>
> We may have different standards of halfway decent.
>
>
>>And yes, you can take-off from the nearest strip without
>>formalities except having the certificate.
>
>
> Ah yes ... the $15K certificate that requires perfect health.

Again, you have NO IDEA what you are talking about.
>
>
>>Oh, and you could do that in France, too. Maybe you'd pay
>>15k.
>
>
> For the license alone, yes, according to what pilots here in France
> have told me. In general, you can multiply U.S. prices by 2-3 or
> more.
>

mike regish wrote:
> Unless you're going to an island.
>
> mike
>
> "Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>>On trips shorter than 100 miles I can beat the plane with the Audi. Longer
>>trips the plane does much better. I also don't risk getting a speeding
>>ticket with the Navion.
>>
>>Margy
>
>
>
Very true, although the only island I typically fly to is more than 100
miles away. The runway takes up about half the island and the ladies
who run the island tour golf carts said "we don't understand, people
just fly in, have lunch and leave. We don't know why they do that". We
responded with "because we can". That seemed to make sense to them.

Margy

And you can often work out a deal with the FBO wherre you can pay the dry
rate for the unused hours.

mike

"Allen" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> You pay your 14 hours and you are good.
>>
>> Margy
>
> Or you fly two hours there, two hours back amd also pay for the 10 hours
> you
> did not fly. That reimburses the FBO for possible lost revenue while you
> have sole posession of the plane.
>
> Allen
>
>

Some small bizjets do have active ANR installed in the cabins.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> So now you're showing your cluelessness in the next field?
>
> No, I was being facetious. Some people don't pick up on it.
>
>> How would ANR windows work, genius?
>
> While technically possible, I don't think they'd be practical or
> useful. It's much easier to build ANR headphones, just as it's easier
> to wear shoes than it is to cover the ground with leather.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

You could probably mount a transducer on the windows, but speakers
designed for the purpose would probably work better.

mike

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Thomas Borchert writes:
>>
>>
>>>I'd really like a source or two for that statement.
>>
>>
>> Why do you need a source? If you know how ANR works, it's obvious
>> that it could be done with windows (although it's equally obvious that
>> it might not be worth doing).
>
> I know how ANR works and I think it is obvious that it could not be done
> with windows.
>
> Matt

Beech has it in the King Air.


"mike regish" > wrote in message
...
| Some small bizjets do have active ANR installed in the
cabins.
|
| mike
|
| "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
| ...
| > Thomas Borchert writes:
| >
| >> So now you're showing your cluelessness in the next
field?
| >
| > No, I was being facetious. Some people don't pick up on
it.
| >
| >> How would ANR windows work, genius?
| >
| > While technically possible, I don't think they'd be
practical or
| > useful. It's much easier to build ANR headphones, just
as it's easier
| > to wear shoes than it is to cover the ground with
leather.
| >
| > --
| > Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
|
|

"Margy Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Gee, I was thinking following roads was too boring, just straight and
> level. Following streams and creeks is much more fun. My primary
> instructor took me out in a tail-dragger to "learn what a rudder is for"
> by following rivers and creeks.

Following rivers is fun if you set a goal of attempting to stay within the
banks of the river and if you do it down low... Flying from one place to
another by following a river (at least where I'm at) is a good way to triple
the distance that you will travel... Relatively flat land, so the rivers
tend to meander all over everywhere... I like to fly the Brazos down toward
the coast... It's wide enough that you can stay between the banks and more
importantly, even stay between the trees if you get down low enough...
Flying it at around 100 kts will get you some *very* steep banked turns...

"mike regish" > wrote in message
...
> The wheels shouldn't touch until the plane stops flying.

Sure about that? What about wheel landings on taildraggers?

Only when you need the extra control authority, e.g. heavy crosswinds. I
only have about 6 or 7 hours in tailwheel and I never did wheel landings.
Even then, you really only want enough speed to keep the tail flying, no?

I suppose you could also count carrier landings, if you want to pick nits.

mike

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The wheels shouldn't touch until the plane stops flying.
>
> Sure about that? What about wheel landings on taildraggers?
>
>

I've never heard it about a helicopter......and I'm rated. But I suppose it
could be since everything is weird about helicopter aerodynamics.

"Coffin corner" refers to the narrow band of airspeed between stall and mach
buffet in a jet.

The corporate jet most affected is the older Lear Jet. The problem comes at
high altitude and encountering wind shear. If you lower the nose just
slightly the airplane goes into mach buffet. If the nose is raised slightly
it stalls. Neither is good. In a Lear the only option, if it gets severe, is
to lower the landing gear.

In the early days of the Lear, pilots would sometimes pull the mach buffet
warning horn circuit breaker. Several airplanes were lost due to upset.

Karl
ATP
BE30 LRJet CE500 DA50


"mike regish" > wrote in message
...
> I've only heard of the "coffin corner" in reference to helicopter flight.
>
> mike
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> By envelope I mean the area of safety between two extremes, e.g., the
>> "coffin corner" of some aircraft represents a very tiny envelope,
>> since more than a slight movement in any direction may result in
>> irrecoverable instability.
>
>

Mike,

> You could probably mount a transducer on the windows, but speakers
> designed for the purpose would probably work better.
>

The point is: How would you get the right interference at the ear
independently of ear location relative to the ANR noise source?


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Margy,

> We
> responded with "because we can". That seemed to make sense to them.
>

Do they own dogs? ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Marty Shapiro writes:
>
>> In the SF Bay area here are the web sites of two FBO's at PAO where
>> you can rent wet (fuel included):
>>
>> http:\\www.shorelineflyingclub.com
>> http:\\www.wvfc.org
>
> At Shoreline, the lowest rates are a hundred times higher than those
> for a car (which you can rent by the day, not by the hour, for about
> the same prices). Plus you have to factor in (or amortize) the $9000
> cost of your license and all the overhead expenses.
>
> It looks like an extremely costly hobby, and an even more costly form
> of transportation. I'm not happy about that, but there's no denying
> it.
>

Your calculations are defective.

The IRS allows 47.5 cents/mile as the cost to operate a car if its use is
tax deductible. That number factors in gas, oil, tires, insurance, etc.
and is pretty close to the number Hertz calculates for its fleet average
cost per mile. If you are going to compare the costs of flying with the
costs of driving, you have to include ALL the costs of driving.

The rates at Shoreline are all inclusive. It includes gas, oil, tires,
insurance, etc. The hourly rate is for engine hours, not clock time. You
only pay for the time the engine is running, not while the airplane sits on
the ground at your destination. Yes, you do have minimums to consider, but
I've only had one time in almost 20 years where that came into play, and
that was only for 15 minutes.

Take a 3 day weekend trip from PAO (where Shoreline is located) to Las
Vegas. According to Microsoft's MapPoint, the fastest route is 543 miles
and will take 8 1/2 hours by car. (I used speeds slightly above the posted
speed limits to get this time, and excluded any possible traffic delays.)
The IRS says this will cost $257.93 to drive. Using the AOPA flight
planning software, this is now a trip of only 392 miles (flying in a
straight line) and will take 3 hours. At $100/hour, this costs $300. For
the extra $42.07, I save at least 5 1/2 hours enroute (more likely 7 hours
figuring the car stops at least once and 8 to 9 hours if there are any
traffic delays).

At 8 1/2 hours one way, most people will probably stop somewhere enroute to
buy gas, use the rest room, and probably grab a bite to eat, so the trip
will be more like 9 1/2 to 10 hours. By small plane, this is a non-stop
flight. So, the time difference is even larger. And by flying, I didn't
risk a speeding ticket.

For a 3 day holiday weekend, I'm flying 6 hours round trip, which meets the
2 hour daily minimum on aircraft rental. I only pay for 6 hours, even
though I had the airplane for 3 days. And I have at least 1/2 day more
time at my destination. Given the time needed to go through commercial
airports and the security screening, the little plane beats the airlines on
this trip as far as time goes, but the costs are lower by airline.
Southwest quotes a fully refundable fare of $139.30 ($129 + taxes and fees)
from San Jose to Las Vegas and 1 hour 20 minutes flying time. If you have
2 people going on this trip, the airline costs about the same as the little
plane.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Peter Duniho writes:
>
>> Not enough distinguishing features to make them useful landmarks.
>
> But they are more likely to lead somewhere, aren't they? If you know
> that you're above Interstate X, you could just follow it to wherever X
> leads.
>
>> Though, that said, they can still be quite useful if you are in an
>> area with only a few roads, or you already have a pretty good idea of
>> where you are, or you cross-reference a road or railroad or similar
>> feature with some more distinctive feature.
>
> How do you look out the window? It seems that the instrument panel is
> pretty imposing in most aircraft, and often the nose of the plane
> extends well beyond it, so it doesn't look like you'd be able to see
> the ground straight ahead. Do you just glance out the side windows,
> or what?
>

No more so than the hood of a car extends beyond the front window. You
can't see the ground immediately in front of you, but you can see the
ground in front of you. The instrument panel is only imposing when you are
not a pilot. After a while, it is no more imposing than the "instrument
panel" in your car. Even when you are on an IFR flight, if the weather
conditions are VMC, you've got to look out of the window. You also have to
be able to see in front of you to taxi to the runway. And unless you, the
aircraft, and the runway are all CAT III rated, you've got to be able to
see in front of you to land.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic,
>
>> You can come near that number even with a car.
>>
>
> A driver's license for 100k? Yeah, right.
>

Maybe for F-1 or USAC Indy. :-)

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

"mike regish" > wrote in message
. ..
> Even then, you really only want enough speed to keep the tail flying, no?

It's been quite a few years since I flew a J-3, but I seem to remember there
being enough airspeed when the mains first touch down during a wheel landing
for the wing to still be flying...

> I suppose you could also count carrier landings, if you want to pick nits.

