At Least He's Honest. Would This Attitude Have 'Saved' Light Airplane Business??

[[email protected]]

The following is one (high end audio) manufacturer's warning
boilerplate:


OK, You've been warned. This is a special experimental and/or
developmental product that does not belong in the hands of an ordinary
consumer. If you incur damage by ignoring this advice, just remember
that
you're dealing with Nevada corporations with no assets and no
insurance.

[Denny]

Love it!... Yes, if more businesses structured this way ATLA would have
to lower it's annual membership dues to stay in business...

True story:
Stanley, is a person I know well enough to be privy to the inside
information... He manufactures and markets custom audio products
(primarily stereo amps, CB audio equipment, etc.) for retailers to sell
under private labels... Got served with a subpoena with a claim for
damages: severe injury, defective design, can't get it up anymore, loss
of consortium, yadda, yadda, etc... Stanley advised the attorney and
the judge that the product could not cause any injury unless horribly
misused, that the offshore corporation which actually owned the product
(legally he was merely an employee) had no insurance and no assets, and
did not intend to appear for deposition or court... Got served
multiple notices to court which 'the corporation' ignored... The judge
awarded a default judgement of many hundreds of thousands of dollars
(Stanley was told later that judge was literally in a rage over being
ignored - no sense of humor, tsk, tsk).. At this point the plaintiff
must have seen the handwriting on the wall because he bailed out,
signing over his part of the 'windfall' to the attorney as payment of
his fee... When the attorney tried to collect he was again informed
that there were no assets... The attorney marched into the factory
with a squad of deputy sheriffs and a paper stating that he owned the
company...

Fine, the production foreman said, smiled, put on his coat, and walked
out... The majority of the workers took one look at the big city,
weasel, lawyer - who was standing on a crate and yelling that they now
worked for him - put on their coats and followed the foreman...
Within hours the attorney found that the building was leased on a
monthly basis (8 days left to the next lease payment, bubba!) - the
machinery was leased (ditto) - the employees were from a national
temp-labor company (ditto)... There was not a scrap of paper, blue
print, production manual, order sheet, customer list, bills, etc., in
the factory - all this was performed by a separate corporation and
transmitted to work stations in the factory... When the foreman made
a single phone call from his car as he left (computers were also
leased), the internet connection hung up and the attorney was left with
nothing but blank screens.. The machined/molded/stamped parts and
circuit boards were made in Taiwan under an exclusive contract to a
Bahamian Corporation and not available to anyone else... In the end
all the plaintiff's attorney got was a bunch of bills and and a few
dozen completed amplifiers; as the new owner under the law (heh heh) he
inherited the assets (essentially zero) and the liabilities (lease and
labor bills now due), and no way to manufacture new product...

Within weeks Stanley had another factory up and running under another
corporation, producing an identical line of amplifiers for his private
label customers...

Denny

[Dave S]

Denny wrote:

> Love it!... Yes, if more businesses structured this way ATLA would have
> to lower it's annual membership dues to stay in business...
>
> True story:
(SNIP)
>
> Within weeks Stanley had another factory up and running under another
> corporation, producing an identical line of amplifiers for his private
> label customers...
>
> Denny
>

Yea... its a shame that Cessna, Piper and Grumman dont operate that way,
eh? (sardonic grin)

Dave

[Denny]

Of course, a big ticket manufacturer is in a different ball game... Non
the less, if more businesse in the Untied States were structured so
that there are no deep pockets to go after, there would be a marked
diminishment in frivolous suits, including against the big guys...
There are attorneys who make a career out of looking for deep pockets
to sue - for a huge chunk of the judgement of course - knowing that
they will lose 9 suits out of every 10... But, that tenth suit is like
winning the lottery, Christmas, and having your rich uncle leave you
everything, all rolled into one... If the first nine deep pockets
aren't there the tenth suit is going to be fewer and farther between...
Grin right back at ya... Denny

[G.R. Patterson III]

Denny wrote:
>
> Of course, a big ticket manufacturer is in a different ball game... Non
> the less, if more businesse in the Untied States were structured so
> that there are no deep pockets to go after, there would be a marked
> diminishment in frivolous suits, including against the big guys...

We're working on it. It's called "offshoring."

