Barry Schiff "Back to Basics"

[Frank Whiteley]

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2011/july/proficient.html

[Tour egyptclub]

On Jun 25, 12:19*pm, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2011/july/proficient.html

Visit Egypt www.touregyptclub.net

[Frank Paynter[_2_]]

On Jun 25, 12:19*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2011/july/proficient.html

Very nice article!

TA

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jun 26, 8:02*pm, Frank Paynter > wrote:
> On Jun 25, 12:19*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
> >http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2011/july/proficient.html
>
> Very nice article!
>
> TA

Yes all good stuff for us but he's likely to be considered a heretic
by the average AOPA member. Did you see the reaction in the AOPA
magazine letters to his article on turning back after engine failure?
I suppose I should have written in support of that article since I
have taught several airplane pilots how to make engine loss turn backs
with minimum altitude loss.

Andy

[Bill D]

On Jun 29, 3:50*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Jun 26, 8:02*pm, Frank Paynter > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 25, 12:19*am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
> > >http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2011/july/proficient.html
>
> > Very nice article!
>
> > TA
>
> Yes all good stuff for us but he's likely to be considered a heretic
> by the average AOPA member. *Did you see the reaction in the AOPA
> magazine letters to his article on turning back after engine failure?
> I suppose I should have written in support of that article since I
> have taught several airplane pilots how to make engine loss turn backs
> with minimum altitude loss.
>
> Andy

At an airshow glider display I was getting some static from a pilot
whose loud opinion was "real" pilots have throttles - the more the
better. I just said "$500 to fill your tanks" and he got "real"
quiet.

For a small but increasing minority of airplane pilots, their thoughts
are converging on the idea they will have to find more money for fuel
or learn to fly a glider.

Bill D

[Nyal Williams[_2_]]

Listen to a bunch of throttle holders talking about flying; what they like
to discuss is systems -- never anything else.



At 15:48 01 July 2011, Bill D wrote:
>On Jun 29, 3:50=A0pm, Andy wrote:
>> On Jun 26, 8:02=A0pm, Frank Paynter wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 25, 12:19=A0am, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>>
>> > >http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2011/july/proficient.html
>>
>> > Very nice article!
>>
>> > TA
>>
>> Yes all good stuff for us but he's likely to be considered a heretic
>> by the average AOPA member. =A0Did you see the reaction in the AOPA
>> magazine letters to his article on turning back after engine failure?
>> I suppose I should have written in support of that article since I
>> have taught several airplane pilots how to make engine loss turn backs
>> with minimum altitude loss.
>>
>> Andy
>
>At an airshow glider display I was getting some static from a pilot
>whose loud opinion was "real" pilots have throttles - the more the
>better. I just said "$500 to fill your tanks" and he got "real"
>quiet.
>
>For a small but increasing minority of airplane pilots, their thoughts
>are converging on the idea they will have to find more money for fuel
>or learn to fly a glider.
>
>Bill D
>

[Mark628CA]

When I hear some pilots sneer at soaring (or Hang Gliding, or
ParaGliding or whatever), saying "I'd rather have an engine," I just
tell them that an engine is a handy thing to have- If you don't know
how to fly.

[Bill D]

On Jul 1, 11:30*pm, Mark628CA > wrote:
> When I hear some pilots sneer at soaring (or Hang Gliding, or
> ParaGliding or whatever), saying "I'd rather have an engine," I just
> tell them that an engine is a handy thing to have- If you don't know
> how to fly.

I'll usually try a gentler approach. I say if your need is pure
transportation, a light airplane may make sense. But, if you interest
is flying just for the fun of it, soaring deserves serious
consideration.

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > Bill D > writes:

>At an airshow glider display I was getting some static from a pilot
>whose loud opinion was "real" pilots have throttles - the more the
>better. I just said "$500 to fill your tanks" and he got "real"
>quiet.

However, with a powered aircraft, I can fill the tanks for about $250,
and then head off for about 600 - 700 nautical miles. When there, another
$250 or so, and I can return home.