Unless you have something better you would prefer to do with the nits...
<grin>

mike regish writes:

> I've only heard of the "coffin corner" in reference to helicopter flight.

The U-2 is famous for its coffin corner, and some other aircraft have
one as well.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Mike,
>
> > You could probably mount a transducer on the windows, but speakers
> > designed for the purpose would probably work better.
> >
>
> The point is: How would you get the right interference at the ear
> independently of ear location relative to the ANR noise source?

I have read about whole cabin systems, too. I don't remember what kind of
aircraft it was, but it was at least 6 place, I think.

The theory is that you use multiple microphones near the sound conducting
surfaces, and multiple speakers. You knock the sound down as soon as it
enters the cabin.

From the reports I have read, there are "sweet spots" in the cabin, where
the noise canceling is more effective than in other places in the cabin, so
you are right; it is not perfect.
--
Jim in NC

I've read it in reference to helicopter flight. I think it is the period
when you are just starting to gain forward speed and altitude. It's where
you don't have enough of either to autorotate to landing in case of an
engine failure, I think.

mike

"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
> I've never heard it about a helicopter......and I'm rated. But I suppose
> it could be since everything is weird about helicopter aerodynamics.
>
> "Coffin corner" refers to the narrow band of airspeed between stall and
> mach buffet in a jet.

As long as it's is a small confined space it works. I e-mailed Bose a couple
of years ago to see if they'd ever tried it in an industrial setting. They
said it wouldn't work there because of the large area and many point sources
of noise. In small spaces, it works just fine.

mike

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Mike,
>
>> You could probably mount a transducer on the windows, but speakers
>> designed for the purpose would probably work better.
>>
>
> The point is: How would you get the right interference at the ear
> independently of ear location relative to the ANR noise source?
>
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

I've read that the U2 (or is it U-2) has a 4 knot speed range at altitude.
Too fast, you get mach buffet-too slow, you stall.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish writes:
>
>> I've only heard of the "coffin corner" in reference to helicopter flight.
>
> The U-2 is famous for its coffin corner, and some other aircraft have
> one as well.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

> If you are going to compare the costs of flying with the
> costs of driving, you have to include ALL the costs of driving.

Well, sort of and no. If you already own the car, and would otherwise rent the plane, then by not driving, you are not saving any ownership costs (which are included in the IRS and Hertz per-mile rates). Those would have to be subtracted out, because the car is still depreciating, you still have to carry car insurance, you still have to garage it, etc. Those costs don't go away if you don't drive - they only go away if you totally get rid of the car.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

mike regish writes:

> You could probably mount a transducer on the windows, but speakers
> designed for the purpose would probably work better.

Yes, transducers are one way to do it. It's technically possible, but
I don't think it's really very practical or useful.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Actually, if you know how it works, it's obvious it can't be done with
> windows.

I do know how it works, and I know that it can be done. It just isn't
very practical. ANR systems for enclosed spaces usually work in some
other way. That's why it was facetious of me to mention it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

mike regish writes:

> Some small bizjets do have active ANR installed in the cabins.

I assume they don't work via the windows, though. Probably with
strategically-placed speakers instead.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Marty Shapiro writes:

> The IRS allows 47.5 cents/mile as the cost to operate a car if its use is
> tax deductible.

You use IRS figures for the car, but not for the plane. How much does
the IRS allow for operating a plane instead of a car?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Margy Natalie writes:

> If you want to fly in a tin can go commercial. Why would I want to ride
> in a Greyhound bus when I can drive my Audi?

That doesn't answer my question. How much would it cost to rent a 737
instead of a tiny plastic plane? Just because you prefer a tiny plane
for your leisure doesn't mean that everyone else feels the same way.

In reality, I don't know of any practical way to fly large jets in
real life for pleasure. Even John Travolta doesn't seem to get around
much in his 707, and it's a crusty old airframe compared to the modern
aircraft that some of us might prefer to fly (I'm sure he had to
compromise, as I don't think he really prefers the 707 to more recent
equipment).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Marty Shapiro writes:

> No more so than the hood of a car extends beyond the front window. You
> can't see the ground immediately in front of you, but you can see the
> ground in front of you.

How much of the runway can you see from the cockpit?

> The instrument panel is only imposing when you are not a pilot.

Pilots must be extremely tall, then.

> After a while, it is no more imposing than the "instrument
> panel" in your car. Even when you are on an IFR flight, if the weather
> conditions are VMC, you've got to look out of the window. You also have to
> be able to see in front of you to taxi to the runway.

At the viewing angles I see for small craft (particular those that
don't sit level on the ground), it should be practically impossible to
see much of the runway.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Listen, if you don't want to fly, so be it. But don't try to
> rationalize it.

If you want to fly, so be it. But don't try to say that it's not
extremely expensive.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Thomas Borchert writes:

> A driver's license for 100k? Yeah, right.

All costs combined: license, insurance, fuel, maintenance, the
amortized cost of the car, etc. Even a cheap car costs thousands of
dollars a year to operate for the average person. Aircraft are much
more expensive.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

mike regish writes:

> I go before I take off. No brainer.

That still limits most people to 3-5 hours of flight.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

mike regish writes:

> The wheels shouldn't touch until the plane stops flying. If you bounce, the
> plane wasn't done flying or your wheels were too high when it did.

Yes, but sometimes it happens, just the same.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

mike regish writes:

> Minus all those neat sustained G forces.

That's the part I don't like. It's uncomfortable and unhealthy.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 17:19:53 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 17:48:57 +0200, Mxsmanic >
>wrote in >:
>
>>Larry Dighera writes:
>>
>>> Personally, I chose to reside ten minutes from the airport, so the
>>> drive is not too bad.

I got as close as I could and still put up my ham station.

>>
>>A good solution if you have the option. But most people are
>>constrained to live far from airports.

Generally you have a choice of jobs, how close to an airport your live
and job location. IF a person is willing to change jobs, professions,
or locations they may be able to end up close to work and fairly close
to an airport.
>
>Most people are not pilots.

Which ain't necessarily all bad.

>
>>The closest airport for me is
>>about 12 miles away, as the crow (er, aircraft) flies.

I'm only a bit over 4 1/2 miles from the airport where I have the Deb
based. Unfortunately you can't get there from here. There is a river
between me and town. There are only two bridges although they are
planning to put one in just about a mile from me. When they do that my
trip to the airport would drop from 10 1/2 to about 5 miles. Currently
both bridges are well out of the way to get where I want. If they had
the new bridge in I could ride my bicycle back and fourth.

>
>Le Bourget is only abut half that far from the center of Paris. It's
>a choice.
>
>>The ideal would be to live in one of those cool airparks where
>>everyone has a driveway in front and a taxiway out back, but how many
>>people can afford to do that?
>
>I like aviation, but I'm not fond of noise. The _ideal_ would be to

I love airplanes and we are on the centerline for the GPS 06 approach
to 3BS and about a mile and a half in from the FAF. Even when working
in the shop I still have to run outside to see what's going over.

>reside on enough acreage to have your own private runway and hangar on
>your property:

A friend has his own sod strip about 2 miles from me which would be
great in the summer. The Deb does real well on sod and is a good
short field plane although the sod strip is 3800 feet long.

But to get back to flaps on Take off and landing.
I don't recall the 150, 172, Cherokee 180, or even Bonanza requiring
flaps on TO.

On landing I generally run 10 down wind.15 to 20 on base, and about 30
until the runway is made and then it's full flaps whether it's windy
of calm, gusty or steady. The only time I don't use full flaps is the
one or two landings I do every few weeks with no flaps.
Prior to full flaps I said generally as how much I use depends on
conditions and how steep a final I want.




>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"mike regish" > wrote in message
...
> I've read that the U2 (or is it U-2) has a 4 knot speed range at altitude.
> Too fast, you get mach buffet-too slow, you stall.

It's U-2... U2 is a leftist Irish rock group that thinks that just because
they're made a few songs that people like, their opinion on world matter
actually means something... Kind of like actors in that respect, I guess...

The original U-2 had a rather small range while at altitude between stall
speed and mach buffet... Especially in the U-2A through U-2C... The latest
of the series are the U-2R and U-2S models and from what I've heard, some of
the bad characteriestics from the eariler models were improved upon...I
believe that there is now an 8 kt speed range... Originally it varied from 3
to 5 kts...

And interesting tidbit of information is that the U-2G model was made for
carrier operations and actually took off and landed from the USS Ranger back
in the early to mid 1960s...

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
> Generally you have a choice of jobs, how close to an airport your live
> and job location. IF a person is willing to change jobs, professions,
> or locations they may be able to end up close to work and fairly close
> to an airport.

Of course, it's possible that when you factor in being able to afford a
plane, changing professions so that you can live closer to the airport might
not really be an option...

> I'm only a bit over 4 1/2 miles from the airport where I have the Deb
> based. Unfortunately you can't get there from here. There is a river
> between me and town. There are only two bridges although they are
> planning to put one in just about a mile from me. When they do that my
> trip to the airport would drop from 10 1/2 to about 5 miles. Currently
> both bridges are well out of the way to get where I want. If they had
> the new bridge in I could ride my bicycle back and fourth.

When I had my plane over at SGR, it was 4 nm from my house to the airport,
or around 8 miles driving distance... There is a railroad track there that
seemed to *always* have a long train on it whenever I wanted to go there...
Lots of road construction to boot, so the commute there sucked... I moved it
over to AXH with is 8 nm away (13 miles driving distance) and the traffic is
not as heavy, so it takes less time to get there... To top it off, I was
able to eventually find a hangar at AXH, whereas at SGR I was stuck parking
on the grass (even the hard surface tiedown spots were full up)...

> A friend has his own sod strip about 2 miles from me which would be
> great in the summer. The Deb does real well on sod and is a good
> short field plane although the sod strip is 3800 feet long.