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[LGHarlan]

In the real world, Stanley would have lost all his private label customers as
soon as I filed a motion-under any of half a dozen pretexts-that allowed me to
deposition his customers' employees. Once he (and more importantly, they)
learned that the customers of any enterprise vaguely related to his previous
business were going to have their employees subjected to interrogatories and
depositions, he'd have to go to work at McDonalds.

Judges really, really, really hate being ignored.

[Howard Nelson]

"LGHarlan" > wrote in message
...
> In the real world, Stanley would have lost all his private label customers
as
> soon as I filed a motion-under any of half a dozen pretexts-that allowed
me to
> deposition his customers' employees. Once he (and more importantly, they)
> learned that the customers of any enterprise vaguely related to his
previous
> business were going to have their employees subjected to interrogatories
and
> depositions, he'd have to go to work at McDonalds.
>
> Judges really, really, really hate being ignored.

In the real world you wouldn't file a motion since the likelihood of
recovery from Stanley isn't high enough.

In the real world you might soon have to learn how to file motions in
Bangalore or Shanghai.

In the real world your grandchildren probably will work in a "service"
industry (hospitality, medicine. law, financial or government) to purchase
hard goods from Asia and Latin America.

In the real world the next generation of lawyers won't be flying airplanes
because either effective tort reform will happen or the only Americans left
with enough assets remaining to be targets of suits will be other lawyers.

Howard
C182
"The best is the enemy of the good"


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004

[G.R. Patterson III]

LGHarlan wrote:
>
> In the real world, Stanley would have lost all his private label customers as
> soon as I filed a motion-under any of half a dozen pretexts-that allowed me to
> deposition his customers' employees.

Bull****.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[jls]

"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Love it!... Yes, if more businesses structured this way ATLA would have
> to lower it's annual membership dues to stay in business...
>
> True story:
> Stanley, is a person I know well enough to be privy to the inside
> information... He manufactures and markets custom audio products
> (primarily stereo amps, CB audio equipment, etc.) for retailers to sell
> under private labels... Got served with a subpoena with a claim for
> damages: severe injury, defective design, can't get it up anymore, loss
> of consortium, yadda, yadda, etc... Stanley advised the attorney and
> the judge that the product could not cause any injury unless horribly
> misused, that the offshore corporation which actually owned the product
> (legally he was merely an employee) had no insurance and no assets, and
> did not intend to appear for deposition or court... Got served
> multiple notices to court which 'the corporation' ignored... The judge
> awarded a default judgement of many hundreds of thousands of dollars
> (Stanley was told later that judge was literally in a rage over being
> ignored - no sense of humor, tsk, tsk).. At this point the plaintiff
> must have seen the handwriting on the wall because he bailed out,
> signing over his part of the 'windfall' to the attorney as payment of
> his fee... When the attorney tried to collect he was again informed
> that there were no assets... The attorney marched into the factory
> with a squad of deputy sheriffs and a paper stating that he owned the
> company...
>
> Fine, the production foreman said, smiled, put on his coat, and walked
> out... The majority of the workers took one look at the big city,
> weasel, lawyer - who was standing on a crate and yelling that they now
> worked for him - put on their coats and followed the foreman...
> Within hours the attorney found that the building was leased on a
> monthly basis (8 days left to the next lease payment, bubba!) - the
> machinery was leased (ditto) - the employees were from a national
> temp-labor company (ditto)... There was not a scrap of paper, blue
> print, production manual, order sheet, customer list, bills, etc., in
> the factory - all this was performed by a separate corporation and
> transmitted to work stations in the factory... When the foreman made
> a single phone call from his car as he left (computers were also
> leased), the internet connection hung up and the attorney was left with
> nothing but blank screens.. The machined/molded/stamped parts and
> circuit boards were made in Taiwan under an exclusive contract to a
> Bahamian Corporation and not available to anyone else... In the end
> all the plaintiff's attorney got was a bunch of bills and and a few
> dozen completed amplifiers; as the new owner under the law (heh heh) he
> inherited the assets (essentially zero) and the liabilities (lease and
> labor bills now due), and no way to manufacture new product...
>
> Within weeks Stanley had another factory up and running under another
> corporation, producing an identical line of amplifiers for his private
> label customers...
>
> Denny

Another one for Snopes.com although not quite as well-concocted or
believable.

[LGHarlan]

My _grandchildren_? How about me. If I could earn a decent living driving
rivets, I would never have went to law school. Think about it.