The glider spends some money on the tow to get started, then at the end
of the 600 trip out, is likely looking for some friend of family to tow
the trailer out to get him. If the route is as direct in the ground
vehicle, he goes 600 * 1.15 miles. Guessing 16 mpg, he goes through about
43 gal. of gasoline each way, and at $3.80/gal costs about $328 in fuel
for that return.


The cost difference may be that the powered aircraft much more frequently
completes the trip to somewhere else (and returns), while most glider flights
are fairly local.

Alan

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 7/2/2011 8:41 PM, Alan wrote:
> In > Bill > writes:
>
>> At an airshow glider display I was getting some static from a pilot
>> whose loud opinion was "real" pilots have throttles - the more the
>> better. I just said "$500 to fill your tanks" and he got "real"
>> quiet.
>
> However, with a powered aircraft, I can fill the tanks for about $250,
> and then head off for about 600 - 700 nautical miles. When there, another
> $250 or so, and I can return home.
>
> The glider spends some money on the tow to get started, then at the end
> of the 600 trip out, is likely looking for some friend of family to tow
> the trailer out to get him. If the route is as direct in the ground
> vehicle, he goes 600 * 1.15 miles. Guessing 16 mpg, he goes through about
> 43 gal. of gasoline each way, and at $3.80/gal costs about $328 in fuel
> for that return.
>
>
> The cost difference may be that the powered aircraft much more frequently
> completes the trip to somewhere else (and returns), while most glider flights
> are fairly local.

Your comparison seems to miss the point just as much as that "real" pilot.

You are buying distance, the glider pilot is buying flying. Cost
comparisons are meaningless in that case. The glider pilot bought an
exceptional amount of flying that is not measured in just miles, but
great satisfaction. The power pilot likely did not have an exceptional
flying experience, but it still cost him a bundle.

The costs of owning and operating an aircraft are much more complex than
the fuel burned in an airplane and the retrieve cost for the glider, so
the numbers used in your example are not even a good measure of the cost
per year.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

[Bill D]

On Jul 2, 9:41*pm, (Alan) wrote:
> In article > Bill D > writes:
>
> >At an airshow glider display I was getting some static from a pilot
> >whose loud opinion was "real" pilots have throttles - the more the
> >better. *I just said "$500 to fill your tanks" and he got "real"
> >quiet.
>
> * However, with a powered aircraft, I can fill the tanks for about $250,
> and then head off for about 600 - 700 nautical miles. *When there, another
> $250 or so, and I can return home.
>
> * The glider spends some money on the tow to get started, then at the end
> of the 600 trip out, is likely looking for some friend of family to tow
> the trailer out to get him. *If the route is as direct in the ground
> vehicle, he goes 600 * 1.15 miles. *Guessing 16 mpg, he goes through about
> 43 gal. *of gasoline each way, and at $3.80/gal costs about $328 in fuel
> for that return.
>
> * The cost difference may be that the powered aircraft much more frequently
> completes the trip to somewhere else (and returns), while most glider flights
> are fairly local.
>
> * * * * Alan

I agree with Eric. Using the airplane thought process to analyze
costs just doesn't work with gliders. Airplanes are about miles and
speed which assumes you actually need miles and speed. The problem is
that assumption is often wrong but is nonetheless used to justify
airplane ownership. (Been there, done that.)

Light airplanes can be justified by the need to visit one or more
remote cities not served by airlines in one day then get home to sleep
in your own bed. However, for most owners, those trips are rare.
Most trips can be done by other means which are cheaper, faster or
where speed isn't that important.

It may be true that most glider flights are local but that's by
choice, not necessity. Gliders CAN make long, exciting XC flights but
even that isn't the justification. Pure fun and the challenge of
flight is.

I suggest people be brutally honest with themselves and decide whether
their desire to fly is motivated by a real need for frequent back
country travel or just as a fun activity. If the former, there's no
doubt they need an airplane. If the latter, there are lots of sport
aviation pursuits but soaring should be near the top of their list.