I was considering taking a look at a piece of property that I heard about to
the north of Houston up around Lake Livingston and the guy wanted $53,900
for 13 acres (approx 1682 x 340 ft)... Considering the fact that the land
tends to be heavily forested with pine trees up around there and as such, I
would probably have to be taking off and landing over them, I don't think it
would work with my plane... I've been into a 1900 ft strip before and it was
tight enough that I really don't want to have to routinely go into a 1600 ft
one, especially adding in trees and probably power lines... Oh well... Keep
looking, I guess...

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> Listen, if you don't want to fly, so be it. But don't try to
>> rationalize it.
>
> If you want to fly, so be it. But don't try to say that it's not
> extremely expensive.
>

Can you read? rec.aviation.piloting. That group is for people who find
pleasure or interest in piloting. You're obviously not piloting, and
you're obviously not interested in it as you're trying to convince
everybody that what they're doing is too expensive for them. If someone
wants to fly and is not a complete looser he or she will find a way to
do that.

So, why don't you just find another group?


Leonard

Mxsmanic,

> All costs combined: license, insurance, fuel, maintenance, the
> amortized cost of the car, etc.
>

Show me. Make a list. You'll get nowhere near that figure. And that's
why you're evading again.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mxsmanic,

> But don't try to say that it's not
> extremely expensive.
>

It isn't. The facts have been explained to you. You have provided no
evidence at all to the contrary. You can (and obviously do) ignore the
facts, but you look very stupid doing that. Then again, you don't seem
to care much about that, because that's about all you do on this group.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Marty Shapiro writes:
>
>> The IRS allows 47.5 cents/mile as the cost to operate a car if its
>> use is tax deductible.
>
> You use IRS figures for the car, but not for the plane. How much does
> the IRS allow for operating a plane instead of a car?
>

I've never found a direct answer for the IRS allowance for private air
travel. Whenever I rent an aircraft for an Angel Flight, I get to deduct
the entire cost of the rental.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Marty Shapiro writes:
>
>> No more so than the hood of a car extends beyond the front window.
>> You can't see the ground immediately in front of you, but you can see
>> the ground in front of you.
>
> How much of the runway can you see from the cockpit?

All but about 3 feet in front of the nose. That's better than 99.99%
of the runway.

>
>> The instrument panel is only imposing when you are not a pilot.
>
> Pilots must be extremely tall, then.

No, you simply raise or lower the seat as appropriate.

>> After a while, it is no more imposing than the "instrument
>> panel" in your car. Even when you are on an IFR flight, if the
>> weather conditions are VMC, you've got to look out of the window.
>> You also have to be able to see in front of you to taxi to the
>> runway.
>
> At the viewing angles I see for small craft (particular those that
> don't sit level on the ground), it should be practically impossible to
> see much of the runway.

True for tail draggers, but in a tricycle gear aircraft you have an
excellent view of the runway.

>

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Which is about the range of the plane anyway.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish writes:
>
>> I go before I take off. No brainer.
>
> That still limits most people to 3-5 hours of flight.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Nothing unhealthy about it at all. And I, aswell as my kids, love the
sensation. That's actually what a lot of amusement park rides are all about.
Plus, you can fly anywhere you want and never feel more than a small
fraction over 1 G.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish writes:
>
>> Minus all those neat sustained G forces.
>
> That's the part I don't like. It's uncomfortable and unhealthy.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

That's what chainsaws are for...

mike

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
news:fhrPg.9861

>Considering the fact that the land
> tends to be heavily forested with pine trees up around there and as such,
> I
> would probably have to be taking off and landing over them, I don't think
> it
> would work with my plane... I've been into a 1900 ft strip before and it
> was
> tight enough that I really don't want to have to routinely go into a 1600
> ft
> one, especially adding in trees and probably power lines... Oh well...
> Keep
> looking, I guess...
>
>
>

The Super Decathlon I flew for aerobatic lessons (a taildragger) has
excellent over the nose visibility on the ground...better than my tripacer.
I had a hard time levelling out at altitude because the view was almost too
good. I kept unconsciously trying to get the same sight picture I was used
to in my TP.

mike

"Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message >
> True for tail draggers, but in a tricycle gear aircraft you have an
> excellent view of the runway.
>
>>
>
> --
> Marty Shapiro
> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>
> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)

"mike regish" > wrote in message
. ..
> The Super Decathlon I flew for aerobatic lessons (a taildragger) has
> excellent over the nose visibility on the ground...better than my
tripacer.
> I had a hard time levelling out at altitude because the view was almost
too
> good. I kept unconsciously trying to get the same sight picture I was used
> to in my TP.
>
> mike
>
Mike, in case you didn't know:

1) Billy sold the Decathlon and bought an Extra-200.

2) He got married last weekend.

Skylune wrote:

> In the little planes, you will waste at least $100K between the training,
> equipment, insurance, gas, etc.

Could you be more specific? If it costs, say, $10,000 to get PPL and
IFR rated, what do you spend the other $90,000 on?

Marc

On 2006-09-18, mike regish > wrote:
> The Super Decathlon I flew for aerobatic lessons (a taildragger) has
> excellent over the nose visibility on the ground...better than my tripacer.

The Tripacer, however, is notable for having terrible over the nose
visibility. I have to sit on a booster cushion to get anything like
adequate forward visibility in a Tripacer! Same thing goes for the
Cherokee Six - with the slightly tail down attitude it has on the ground
and the unfeasably large conk, I get better forward visibility when
taxiing most taildraggers compared to taxiing a Cherokee Six.

The Decathalon is about normal for over the nose visibility in the air
and better than the average taildragger on the ground. (The Cessna 170
is the best taildragger for forward vis on the ground - better than most
nosewheel planes thanks to a high seating position)

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Roger (K8RI) writes:

> I love airplanes and we are on the centerline for the GPS 06 approach
> to 3BS and about a mile and a half in from the FAF. Even when working
> in the shop I still have to run outside to see what's going over.

I like to watch aircraft, too. I sorely miss the days when you could
go to the airport and walk up to the roof or observation deck to watch
planes take off and arrive. Nowadays, it seems you're a terrorist if
you manifest any interest in aircraft. I never understood what danger
there was in letting people watch. Even people who take pictures from
outside the airport are considered terrorists these days.

> On landing I generally run 10 down wind.15 to 20 on base, and about 30
> until the runway is made and then it's full flaps whether it's windy
> of calm, gusty or steady. The only time I don't use full flaps is the
> one or two landings I do every few weeks with no flaps.

Why do you do those landings without flaps?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Marty Shapiro writes:

> No, you simply raise or lower the seat as appropriate.

Is it a power seat, or do you have to crank it manually, or do you
have to get off the seat to adjust it, or what?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Leonard Milcin Jr. writes:

> Can you read? rec.aviation.piloting. That group is for people who find
> pleasure or interest in piloting.

That doesn't mean that they have to pretend it's cheap.

> You're obviously not piloting, and you're obviously not interested in
> it as you're trying to convince everybody that what they're doing is
> too expensive for them.

It's too expensive for me. I don't know if it's too expensive for
them. However, I do know that it's expensive.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

mike regish writes:

> Nothing unhealthy about it at all.

Positive G's can make you pass out. Negative G's can cause
hemorrhages and strokes.

> And I, aswell as my kids, love the
> sensation. That's actually what a lot of amusement park rides are all about.

I avoid the ones like that.

> Plus, you can fly anywhere you want and never feel more than a small
> fraction over 1 G.

Yes, and that's what I'd probably do. To me, accurate, steady, sedate
flight is more of a challenge than acrobatics.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> But they are more likely to lead somewhere, aren't they? If you know
> that you're above Interstate X, you could just follow it to wherever X
> leads.

Actually, if you spend any time paying attention to geography, you'll find
that human civilization very often develops in such a way that waterways
lead you "somewhere" just as easily as highways will.

It's all a matter of selecting your references to match your goals. But the
fact remains, in an urban or otherwise well-developed area, there are often
too many roads that look too similar to use them as a primary reference.
Conversely, there are unlikely to be more than handful of major waterways,
and they will usually be very distinctive.

Whether a given road or waterway goes along the route you intend to take
depends on your intended route and the road or waterway. But you can't make
any assumptions beforehand about whether it will or will not be possible.
Each situation is different.

> How do you look out the window? It seems that the instrument panel is
> pretty imposing in most aircraft, and often the nose of the plane
> extends well beyond it, so it doesn't look like you'd be able to see
> the ground straight ahead. Do you just glance out the side windows,
> or what?

Here is where I find myself agreeing with the people that say you make a LOT
of supposedly factual statements about flying that are based on faulty
information. That is, your believe that a computer simulation (and
Microsoft Flight Simulator in particular) is accurate enough for you to
actually know what you're talking about when it comes to flying.

Please, you do NOT know what you are talking about when it comes to
*flying*. Piloting a sim, I'm sure you know lots. But you consistently get
it wrong when you try to apply that experience to real flying. You would do
well to leave your assumptions behind, and restrict yourself to asking
questions.

As far as the specific question goes: yes, visibility directly under the
nose of the airplane can be somewhat limited, depending on the airplane.
Some airplanes have completely transparent noses, allowing for excellent
visibility, and even some with more traditional construction can be built
with a nose that slopes enough to obscure very little. When you are aloft
at cruise altitude, you don't need to be right over a landmark to identify
it, and you can easily follow rivers, highways, or whatever using the view
through the front of the airplane.

One also does take advantage of the view out the side window. Obviously
when you are directly over a landmark, you cannot see it, but by flying to
one side you can verify your position accurately by looking out the side
window and noting the exact time at which you pass a particular point of
reference (note that this is necessarily only for tracking groundspeed and
confirming your position...it's not related to the question of following
landmarks looking out the front of the airplane).