Just as outlawing abortion will hapen when Republican legislators no longer
have teenage daughters, effective tort reform will happen when Republican
administrations and legislators can do without highly motivated attorneys-the
kind who play for blood more than money.

If your Stanley ****ed me off collecting from him would be my last worry.
Making him incapable of pursuing his chosen avenue of business in a profitable
fashion is the goal. Make one or two defendants miserable enough and the louder
they squawk...the more future defendants and their insurors will take you
seriously. In the tort business, going to trial means in effect you've already
lost the case in question. It's about settling, out of court, confidentially
and quickly. You have to "make your bones", and the full house hand is the
news coverage of the defendant who goes from CEO to burger flipper or who takes
a Smith and Wesson retirement. Sad, I suppose...but so are the companies who
sell split rim truck wheels, or for that matter, light twins that won't climb
out at full legal gross from Denver to people (with families) they know are not
Chuck Yeager. Are we any worse?

[Almarz]

Ha! And in the real world, storytellers like you make a nice living
with their fiction!

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 22:05:30 GMT, "Howard Nelson"
> wrote:

>
>"LGHarlan" > wrote in message
...
>> In the real world, Stanley would have lost all his private label customers
>as
>> soon as I filed a motion-under any of half a dozen pretexts-that allowed
>me to
>> deposition his customers' employees. Once he (and more importantly, they)
>> learned that the customers of any enterprise vaguely related to his
>previous
>> business were going to have their employees subjected to interrogatories
>and
>> depositions, he'd have to go to work at McDonalds.
>>
>> Judges really, really, really hate being ignored.
>
>In the real world you wouldn't file a motion since the likelihood of
>recovery from Stanley isn't high enough.
>
>In the real world you might soon have to learn how to file motions in
>Bangalore or Shanghai.
>
>In the real world your grandchildren probably will work in a "service"
>industry (hospitality, medicine. law, financial or government) to purchase
>hard goods from Asia and Latin America.
>
>In the real world the next generation of lawyers won't be flying airplanes
>because either effective tort reform will happen or the only Americans left
>with enough assets remaining to be targets of suits will be other lawyers.
>
>Howard
>C182
>"The best is the enemy of the good"
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004
>

[Denny]

LG, your post is a veritable primer on ATLA....

Denny

[Michael]

>Sad, I suppose...but so are the companies who
>sell split rim truck wheels, or for that matter, light twins that
won't climb
>out at full legal gross from Denver to people (with families) they
know are not
>Chuck Yeager. Are we any worse?

Yes. You're much worse. I don't know anything about split rim truck
wheels, but I know rather a lot about light twins that won't climb out
at full legal gross from Denver (which is most of them). I have
hundreds of hours in several of them. Do you?

The light twin that won't climb out on one engine at full gross from
Denver will cheerfully hold altitude 4000 ft above the hills of
Arkansas (and 500 ft above a cloud deck) after one engine takes a dump
in cruise - and you don't need to be Chuck Yeager to make it do it. In
fact, it was doing it while being flown by a very lightly coached
student pilot. If I had to have a twin that WOULD climb out from
Denver at full gross on one engine, I couldn't afford it and would be
flying a single. That would have made my life really interesting when
the engine failed 500 ft above a solid cloud deck over the hills of
Arkansas.

Or, to put it in general terms - you would take away from me the
capability to keep flying 95% of the time, in order to what? To keep
me from needing to make a decision no to try it the other 5% of the
time? When it's obvious from reading the flight manual that it won't
work anyway?

The company that made this light twin did something very useful - it
provided an airplane for me and people like me that would often (but
not always) give us options not available in a single engine airplane -
and you would fault them for not building the airplane so that it would
ALWAYS give those options - at a price and operating cost we can't
afford. That's nuts. They produced a valuable product, and it would
be a shame if some lawyer shut them down - which, unfortunately, is in
large part what happened.

Michael

[[email protected]]

I used to sell split rims in the '70s. They were no more dangerous
than one-piece rims if they were used properly, and there was the
catch: they weren't idiot-proof. There are many non-interchangeable
styles of side and lock rings, and stupid people would mix them up and
blow themselves to bits when the thing came apart. A 10.00-22
wheel/tire at 110 psi has enough energy to send a 160-pound man 600
feet into the air. Theoretically. In reality, his body parts are spread
over a similar area. So the wheel companies had to get away from those
things and tires are now much harder to change without the expensive
equipment.
But what can you do with people who insist on wrecking perfectly
good airplanes using bad judgement and then blaming, $ucce$$fully, the
manufacturer, and making flying so unnecessarily expensive for the rest
of us? Stop building airplanes?