[BobW]

On 7/3/2011 10:05 AM, Bill D wrote:
> On Jul 2, 9:41 pm, (Alan) wrote:
>> In > Bill > writes:
>>
>>> At an airshow glider display I was getting some static from a pilot
>>> whose loud opinion was "real" pilots have throttles - the more the
>>> better. I just said "$500 to fill your tanks" and he got "real"
>>> quiet.
>>
>> However, with a powered aircraft, I can fill the tanks for about $250,
>> and then head off for about 600 - 700 nautical miles. When there, another
>> $250 or so, and I can return home.
<Remainder of similar analysis snipped...>
>>
>>
>> Alan
>
> I agree with Eric. Using the airplane thought process to analyze
> costs just doesn't work with gliders. Airplanes are about miles and
> speed which assumes you actually need miles and speed. The problem is
> that assumption is often wrong but is nonetheless used to justify
> airplane ownership. (Been there, done that.)
>
> Light airplanes can be justified by the need to visit one or more
> remote cities not served by airlines in one day then get home to sleep
> in your own bed. However, for most owners, those trips are rare.
> Most trips can be done by other means which are cheaper, faster or
> where speed isn't that important.
>
> It may be true that most glider flights are local but that's by
> choice, not necessity. Gliders CAN make long, exciting XC flights but
> even that isn't the justification. Pure fun and the challenge of
> flight is.
<Snip...>

"Roger that last sentence!"

After ~40 years of participation in 'flying for fun' (mostly soaring), I
recently participated in my Very First vulgar downwind dash...as Joe Crew.
Proving that ships of 1-26 performance are incapable of XC, Joe Pilot somehow
managed to soar a 45-year-old wooden homebuilt sailplane having no more than
1-26 performance, some 240 crow miles on a blue, so-so day, all the while
easily beating Joe Crew in the speed department across 4 (very sparsely
populated, well-roaded) western states. Great flight. Great fun. Great story!
If someone can ever convince Joe Pilot to stop soaring for long enough to
chime in, I hope we'll be able to share it in writing soon!

Bob - J. Crew - W.

[Jim Beckman[_2_]]

At 16:05 03 July 2011, Bill D wrote:

>Light airplanes can be justified by the need to visit one or more
>remote cities not served by airlines in one day then get home to sleep
>in your own bed. However, for most owners, those trips are rare.
>Most trips can be done by other means which are cheaper, faster or
>where speed isn't that important.

Depends on the aircraft, I suppose. If you've got a Piper
Cub, Aeronca, Cessna 120, anything along those lines,
you're not looking for miles and speed, because those
airplanes ain't gonna deliver in that department. You
fly them for fun, for the sake of flying. The advantage I
see (saw back when I did that sort of thing) was that you
could go anytime and you didn't need any help.

Apples and oranges. Or maybe oranges and kumquats.

Jim Beckman

[Ventus_a]

On Jun 29, 3:50*pm, Andy wrote:
On Jun 26, 8:02*pm, Frank Paynter wrote:

On Jun 25, 12:19*am, Frank Whiteley wrote:

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2011/july/proficient.html

Very nice article!

TA

Yes all good stuff for us but he's likely to be considered a heretic
by the average AOPA member. *Did you see the reaction in the AOPA
magazine letters to his article on turning back after engine failure?
I suppose I should have written in support of that article since I
have taught several airplane pilots how to make engine loss turn backs
with minimum altitude loss.

Andy

At an airshow glider display I was getting some static from a pilot
whose loud opinion was "real" pilots have throttles - the more the
better. I just said "$500 to fill your tanks" and he got "real"
quiet.

For a small but increasing minority of airplane pilots, their thoughts
are converging on the idea they will have to find more money for fuel
or learn to fly a glider.

Bill D


I like to point out to power pilots that all powerplanes are just gliders waiting for an engine failure. Tends to make most of them somewhat contemplative.

In case anyone was to get the wrong idea, I do like power pilots. They fly towplanes :-)

Colin