Pete

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:16:04 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>:

> visibility directly under the
>nose of the airplane can be somewhat limited, depending on the airplane.

Of course, there is the possibility of "seeing" right through the
airframe with the Striker Helmet (near the end of the video):
http://www.exn.ca/dailyplanet/view.asp?date=8/18/2006#

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Marty Shapiro writes:
>
>> No, you simply raise or lower the seat as appropriate.
>
> Is it a power seat, or do you have to crank it manually, or do you
> have to get off the seat to adjust it, or what?
>

All of the above. Depends on the airplane.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Leonard Milcin Jr. writes:
>
>> Can you read? rec.aviation.piloting. That group is for people who find
>> pleasure or interest in piloting.
>
> That doesn't mean that they have to pretend it's cheap.
>
>> You're obviously not piloting, and you're obviously not interested in
>> it as you're trying to convince everybody that what they're doing is
>> too expensive for them.
>
> It's too expensive for me. I don't know if it's too expensive for
> them. However, I do know that it's expensive.
>

"Expensive" is a relative term. Is $400,000 expensive for a house? In
some parts of the country, yes. In other areas, it would be so cheap you
would think something was seriously wrong with it.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Peter Duniho writes:

> Here is where I find myself agreeing with the people that say you make a LOT
> of supposedly factual statements about flying that are based on faulty
> information. That is, your believe that a computer simulation (and
> Microsoft Flight Simulator in particular) is accurate enough for you to
> actually know what you're talking about when it comes to flying.

It's not really based on Flight Simulator. It's based on a common
complaint I've heard from people who are contemplating a real pilot's
license.

> Please, you do NOT know what you are talking about when it comes to
> *flying*. Piloting a sim, I'm sure you know lots. But you consistently get
> it wrong when you try to apply that experience to real flying. You would do
> well to leave your assumptions behind, and restrict yourself to asking
> questions.

You would do well to leave your personal attacks behind, and restrict
yourself to answering questions. There are plenty of people who
specialize in the former, and very few qualified to handle the latter.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic,

> I sorely miss the days when you could
> go to the airport and walk up to the roof or observation deck to watch
> planes take off and arrive.
>

And I'm sure you can quote a substantial number of airports that have
closed their observation decks? No? Thought so...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Peter,

> Actually, if you spend any time paying attention
>

BRUHAHA! That takes the prize! Unlikely. Highly unlikely.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Marc,

> Could you be more specific?
>

No, he can't. A long history of postings shows that's not in his
repertoire (sp?).

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Marty Shapiro writes:

> "Expensive" is a relative term. Is $400,000 expensive for a house?

By a factor of ten or so, yes.

> In some parts of the country, yes. In other areas, it would be so cheap you
> would think something was seriously wrong with it.

I go by the construction cost, as opposed to the sale price. Most
homes priced at $400,000 don't cost $400,000 to build.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic,

> > "Expensive" is a relative term. Is $400,000 expensive for a house?
>
> By a factor of ten or so, yes.
>

Oh? Can you get me one of those 40,000-$-houses in your neighborhood in
Paris?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Oh? Can you get me one of those 40,000-$-houses in your neighborhood in
> Paris?

Almost all housing in Paris is in the form of apartments.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> No, he can't. A long history of postings shows that's not in his
> repertoire (sp?).

(Correct spelling.) That's a relief, because if you just rent aircraft,
you don't have to worry about anything but rental charges and gas,
right? In other words, insurance, maintenance, etc., are all the
responsibility of the rental agent (the FBO?), right?

I'm completely new to this, but it doesn't seem to me like owning is
such a great proposition if you're just a recreational flyer. Aside
from the cost of the plane itself (min. $50K, right?) you've got to pay
for maintenance, repairs, insurance, taxes, parking, etc., etc., etc.
The operating costs have got to pile up real fast. I don't know why a
recreational flyer would want to own. Plus, if you don't own, you can
fly lots of different planes.

As I say, though, I'm completely new to this, and this is an uninformed
opinion, so I welcome all responses.

Marc

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 19:47:02 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> wrote in
>:

>Is $400,000 expensive for a house? In
>some parts of the country, yes. In other areas, it would be so cheap you
>would think something was seriously wrong with it.


Like this one:
http://www.realtor.com/FindHome/HomeListing.asp?snum=73&locallnk=yes&frm=bymap&mnbed=0&mnbath=0&mnprice=0&mxprice=99999999&js=off&pgnum=8&fid=so&stype=&mnsqft=&mls=xmls&areaid=2206&poe=realtor&ct=Santa+Barbara&st=CA&sbint=&vtsort=&sorttype=&typ=1&typ=6&typ=5&x=40&y=6&sid=07479C776D61C&snumxlid=1062635833&lnksrc=00002

$839,000
2 Bed, 1 Bath
940 Sq. Ft.

Property Features
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Single Family Property
Area: East of State
County: Santa Barbara
Subdivision: 15 - Mission Canyon
Year Built: 1950
2 total bedroom(s)
1 total bath(s)
1 total full bath(s)
Approximately 940 sq. ft.
Heating features: Gas
Interior features: Dining area, Refrigerator, Wood flrs
Exterior features: Level lot, Storage/out-building(s)
Approximate lot is 60x99

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Marty Shapiro writes:
>
>> "Expensive" is a relative term. Is $400,000 expensive for a house?
>
> By a factor of ten or so, yes.
>
>> In some parts of the country, yes. In other areas, it would be so
>> cheap you would think something was seriously wrong with it.
>
> I go by the construction cost, as opposed to the sale price. Most
> homes priced at $400,000 don't cost $400,000 to build.
>

Does your construction cost figure in the cost of the land? How about the
carrying costs (interest either paid or lost opportunity), inspection
costs, and property taxes until the sale completes? Are the architects,
builder, and the subcontractors allowed to make any money, or do they just
supply their time and effort gratis?

There are areas in California where houses are sold in the $1,000,000 price
range and immediately torn down. Just the land is worth the purchase
price. The "construction" cost is the cost of the land + demolition cost +
building cost.

Do you have any idea what the 3 most important factors in determining the
market value of a house are? Hint: Construction cost is NOT one of them.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic,
>
>> > "Expensive" is a relative term. Is $400,000 expensive for a house?
>>
>> By a factor of ten or so, yes.
>>
>
> Oh? Can you get me one of those 40,000-$-houses in your neighborhood in
> Paris?
>

Gee, I'd sure like one of those $40,000 houses here in Palo Alto. I'll
even take a dozen! :-)

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

>
>

So what? Are these apartments only available for rent or are they sold
(such as a condominium or cooperative)? If they are sold, are they
available for $40,000 (31,472 Euro at the 4:30 PM EDT exchange rate)?

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

"Marc Adler" > wrote:
> I'm completely new to this, but it doesn't seem to me like owning is
> such a great proposition if you're just a recreational flyer. Aside
> from the cost of the plane itself (min. $50K, right?) you've got to pay
> for maintenance, repairs, insurance, taxes, parking, etc., etc., etc.
> The operating costs have got to pile up real fast. I don't know why a
> recreational flyer would want to own. Plus, if you don't own, you can
> fly lots of different planes.
>
> As I say, though, I'm completely new to this, and this is an uninformed
> opinion, so I welcome all responses.

You raise some valid points. It is costly to own, and understandable
that some people prefer to rent.

As for why any recreational owner would want to own:

- you can fly whenever you feel like it. You don't have to plan your
flights around when the airplane you rent is available, and don't have
to go through any inconvenience if you need to get the keys for a flight
when the office is closed, or return same.

- you can take it wherever you want for how ever long you want and not
have to be back by a pre-designated time or date. Suppose you go
somewhere and want to stay longer but somebody has the plane reserved
after you? I prefer not to have to punch a time clock when I fly.

- you can opt NOT to go without having to call, give a reason, and
cancel within a specified timeframe or be charged anyway.

- you are only governed by the currency regulations that the FAA
stipulates, not the ones stipulated by the insurance company or the FBO
where you rent. So you don't have to go rent when you wouldn't otherwise
just to avoid having to do another checkout.

- you can do your BFRs and some subsequent ratings in your own airplane.

- you can keep whatever you want in the airplane instead of having to
haul everything you use on every flight back and forth every time.

- you have complete control over routine *and* other maintenance. For
me, this is a biggie! I can choose the mechanic. I can oversee the work
(I have a hangar). I can even *help* with the work as much as the regs
allow. This has been a great source of education and understanding of my
airplane -- no way I'd ever have learned as much about the inner
workings of any airplane I've ever rented.

- you can choose to repair things the FBO isn't obligated to fix.

- you can make whatever changes to the airplane you want (within the
regs). If you want to paint it purple, it's your choice.

- you know whether your airplane is being flown by anyone else and how
they fly. You don't have to fly something that is being used for spin
training at a flight school!

- it's fun to have something to go clean, polish, fiddle with when you
can't fly.

Yes, it's expensive, but those things make it worth it to me, even as a
recreational pilot. You can still fly different things -- there's
nothing stopping anyone from renting different airplanes even if you own
something of your own.

Tell him congratulations for me.

Will he be giving lessons in the Extra 200? I might have to save a few bucks
up to try that baby.

mike

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:94wPg.1162$HZ5.257@trndny08...
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> The Super Decathlon I flew for aerobatic lessons (a taildragger) has
>> excellent over the nose visibility on the ground...better than my
> tripacer.
>> I had a hard time levelling out at altitude because the view was almost
> too
>> good. I kept unconsciously trying to get the same sight picture I was
>> used
>> to in my TP.
>>
>> mike
>>
> Mike, in case you didn't know:
>
> 1) Billy sold the Decathlon and bought an Extra-200.
>
> 2) He got married last weekend.
>
>

Some of that depends on the panel the TP has. Mine doesn't have the hump in
the middle, so it's not really that bad.

mike

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> The Tripacer, however, is notable for having terrible over the nose
> visibility. I have to sit on a booster cushion to get anything like
> adequate forward visibility in a Tripacer!