Dan

[LGHarlan]

The problem with split rim truck wheels was that when they failed, usually
innocent pedestrians or motorists were the ones killed. Had the wheel makers
Murphy-proofed their products or made them universally interchangeable, and if
truck tire personnel were required to be a grade above the epsilon minuses
usually in that position, the problem would not have existed. But it did,
because that's the customer base they sold to. The courts made the manufacture
of split rim wheels economically untenable and one piece wheels became the
standard. Of course, since there is no way for the five to ten people every
year who would have been killed if the use of split rims continued to be
identified, the courts and trial lawyers can't claim credit very easily.

Wichita made an airplane-in the case of the heavy singles and light twins that
racked up most of the judgments and settlements-that the customer base-people
with money and usually dismally trained-were not capable of handling. It had
characteristics that were suitable for day VFR use but which made IFR and
night VFR operations by minimally trained owners, most of whom did not fly
enough hours to remain current, a marginal proposition.

Research in the 1960s proved single pilot IFR operations required a major
workload reduction from the WWII-era instrumented and configured aircraft.
Single lever power control, the drum-pointer altimeter, an alternate attitude
and heading indicator (no 'needle ball and alcohol': that's for black and white
war movies) and avionics easily operable without looking down on approach were
indicated. The military in fact revised both the cockpit layout and its
approach procedures after spates of Sabre and T-33 crashes in the 1950s.

Wichita ignored all this. Its only response when we started suing them was to
'shoot, shovel,and shut up' and buy more liability insurance coverage.

Looking back, although it made my family a lot of money, product liability
insurance is like heroin. It doesn't fix the problem, it just numbs the user to
it. Outlawing liability insurance might be a good idea, even though it would
make me change careers.

Harley-Davidson motorcycles are more dangerous than any airplane, and they are
still made in America by a profitable company that is the antithesis of
judgment-proof. With the exception of the federal statute of limitations , the
liability laws are the same for H-D as Cessna, Piper, and Beech.

The real reason recip-engine singles are no longer produced is not product
liability, in any case. It's the great profitability of corporate jet
manufacture, which uses the same floor space and workforce to make a product
with unequalled profit margins once the certification and tooling costs are
paid for. The high cost of type certification and widespread abuse of
Experimental/Amateur-Built provisions are what deters interest in new personal
aircraft startups.

[Michael]

LGHarlan wrote:
> Wichita made an airplane-in the case of the heavy singles and light
twins that
> racked up most of the judgments and settlements-that the customer
base-people
> with money and usually dismally trained-were not capable of handling.

Yes, that was the basic problem. Of course making the planes docile
enough to handle - and paying the certification costs of same - would
have made the planes totally unaffordable. Therein lies the inherent
problem. On the one hand, the tort system demands you make the planes
to modern standards of user-friendliness. On the other hand, the FAA
will not allow you to use modern technology without prohibitively
expensive certification.

Note that I meant what I said. Certification itself is not inherently
expensive. The people who designed the Husky spent less than $400K on
the entire design - including certification. Of course if you were to
fly your Husky through a time machine and land in 1955, you could take
it to any mechanic to fix. Not only would he be able to get all the
parts (and chemicals, for the fabric) he needed, but he wouldn't even
notice anything odd about the airplane other than the avionics. It's
easy (and cheap) to certify a design with nothing but WWII technology,
because that's what the FAA engineers understand. Try it with modern
technology, and you will be paying for their education - or adding
rivets to composite structures.

The fault is pretty much equally split between the evil and stupid FAA
bureaucrats who make modern technology impossibly expensive for GA and
the evil and greedy lawyers who will punish the manufacturers who have
no choice but to build with obsolete technology.

> It had
> characteristics that were suitable for day VFR use but which made IFR
and
> night VFR operations by minimally trained owners, most of whom did
not fly
> enough hours to remain current, a marginal proposition.

BTW - how come we're not blaming the owners here for going cheap on the
training (in those expensive airplanes) and not staying current?

> Research in the 1960s proved single pilot IFR operations required a
major
> workload reduction from the WWII-era instrumented and configured
aircraft.