You'll tear the wings off of a normal category plane before you can do
either of those.

I guess you really don't have a clue, do you?

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> Positive G's can make you pass out. Negative G's can cause
> hemorrhages and strokes.
>

mike regish writes:

> You'll tear the wings off of a normal category plane before you can do
> either of those.

Normal categories of planes don't usually make the types of moves that
I dislike, at least if the pilot is competent.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> It's not really based on Flight Simulator. It's based on a common
> complaint I've heard from people who are contemplating a real pilot's
> license.

Your statements cannot possibly be coming from people who have actual
information. I'm not going to waste time debating them with you, since I
don't really give a crap what you think. But you should not fool yourself
into thinking you have a clue about these things.

Obviously, a lot of people fly. 600,000+ in the US alone. Most people who
fly are NOT wealthy, nor are they particularly insensitive to risk. It's
quite alright for you to not be cut out for flying real airplanes, but it's
insulting and ignorant for you to go around implying that there's something
about *flying* that makes it hard or impossible for a normal person. The
reason flying isn't for you is firmly seated in your OWN personal
characteristics, not in something about flying itself.

> You would do well to leave your personal attacks behind, and restrict
> yourself to answering questions. There are plenty of people who
> specialize in the former, and very few qualified to handle the latter.

You've got a pretty thin skin if you think I'm engaging in personal attacks.
I'm offering you useful advice. Take it or leave it.

Pete

In article >,
says...
> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
> > Listen, if you don't want to fly, so be it. But don't try to
> > rationalize it.
>
> If you want to fly, so be it. But don't try to say that it's not
> extremely expensive.

It's not extremely expensive. Oops, I said it.

Please define extremely expensive.

Here in NZ, it costs a couple hundred to get a medical, and say $150/hr
to fly a plane ("wet" cost, ie you don't pay extra for fuel etc).

--
Duncan

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Marty Shapiro writes:
>
>> No, you simply raise or lower the seat as appropriate.
>
> Is it a power seat, or do you have to crank it manually, or do you
> have to get off the seat to adjust it, or what?

In your case, press the pause button, stand up, and spin the seat until it
is at the height you want.


>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

mike regish wrote:
> I've read that the U2 (or is it U-2) has a 4 knot speed range at altitude.
> Too fast, you get mach buffet-too slow, you stall.
>
> mike
>
Yup, I have a friend who flew a U-2 and he described that very same
thing. I think the exact numbers were 93 knots and 97 knots (indicated
at 70,000'), but my memory might be failing me.

Margy
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>mike regish writes:
>>
>>
>>>I've only heard of the "coffin corner" in reference to helicopter flight.
>>
>>The U-2 is famous for its coffin corner, and some other aircraft have
>>one as well.
>>
>>--
>>Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
>
>

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Margy Natalie writes:
>
>
>>If you want to fly in a tin can go commercial. Why would I want to ride
>>in a Greyhound bus when I can drive my Audi?
>
>
> That doesn't answer my question. How much would it cost to rent a 737
> instead of a tiny plastic plane? Just because you prefer a tiny plane
> for your leisure doesn't mean that everyone else feels the same way.
>
> In reality, I don't know of any practical way to fly large jets in
> real life for pleasure. Even John Travolta doesn't seem to get around
> much in his 707, and it's a crusty old airframe compared to the modern
> aircraft that some of us might prefer to fly (I'm sure he had to
> compromise, as I don't think he really prefers the 707 to more recent
> equipment).
>
That's the same as saying I can't afford to own a car because who would
want a POS Audi when a Rolls is really the only choice! You seem to
want everyone to think flying is only for the rich and famous, when in
reality it's for anyone who wants to make it a reality. No, you can't
have a 747, but you can't have a Rolls either. If you drive a ****box
you might have to fly an ultra-light, if you have the Rolls you might
have a G-4. Who would want a 747, they are old and big and lumber
through the skies. BTW Travolta used to have a Connie, now that was a
cool plane.

Margy

Marty Shapiro wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Marty Shapiro writes:
>>
>>
>>>The IRS allows 47.5 cents/mile as the cost to operate a car if its
>>>use is tax deductible.
>>
>>You use IRS figures for the car, but not for the plane. How much does
>>the IRS allow for operating a plane instead of a car?
>>
>
>
> I've never found a direct answer for the IRS allowance for private air
> travel. Whenever I rent an aircraft for an Angel Flight, I get to deduct
> the entire cost of the rental.
>
I found a University (California I think) that allows 44.5 cents for
cars, 99.5 for personal aircraft. I think this is close to federal.

Marty Shapiro wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Marty Shapiro writes:
>>
>>
>>>The IRS allows 47.5 cents/mile as the cost to operate a car if its
>>>use is tax deductible.
>>
>>You use IRS figures for the car, but not for the plane. How much does
>>the IRS allow for operating a plane instead of a car?
>>
>
>
> I've never found a direct answer for the IRS allowance for private air
> travel. Whenever I rent an aircraft for an Angel Flight, I get to deduct
> the entire cost of the rental.
>

Found the Federal reimbursements.

Margy




For use of a Your reimbursement is

§301-10.266 Is information available to the public about travel on
Government aircraft by senior Federal officials and non-Federal travelers?


Privately owned aircraft
(e.g., helicopter, except an airplane).


Actual cost of operation
(i.e., fuel, oil, plus the additional expenses listed in §301-10.304).

Yes, an agency that authorizes travel on Government air- craft and an
agency that owns or hires Government aircraft must make records about
travelers on those aircraft available to the public in response to
written requests under the Free- dom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552),
except for portions

Privately owned airplane. 1 1.07
Privately owned automobile. 1 0.405
Privately owned motorcycle. 1 0.305

1 Per mile.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Peter Duniho writes:
>
>
>>Here is where I find myself agreeing with the people that say you make a LOT
>>of supposedly factual statements about flying that are based on faulty
>>information. That is, your believe that a computer simulation (and
>>Microsoft Flight Simulator in particular) is accurate enough for you to
>>actually know what you're talking about when it comes to flying.
>
>
> It's not really based on Flight Simulator. It's based on a common
> complaint I've heard from people who are contemplating a real pilot's
> license.
>
>
>>Please, you do NOT know what you are talking about when it comes to
>>*flying*. Piloting a sim, I'm sure you know lots. But you consistently get
>>it wrong when you try to apply that experience to real flying. You would do
>>well to leave your assumptions behind, and restrict yourself to asking
>>questions.
>
>
> You would do well to leave your personal attacks behind, and restrict
> yourself to answering questions. There are plenty of people who
> specialize in the former, and very few qualified to handle the latter.
>
I think you are being overly sensitive. Many of the things you say are
a "common complaint you've heard ..." are absolutely UNTRUE. I'm SHORT,
in a 172 I use a booster seat, but not in the Navion. I can see
everything!! You can see as much of the runway in front of you as you
can from the car.

You might know sims, but you don't know airplanes, nor do you understand
the real costs of flying, although I have heard it is more expensive in
Europe.

Margy

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Roger (K8RI) writes:
>
>
>>I love airplanes and we are on the centerline for the GPS 06 approach
>>to 3BS and about a mile and a half in from the FAF. Even when working
>>in the shop I still have to run outside to see what's going over.
>
>
> I like to watch aircraft, too. I sorely miss the days when you could
> go to the airport and walk up to the roof or observation deck to watch
> planes take off and arrive. Nowadays, it seems you're a terrorist if
> you manifest any interest in aircraft. I never understood what danger
> there was in letting people watch. Even people who take pictures from
> outside the airport are considered terrorists these days.
>
>
>>On landing I generally run 10 down wind.15 to 20 on base, and about 30
>>until the runway is made and then it's full flaps whether it's windy
>>of calm, gusty or steady. The only time I don't use full flaps is the
>>one or two landings I do every few weeks with no flaps.
>
>
> Why do you do those landings without flaps?
>
Gee, at Reagan (Washington National) you can lay on your back in the
Gravely Point Park and watch the planes fly about 100' above you on
approach.

Margy

Marc Adler wrote:
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
>
>>No, he can't. A long history of postings shows that's not in his
>>repertoire (sp?).
>
>
> (Correct spelling.) That's a relief, because if you just rent aircraft,
> you don't have to worry about anything but rental charges and gas,
> right? In other words, insurance, maintenance, etc., are all the
> responsibility of the rental agent (the FBO?), right?
>
> I'm completely new to this, but it doesn't seem to me like owning is
> such a great proposition if you're just a recreational flyer. Aside
> from the cost of the plane itself (min. $50K, right?)

Depends on what you own. If you want fast, etc. you are spending a few
$$, but if you are handy, have a nice A&P to supervise you (and have the
time to do your own work), and don't mind a slower, smaller aircraft you
can do quite well. I know people with lots of $$ with nice aircraft and
I know people with considerably fewer assets with nicer aircraft, but
they spend lots of time.

you've got to pay
> for maintenance, repairs, insurance, taxes, parking, etc., etc., etc.
> The operating costs have got to pile up real fast.

We used to base at Dulles (was $125 to tie-down, now it's over $350,
moved to Culpeper in a hangar for $200). I used to help out a lot on
maintenance, but time became more valuable than $$. There are ways to
make it cheaper.
I don't know why a
> recreational flyer would want to own. Plus, if you don't own, you can
> fly lots of different planes.

I like my plane, I don't need to fly lots of different planes. My plane
is always there when I want it. I can take it for the weekend whenever
I want. If it's broke, I broke it and know it.
>
> As I say, though, I'm completely new to this, and this is an uninformed
> opinion, so I welcome all responses.

It's great to own (cheaper to rent unless you fly >100 hrs/yr)

Margy
>
> Marc
>

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Margy Natalie writes:
>
>> Who said the handle is small? Some of these "handles" are 2 - 3 feet long.
>
> Where are they in the cockpit? I haven't seen many small cockpits; is
> there a picture on the Net of one that has this kind of lever? It
> sounds like it would be awkward to use in flight.
>
> I go by what I've seen in the handful of pictures of cockpits that
> I've encountered. Most of these are of jet aircraft, and the flap
> lever is longer than most but hardly long enough to provide much
> leverage.
>

The lever arm for the flap handle in our RV-6 is something like two feet
long. It works just like a parking brake, though the forces are higher
(20lb maybe, up to 30+ when going to full).

As for the other control surfaces--the stick is directly connected (via
pushrods) to the ailerons and elevator. Even in flight, it takes a
maximum of one finger and your thumb to move the control surface and
make the airplane respond. It's not twitchy--the controls are just
light and easy to manipulate.

In pretty much every jet aircraft I can think of, the flap handle just
manipulates some sort of rotary sensor or microswitch that tells the
flaps where to go.

"Marty Shapiro" > wrote
>
> Do you have any idea what the 3 most important factors in determining the
> market value of a house are? Hint: Construction cost is NOT one of them.

Let ME guess.

Location, location, location!

Do I win anything? <g>
--
Jim in NC

Mxsmanic,

> Almost all housing in Paris is in the form of apartments.
>

For 40k? I'll take it.

Another claim you can't back up...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Marc,

> but it doesn't seem to me like owning is
> such a great proposition if you're just a recreational flyer.
>

Owning costs per hour come down to near rental value if you fly at
least 100 to 200 hours per year, depending on circumstances. That's why
partnerships are attractive for many, with groups of 2 to 5 people.

Here's the key advantage (to me) about owning:

I can take the plane, fly one hour to one of the North Sea barrier
islands here in Germany, stay for two or three days and fly one hour
back. Impossible to convice an FBO to let me have a plane for that
length of time when I fly just two hours.

Other advantages involve knowing the status of the plane and who
handled it, exterior and interior status and care, avionics tailored to
your likings and so on.

But in general, yes, owning will be more expensive than renting.

Oh, one more thing: Depending on what kind of plane you want, you can
get one for 20k or so. A nice Ercoupe, for example.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Margy Natalie > wrote in
m:

> Marty Shapiro wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>Marty Shapiro writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The IRS allows 47.5 cents/mile as the cost to operate a car if its
>>>>use is tax deductible.
>>>
>>>You use IRS figures for the car, but not for the plane. How much
>>>does the IRS allow for operating a plane instead of a car?
>>>
>>
>>
>> I've never found a direct answer for the IRS allowance for private
>> air travel. Whenever I rent an aircraft for an Angel Flight, I get
>> to deduct the entire cost of the rental.
>>
>
> Found the Federal reimbursements.
>
> Margy
>
>
>
>
> For use of a Your reimbursement is
>
> §301-10.266 Is information available to the public about travel on
> Government aircraft by senior Federal officials and non-Federal
> travelers?
>
>
> Privately owned aircraft
> (e.g., helicopter, except an airplane).
>
>
> Actual cost of operation
> (i.e., fuel, oil, plus the additional expenses listed in §301-10.304).
>
> Yes, an agency that authorizes travel on Government air- craft and an
> agency that owns or hires Government aircraft must make records about
> travelers on those aircraft available to the public in response to
> written requests under the Free- dom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.
> 552), except for portions
>
> Privately owned airplane. 1 1.07
> Privately owned automobile. 1 0.405
> Privately owned motorcycle. 1 0.305
>
> 1 Per mile.
>

Thanks!

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:41:39 -0400, Margy Natalie >
wrote in >:

>If you drive a ****box you might have to fly an ultra-light, i...

The majority of Parisians do not own automobiles.

Margy Natalie schrieb:

> Why would I want to ride
> in a Greyhound bus when I can drive my Audi?

Because you can relax and read a book instead of having to drive?

Stefan

Stefan wrote:
> Margy Natalie schrieb:
>
>> Why would I want to ride in a Greyhound bus when I can drive my Audi?
>
> Because you can relax and read a book instead of having to drive?

I'm guessing you live outside the US. <G>

Our "Greyhound" buses aren't on the same level as buses I've used in
other developed countries. Trust me, you'd choose the Audi.

The same can be said for most US trains.

Larry,

> The majority of Parisians do not own automobiles.
>


Got a source for that? The city sure gives a different impression.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish writes:
>
> > You'll tear the wings off of a normal category plane before you can do
> > either of those.
>
> Normal categories of planes don't usually make the types of moves that
> I dislike, at least if the pilot is competent.

How would you know? You've stated you've never been in a 'normal category'
aircraft. Or have you re-defined 'normal category' in your own mind?

Margy Natalie wrote:

> It's great to own (cheaper to rent unless you fly >100 hrs/yr)

Interesting. How do you arrive at 100 hrs/yr?

Marc

Marc,

> Interesting. How do you arrive at 100 hrs/yr?
>

A rule of thumb. There's a ton of articles and books comparing the cost
of owning and renting. Since all the fixed costs of owning (hangar
rent, insurance et cetera) go down per flight hour the more you fly (as
opposed to the cost per hour, mainly fuel, oil, maintenance), the total
cost per hour goes down the more you fly. At about 100 hours per year,
the profit an FBO makes starts to show itself in a substantial way
compared to the cost of owning.

Oh, and flying 100 hours per year is A LOT for most recreational
pilots.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Margy Natalie writes:

> That's the same as saying I can't afford to own a car because who would
> want a POS Audi when a Rolls is really the only choice!

I see no parallel.

> You seem to want everyone to think flying is only for the rich
> and famous, when in reality it's for anyone who wants to make
> it a reality.

Like owning a home. Of course, lots of people aren't ever going to
own a home, because they just don't have the means.

> Who would want a 747, they are old and big and lumber
> through the skies.

I'd prefer a 737.

> BTW Travolta used to have a Connie, now that was a cool plane.

He has moved up, then.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Margy Natalie writes:

> I think you are being overly sensitive.

I am refractory to personal attacks, but that does not prevent me from
recognizing them, and they are not germane to the discussion.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Dave Doe writes:

> Please define extremely expensive.

More expensive than a car.

> Here in NZ, it costs a couple hundred to get a medical, and say $150/hr
> to fly a plane ("wet" cost, ie you don't pay extra for fuel etc).

Last month I cleared $647.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Steve Foley writes:

> How would you know?

By watching them, or riding in them.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
> > How would you know?
>
> By watching them, or riding in them.


Your ignorance is showing again. You better lookup 'normal category'

Steve Foley writes:

> You better lookup 'normal category'

Where?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > Please define extremely expensive.
>
> More expensive than a car.

I know plenty of people who have spent more on their car than I have on my
plane, so I guess you're wrong again.

>
> > Here in NZ, it costs a couple hundred to get a medical, and say $150/hr
> > to fly a plane ("wet" cost, ie you don't pay extra for fuel etc).
>
> Last month I cleared $647.

Sucks to be you. Get a job.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
> > You better lookup 'normal category'
>
> Where?

Try the FAA. It's probably not on your Microsoft CD.

Steve Foley writes:

> Try the FAA. It's probably not on your Microsoft CD.

The FAA publishes a lot of documentation. Which document did you have
in mind?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
>> Please define extremely expensive.
>
> More expensive than a car.
>

There are plenty of aircraft that cost less than cars.


>> Here in NZ, it costs a couple hundred to get a medical, and say $150/hr
>> to fly a plane ("wet" cost, ie you don't pay extra for fuel etc).
>
> Last month I cleared $647.
>


But not that much less. You need to spend your time on something more
profitable than Flight Sims and trolling newsgroups.

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Oh, and flying 100 hours per year is A LOT for most recreational
> pilots.

Yeah, that would be around two hours every weekend, which is way more
than my schedule would permit, at least now. I might consider it if I
win the lottery/sell my screenplay/inherit those oil wells...

Marc

Mxsmanic > wrote:
[ Regarding aircraft "normal" category asked: ]
> The FAA publishes a lot of documentation. Which document did you have
> in mind?

Part 23 of the U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations contains the
definition. It's online; here's the specific paragraphs:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=b78ff2ca5ea857ecd2471ba8b24dace9&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.10.1.59.3&idno=14

Jim Logajan writes:

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> [ Regarding aircraft "normal" category asked: ]
> > The FAA publishes a lot of documentation. Which document did you have
> > in mind?
>
> Part 23 of the U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations contains the
> definition. It's online; here's the specific paragraphs:
>
> http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=b78ff2ca5ea857ecd2471ba8b24dace9&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.10.1.59.3&idno=14

Thanks. It looks like their definition pretty much matches mine,
especially the "nonacrobatic operation" part.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:00:03 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote in
>:

>Larry,
>
>> The majority of Parisians do not own automobiles.
>>
>
>
>Got a source for that?

No. I attempted to find relevant statistics, but was unsuccessful.

>The city sure gives a different impression.

The roads are congested with traffic, but consider, where would
metropolitan Parisians garage their automobiles?

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:24:45 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Mxsmanic,
>
>> I sorely miss the days when you could
>> go to the airport and walk up to the roof or observation deck to watch
>> planes take off and arrive.
>>
>
>And I'm sure you can quote a substantial number of airports that have
>closed their observation decks? No? Thought so...