Required? So why are hundreds of us still flying WWI-era standard? I
don't think we're all Chuck Yeager. Could it be that we're simply
people who decided not to cheap out on the training and fly enough to
stay current?

> Single lever power control, the drum-pointer altimeter, an alternate
attitude
> and heading indicator (no 'needle ball and alcohol': that's for black
and white
> war movies) and avionics easily operable without looking down on
approach were
> indicated. The military in fact revised both the cockpit layout and
its
> approach procedures after spates of Sabre and T-33 crashes in the
1950s.

Yes, they didn't have to worry about costs or FAA certifications.

> Wichita ignored all this. Its only response when we started suing
them was to
> 'shoot, shovel,and shut up' and buy more liability insurance
coverage.

And given the costs of certification, what choice did they have?

Why aren't you suing the FAA bureaucrats who cause the problem? Could
it be because it's not about fault after all, but just about the money?

> Harley-Davidson motorcycles are more dangerous than any airplane,
and they are
> still made in America by a profitable company that is the antithesis
of
> judgment-proof. With the exception of the federal statute of
limitations , the
> liability laws are the same for H-D as Cessna, Piper, and Beech.

First, it's not true. Airplanes are no safer than motorcycles - much
proof to that effect exists.

Second, the certification laws are not at all the same, and neither are
the product volumes.

And third, enough people know about motorcycles that it's pretty hard
to get a judgment against the manufacturer when it's obvious that the
fault lay with the rider and/or a driver.

> The high cost of type certification and widespread abuse of
> Experimental/Amateur-Built provisions are what deters interest in new
personal
> aircraft startups.

I won't argue the cost of type certification - it's probably a bigger
problem than product liability - but if you think amateur-built is a
serious competitor to factory built, you're kidding yourself.
Homebuilts are only a tiny segment of the market, and if you're looking
for something that is competitive with those light twins and larger
singles - you'll just keep on looking. If I could find a homebuilt
with the cabin room, speed, range, and redundancy of my 1965 Wichita
(actually Lock Haven) special, I would have already bought it.

Michael

[Drew Dalgleish]

On 21 Dec 2004 17:19:12 -0800, "Michael"
> wrote:

>LGHarlan wrote:
>> Wichita made an airplane-in the case of the heavy singles and light
>twins that
>> racked up most of the judgments and settlements-that the customer
>base-people
>> with money and usually dismally trained-were not capable of handling.
>
>Yes, that was the basic problem. Of course making the planes docile
>enough to handle - and paying the certification costs of same - would
>have made the planes totally unaffordable. Therein lies the inherent
>problem. On the one hand, the tort system demands you make the planes
>to modern standards of user-friendliness. On the other hand, the FAA
>will not allow you to use modern technology without prohibitively
>expensive certification.
>
>Note that I meant what I said. Certification itself is not inherently
>expensive. The people who designed the Husky spent less than $400K on
>the entire design - including certification. Of course if you were to
>fly your Husky through a time machine and land in 1955, you could take
>it to any mechanic to fix. Not only would he be able to get all the
>parts (and chemicals, for the fabric) he needed, but he wouldn't even
>notice anything odd about the airplane other than the avionics. It's
>easy (and cheap) to certify a design with nothing but WWII technology,
>because that's what the FAA engineers understand. Try it with modern
>technology, and you will be paying for their education - or adding
>rivets to composite structures.
>
>The fault is pretty much equally split between the evil and stupid FAA
>bureaucrats who make modern technology impossibly expensive for GA and
>the evil and greedy lawyers who will punish the manufacturers who have
>no choice but to build with obsolete technology.
>
>> It had
>> characteristics that were suitable for day VFR use but which made IFR
>and
>> night VFR operations by minimally trained owners, most of whom did
>not fly
>> enough hours to remain current, a marginal proposition.
>
>BTW - how come we're not blaming the owners here for going cheap on the
>training (in those expensive airplanes) and not staying current?
>
>> Research in the 1960s proved single pilot IFR operations required a
>major
>> workload reduction from the WWII-era instrumented and configured
>aircraft.
>
>Required? So why are hundreds of us still flying WWI-era standard? I
>don't think we're all Chuck Yeager. Could it be that we're simply
>people who decided not to cheap out on the training and fly enough to
>stay current?
>
>> Single lever power control, the drum-pointer altimeter, an alternate
>attitude
>> and heading indicator (no 'needle ball and alcohol': that's for black
>and white
>> war movies) and avionics easily operable without looking down on
>approach were
>> indicated. The military in fact revised both the cockpit layout and
>its
>> approach procedures after spates of Sabre and T-33 crashes in the
>1950s.
>
>Yes, they didn't have to worry about costs or FAA certifications.
>
>> Wichita ignored all this. Its only response when we started suing
>them was to
>> 'shoot, shovel,and shut up' and buy more liability insurance
>coverage.
>
>And given the costs of certification, what choice did they have?
>
>Why aren't you suing the FAA bureaucrats who cause the problem? Could
>it be because it's not about fault after all, but just about the money?
>
>> Harley-Davidson motorcycles are more dangerous than any airplane,
>and they are
>> still made in America by a profitable company that is the antithesis
>of
>> judgment-proof. With the exception of the federal statute of
>limitations , the
>> liability laws are the same for H-D as Cessna, Piper, and Beech.
>
>First, it's not true. Airplanes are no safer than motorcycles - much
>proof to that effect exists.
>
>Second, the certification laws are not at all the same, and neither are
>the product volumes.
>
>And third, enough people know about motorcycles that it's pretty hard
>to get a judgment against the manufacturer when it's obvious that the
>fault lay with the rider and/or a driver.
>
>> The high cost of type certification and widespread abuse of
>> Experimental/Amateur-Built provisions are what deters interest in new
>personal
>> aircraft startups.
>
>I won't argue the cost of type certification - it's probably a bigger
>problem than product liability - but if you think amateur-built is a
>serious competitor to factory built, you're kidding yourself.
>Homebuilts are only a tiny segment of the market, and if you're looking
>for something that is competitive with those light twins and larger
>singles - you'll just keep on looking. If I could find a homebuilt
>with the cabin room, speed, range, and redundancy of my 1965 Wichita
>(actually Lock Haven) special, I would have already bought it.
>
>Michael
>
I think there's a lot more homebuilts registered each year than
factory built planes. If you can't find a homebuilt that outpreforms
your spam can you're not looking very hard. post your requirments and
I think you'll be amazed at the choices