MBS which is a relatively small feeder airport (Towerd class D 6 AM to
Midnight)


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:53:16 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Roger (K8RI) writes:
>
>> I love airplanes and we are on the centerline for the GPS 06 approach
>> to 3BS and about a mile and a half in from the FAF. Even when working
>> in the shop I still have to run outside to see what's going over.
>
>I like to watch aircraft, too. I sorely miss the days when you could
>go to the airport and walk up to the roof or observation deck to watch
>planes take off and arrive. Nowadays, it seems you're a terrorist if
>you manifest any interest in aircraft. I never understood what danger
>there was in letting people watch. Even people who take pictures from
>outside the airport are considered terrorists these days.
>
>> On landing I generally run 10 down wind.15 to 20 on base, and about 30
>> until the runway is made and then it's full flaps whether it's windy
>> of calm, gusty or steady. The only time I don't use full flaps is the
>> one or two landings I do every few weeks with no flaps.
>
>Why do you do those landings without flaps?

Practice for the "just-in-case" situation. Flap actuators have been
known to fail. The Deb and Bonanzas have decidedly different landing
characteristics between those big barn door flaps at 40 degrees and
nothing. With full flaps it's a very good short field plane. With no
flaps, it floats and floats and floats in a very nose high attitude if
you wish to touch down at a reasonable speed. Typically with no flaps
I'm looking straight ahead at the center of the instrument panel with
the only forward view being sky. The only view of the runway is in the
forward bottom corners of the front side windows so I can see the
edges of the runway or runway lights. With full flaps the forward
view is very good.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:50:27 -0400, Margy Natalie >
wrote:

>Marty Shapiro wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>Marty Shapiro writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The IRS allows 47.5 cents/mile as the cost to operate a car if its
>>>>use is tax deductible.
>>>
>>>You use IRS figures for the car, but not for the plane. How much does
>>>the IRS allow for operating a plane instead of a car?
>>>
>>
>>
>> I've never found a direct answer for the IRS allowance for private air
>> travel. Whenever I rent an aircraft for an Angel Flight, I get to deduct
>> the entire cost of the rental.
>>
>
>Found the Federal reimbursements.
>
>Margy

For private use of non federal aircraft when I was looking into some
commuting they had several "it depends".

If I were flying my plane to a seminar held for the company I worked
for it wasn't a lot more than cars and back then that wasn't much.
OTOH IF I rented I could deduct the entire cost as long as it didn't
exceed a non discount coach class airfare between the same two
locations.

If I were self employed and using my own plane (consulting) it was
actual cost not to exceed the non discount coach class airfare.
That makes the TBM-700 a bit rich for traveling between sites with
just one person.

The Deb can come just shy of the non discount airfare.
With two in it I'm way ahead of the game.

OTOH the company I worked for prohibited employees flying their own
airplanes on company business. I took a lot of vacations the day
before and the day after a number of schools and seminars. Still,
when I retired they owed me over 90 days of vacation.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 07:30:24 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Margy Natalie writes:
>
>> If you want to fly in a tin can go commercial. Why would I want to ride
>> in a Greyhound bus when I can drive my Audi?
>
>That doesn't answer my question. How much would it cost to rent a 737
>instead of a tiny plastic plane? Just because you prefer a tiny plane
>for your leisure doesn't mean that everyone else feels the same way.

Wellll... At an operating cost that ranges from $11 to $24 per mile
puts the ball park operating cost per hour between $5,500 and $12,000
per hour under airline conditions which are probably going to be the
most efficient as they spend most of their time at altitude. Stay
below 10,000 feet and it'd probably run 50 to 100% more per hour.
BTW in 2001 when fuel was a *lot* cheaper the fuel cost per mile of a
first generation 737 was about as much as the total operating cost of
the latest models.
>
>In reality, I don't know of any practical way to fly large jets in
>real life for pleasure. Even John Travolta doesn't seem to get around
>much in his 707, and it's a crusty old airframe compared to the modern

That 707 is probably more expensive to operate than the above figures
for the 737. On top of that figure the cost per hour goes up
astronomically if the plane isn't flying most of the time.

None of the big iron, that I know of, is single pilot certified.
So to fly one you are going to need to get type certified and take
recurrency training twice a year. On top of that the best you might do
would be to lease one complete with a pilot and copilot.

Based on what I can find, as an individual you might be able to come
up with a 737 for around $15,000 to $20,000 per hour if you are lucky.

>aircraft that some of us might prefer to fly (I'm sure he had to
>compromise, as I don't think he really prefers the 707 to more recent
>equipment).

You can purchase some old airplanes for not much more than scrap
prices, BUT that is still many hundreds of thousands of dollars if not
past the million mark. It's the same reason you can purchase older
piston twins for quite reasonable prices and then find out you can't
afford to fly them.

Look at the differences in maintenance costs between the first
generation 737s (Bout $2.40 per seat per mile) and the latest which I
think was about 70 cents per seat mile.

http://www.unisys.com/transportation/insights/articles/articles.htm?insightsID=88374
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:41:39 -0400, Margy Natalie >
wrote:

>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Margy Natalie writes:
>>
>>
>>>If you want to fly in a tin can go commercial. Why would I want to ride
>>>in a Greyhound bus when I can drive my Audi?
>>
>>
>> That doesn't answer my question. How much would it cost to rent a 737
>> instead of a tiny plastic plane? Just because you prefer a tiny plane
>> for your leisure doesn't mean that everyone else feels the same way.
>>
>> In reality, I don't know of any practical way to fly large jets in
>> real life for pleasure. Even John Travolta doesn't seem to get around
>> much in his 707, and it's a crusty old airframe compared to the modern
>> aircraft that some of us might prefer to fly (I'm sure he had to
>> compromise, as I don't think he really prefers the 707 to more recent
>> equipment).
>>
>That's the same as saying I can't afford to own a car because who would
>want a POS Audi when a Rolls is really the only choice! You seem to
>want everyone to think flying is only for the rich and famous, when in
>reality it's for anyone who wants to make it a reality. No, you can't
>have a 747, but you can't have a Rolls either. If you drive a ****box
>you might have to fly an ultra-light, if you have the Rolls you might
>have a G-4. Who would want a 747, they are old and big and lumber
>through the skies. BTW Travolta used to have a Connie, now that was a
>cool plane.

Amen!

We were taking off from Detroit metro with a Connie rolling out in
front of us and a 707 on short final. We went over the Connie as it
turned off and the 707 rolled past under us. That sure was a pretty
sight. (Things were a bit different back in those days)<:-))


>
>Margy
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:58:00 GMT, B A R R Y >
wrote:

>Stefan wrote:
>> Margy Natalie schrieb:
>>
>>> Why would I want to ride in a Greyhound bus when I can drive my Audi?
>>
>> Because you can relax and read a book instead of having to drive?
>
>I'm guessing you live outside the US. <G>
>
>Our "Greyhound" buses aren't on the same level as buses I've used in
>other developed countries. Trust me, you'd choose the Audi.

Back seat of a DC-9. Sounds like a Greyhound, feels/vibrates like a
Greyhound, and smells(Kerosene) like a Greyhound. One seat farther
back is a private room which smells like a chemical out house but
cleaner.

>
>The same can be said for most US trains.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 07:53:43 -0400, "mike regish"
> wrote:

>The Super Decathlon I flew for aerobatic lessons (a taildragger) has
>excellent over the nose visibility on the ground...better than my tripacer.
>I had a hard time levelling out at altitude because the view was almost too
>good. I kept unconsciously trying to get the same sight picture I was used
>to in my TP.

When I let Cherokee and 172 pilots fly the Deb we end up constantly
climbing. That is after we get rid of the PIO.<:-))
>
>mike
>
>"Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message >
>> True for tail draggers, but in a tricycle gear aircraft you have an
>> excellent view of the runway.
>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Marty Shapiro
>> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>>
>> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 07:33:17 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Marty Shapiro writes:
>
>> No more so than the hood of a car extends beyond the front window. You
>> can't see the ground immediately in front of you, but you can see the
>> ground in front of you.
>
>How much of the runway can you see from the cockpit?
>
>> The instrument panel is only imposing when you are not a pilot.
>
>Pilots must be extremely tall, then.

I've found that this is one of the things most of the sims get wrong.
To get the panel in they end up raising it higher than it would be
IRL. With the little Cessnas I find it to be raised considerably.

The Baron OTOH is pretty close to reality.

>
>> After a while, it is no more imposing than the "instrument
>> panel" in your car. Even when you are on an IFR flight, if the weather
>> conditions are VMC, you've got to look out of the window. You also have to
>> be able to see in front of you to taxi to the runway.

Just look to the side and follow the yellow line.
>
>At the viewing angles I see for small craft (particular those that
>don't sit level on the ground), it should be practically impossible to
>see much of the runway.

As I mentioned in another post, when I land the Deb with no flaps
there is absolutely no forward visibility except up.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:57:15 -0400, Margy Natalie >
wrote:

>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Peter Duniho writes:
>>
>>
>>>Here is where I find myself agreeing with the people that say you make a LOT
>>>of supposedly factual statements about flying that are based on faulty
>>>information. That is, your believe that a computer simulation (and
>>>Microsoft Flight Simulator in particular) is accurate enough for you to
>>>actually know what you're talking about when it comes to flying.
>>
>>
>> It's not really based on Flight Simulator. It's based on a common
>> complaint I've heard from people who are contemplating a real pilot's
>> license.
>>
>>
>>>Please, you do NOT know what you are talking about when it comes to
>>>*flying*. Piloting a sim, I'm sure you know lots. But you consistently get
>>>it wrong when you try to apply that experience to real flying. You would do
>>>well to leave your assumptions behind, and restrict yourself to asking
>>>questions.
>>
>>
>> You would do well to leave your personal attacks behind, and restrict
>> yourself to answering questions. There are plenty of people who
>> specialize in the former, and very few qualified to handle the latter.
>>
>I think you are being overly sensitive. Many of the things you say are
>a "common complaint you've heard ..." are absolutely UNTRUE. I'm SHORT,
>in a 172 I use a booster seat, but not in the Navion. I can see

You should see Joyce in the Deb. She can not reach the floor with her
feet and on top of that uses the booster seat so she can see over the
nose.
OTOH The Deb has fantastic visibility in the air although I'd guess
the Navion has better visibility.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
>> Please define extremely expensive.
>
> More expensive than a car.
>
>> Here in NZ, it costs a couple hundred to get a medical, and say $150/hr
>> to fly a plane ("wet" cost, ie you don't pay extra for fuel etc).
>
> Last month I cleared $647.

Then you should spend your free time getting an education that would allow
you to qualify for a better job.

>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 07:33:57 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> Listen, if you don't want to fly, so be it. But don't try to
>> rationalize it.
>
>If you want to fly, so be it. But don't try to say that it's not
>extremely expensive.

Although there some aspects of flying that are not inexpensive such as
earning the PPL, BUT flying, even a lot does not have to be expensive.
There are planes at our airport that probably cost no more to operate
than it does to drive a car. and you don't have to go to unltalights
to do it. Admittedly they are small and most are two passenger with
relatively small engines. OTOH some of them will move at close to a
150 to 160 MPH with ranges in the neighborhood of 500 miles and do it
while burning less than 4 gallons of car gas per hour.

There are many types of airplanes and many types of flying. The cost
of flying light planes easily spans more than $20 to $200 USD per
hour.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Larry,

> The roads are congested with traffic, but consider, where would
> metropolitan Parisians garage their automobiles?
>

Have you been there? The city is full of a) cars parked by the roadside
and b) parking garages.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Roger (K8RI) writes:

> Wellll... At an operating cost that ranges from $11 to $24 per mile
> puts the ball park operating cost per hour between $5,500 and $12,000
> per hour under airline conditions which are probably going to be the
> most efficient as they spend most of their time at altitude.

So a private owner of a large aircraft would be paying at least as
much to operate it, and probably much more?

That would an expensive way to travel. Then again, a private owner
could buy a BBJ, but I don't see how it could cost any less to operate
than the commercial versions of the same aircraft.

> None of the big iron, that I know of, is single pilot certified.
> So to fly one you are going to need to get type certified and take
> recurrency training twice a year. On top of that the best you might do
> would be to lease one complete with a pilot and copilot.

I was wondering about that in the aforementioned case of John
Travolta. He needs a copilot and engineer to fly his 707, doesn't he?

> Based on what I can find, as an individual you might be able to come
> up with a 737 for around $15,000 to $20,000 per hour if you are lucky.

I remember paying about $39 for flights from KPHX to KLAX in the
1980s, and if there are only 200 passengers on board, that works out
to $7800 in revenue for the flight, which respresents more than an
hour of operation. So that would be $22,500 or so of operational
costs for only $7800 in revenue. How did the airline make any money?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Stadt writes:
>
>> Then you should spend your free time getting an education that would
>> allow
>> you to qualify for a better job.
>
> I had one. But all the better jobs have moved to Bangalore and
> Mumbai. And if your job doesn't actually require physically shaking
> the customer's hand, you may find it going abroad soon, too.

I spent a month in Paris on business some years back and I fully understand
why jobs have left the country.


> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:31:49 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote in
>:

>Larry,
>
>> The roads are congested with traffic, but consider, where would
>> metropolitan Parisians garage their automobiles?
>>
>
>Have you been there?

A few times. Have you been there?

>The city is full of a) cars parked by the roadside

It is very difficult to find on-street parking in metropolitan Paris;
many park on the sidewalks. While the streets are full of
automobiles, many are taxis, buses, and delivery trucks, not family
automobiles.

Also, consider the number of riders on public transport (Metro,
busses), they far outnumber those riding in automobiles.

Suffice it to say, automobile ownership in Paris (and France, and
indeed Europe) is no where near mandatory as it is in the US.
>
>and b) parking garages.

Other than the parking structure at CDG, I don't recall seeing many
parking garages at all.

Dave Stadt writes:

> I spent a month in Paris on business some years back and I fully understand
> why jobs have left the country.

Paris is in much better shape than most cities. The phenomenon is
worldwide and has nothing to do with specific metropolitan areas.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Stadt writes:
>
>> I spent a month in Paris on business some years back and I fully
>> understand
>> why jobs have left the country.
>
> Paris is in much better shape than most cities. The phenomenon is
> worldwide and has nothing to do with specific metropolitan areas.

It has everything to do with employee ethics and labor laws. France falls
short on all accounts. It is not a world wide phenomeon.

> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Stefan wrote:
> Margy Natalie schrieb:
>
>> Why would I want to ride in a Greyhound bus when I can drive my Audi?
>
>
> Because you can relax and read a book instead of having to drive?
>
> Stefan
Only if it's in traffic. I will take the Metro rather than drive into
DC during rush hour, but I'll drive on the weekends. I still don't
think I would deal with Greyhound. I'd rather fly the Navion rather
than take the airlines, so when we go to NC it's in the Navion (or even
the Audi), but to CA it's the airlines.

Margy

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:57:15 -0400, Margy Natalie >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>I think you are being overly sensitive. Many of the things you say are
>>a "common complaint you've heard ..." are absolutely UNTRUE. I'm SHORT,
>>in a 172 I use a booster seat, but not in the Navion. I can see
>
>
> You should see Joyce in the Deb. She can not reach the floor with her
> feet and on top of that uses the booster seat so she can see over the
> nose.
> OTOH The Deb has fantastic visibility in the air although I'd guess
> the Navion has better visibility.
>
One of the reasons we got the Navion is that it was one of VERY few
aircraft that both Ron (6'1") and I (5'2", when I round UP) could fly.
With the new interior (new foam too) I don't even use the booster seat
anymore :-),

Margy

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>
>>Have you been there? The city is full of a) cars parked by the roadside
>>and b) parking garages.
>
>
> There are eleven million people in the metropolitan area. Six million
> of them are transported daily by public transportation. The cars one
> sees represent only a minority of the population.
>
But does that mean they have no car? Here in the DC area MANY people
drive to the closest park and ride to be transported daily by public
transportation.

Margy

Marc Adler wrote:
> Margy Natalie wrote:
>
>
>>It's great to own (cheaper to rent unless you fly >100 hrs/yr)
>
>
> Interesting. How do you arrive at 100 hrs/yr?
>
> Marc
>
That's considered about the average break even point. We try not to
count up how much we spend on flying, it makes it easier for us :-).

Margy

Margy Natalie writes:

> But does that mean they have no car?

For people living in the city proper, yes, it generally does. There's
no place to put a car without spending a lot on a garage, and
everything about a car is expensive, and public transportation is
superlative.

> Here in the DC area MANY people
> drive to the closest park and ride to be transported daily by public
> transportation.

There's no comparison between public transit in DC and that in Paris.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Dave Stadt writes:

> It has everything to do with employee ethics and labor laws. France falls
> short on all accounts. It is not a world wide phenomeon.

I know of many companies that are doing this worldwide (at least
throughout the developed world). Some of them are firing essentially
everyone except top management.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Larry,

> Suffice it to say, automobile ownership in Paris (and France, and
> indeed Europe) is no where near mandatory as it is in the US.
>

Agreed.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mxsmanic,

> and
> everything about a car is expensive
>

Ah, just like flying.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mxsmanic,

> The phenomenon is
> worldwide a
>

That begs the question "Whereto are the jobs leaving?"

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
> I spent a month in Paris on business some years back and I fully
understand
> why jobs have left the country.

Because the country if filled with French?

Roger (K8RI) wrote:

> Back seat of a DC-9. Sounds like a Greyhound, feels/vibrates like a
> Greyhound, and smells(Kerosene) like a Greyhound. One seat farther
> back is a private room which smells like a chemical out house but
> cleaner.

Been there, and agree. <G>

Last flight of the day, too!

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I spent a month in Paris on business some years back and I fully
> understand
>> why jobs have left the country.
>
> Because the country if filled with French?


Yep, after a while I was surprised anything got done.

Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> Mxsmanic,
>> The phenomenon is worldwide
>
> That begs the question "Whereto are the jobs leaving?"

If it's software related, the work is sometimes outsourced to India, China,
and eastern Europe (lower cost) and away from North America and western
Europe (higher cost). The issue was noticed most by software developers
when the dot-com bubble burst. Classic free market situation, really. But
the situation isn't as bad today as it was for software developers a couple
years ago, though.

Jim,

> If it's software related, the work is sometimes outsourced to India, China,
> and eastern Europe (lower cost) and away from North America and western
> Europe (higher cost).
>

You misunderstand. If jobs are leaving "worldwide", they have to leave "the
world".

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert writes:

> That begs the question "Whereto are the jobs leaving?"

Eastern Europe, Africa, India, China, Southeast Asia, depending on a
number of factors.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:51:38 -0400, Margy Natalie >
wrote:

>Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:57:15 -0400, Margy Natalie >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I think you are being overly sensitive. Many of the things you say are
>>>a "common complaint you've heard ..." are absolutely UNTRUE. I'm SHORT,
>>>in a 172 I use a booster seat, but not in the Navion. I can see
>>
>>
>> You should see Joyce in the Deb. She can not reach the floor with her
>> feet and on top of that uses the booster seat so she can see over the
>> nose.
>> OTOH The Deb has fantastic visibility in the air although I'd guess
>> the Navion has better visibility.
>>
>One of the reasons we got the Navion is that it was one of VERY few
>aircraft that both Ron (6'1") and I (5'2", when I round UP) could fly.

Margy, you are quite tall compared to Joyce.

>With the new interior (new foam too) I don't even use the booster seat
>anymore :-),
>
>Margy
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com