[Denny]

Another one for Snopes.com although not quite as well-concocted or
believable
************************************************** *********************
Interesting how the real world is never neat and perfect, eh...
Cheers ...

Denny

[Michael]

Drew Dalgleish wrote:
> I think there's a lot more homebuilts registered each year than
> factory built planes.

How many homebuilts out there with more than 1000 hours on them?

> If you can't find a homebuilt that outpreforms
> your spam can you're not looking very hard. post your requirments and
> I think you'll be amazed at the choices

I think you're the one who is going to be amazed. Here are my
requirements (which are actually less that what I currently have):

Twin engine, with a single engine absolute ceiling at gross not less
than 5000 ft (not negotiable - not interested in singles)

150 kts cruise at low altitudes (less than 8000 ft) at less than 65%
power (don't like running the engines hard) and less than 18 gph (don't
like spending money either). Must be able to burn either Avgas or
Jet-A (no special fueling issues). Note that this is a bare minimum -
my spam can does better in every respect.

5 hours endurance at 150 kts (including climb fuel and VFR reserves).
Enough useful load to carry the fuel required for that endurance and an
additional 600 lbs of pax/cargo as well as a full redundant IFR panel
(dual nav-coms, dual AI's, GPS and LORAN, stormscope, autopilot, ADF,
DME, etc). Again, these are bare minima.

Cabin room for full size adults (think Bonanza and up - not Mooney).

Not interested in building - will only buy one that is already built
and flying. No one-offs - only want a design with enough track record
to be insurable for hull (I will take whatever training and meet
whatever experience requirements they want).
I'm looking forward to your suggestions.

Michael

[Denny]

Just buy a King Air or Citation. In fact, I think people with your
mindset should only fly as part of a two man crew, which means a Lear,
Gulfstream or MD-80 is probably a better choice. The weakest link in
aviation isn't the engines, it's the pilot. A two man crew operating as
such is the safest way to fly.

If you thought about it you would have figured that two is a bad
number of engines for an airplane anyway, because each engine has to be
fully able to fly the airplane, in effect, for transport category
minima to be reachable. If they are not reached a jury would probably
take that as evidence you could have built a safer airplane and didn't,
you mean company, so have a ten million dollar judgment. Three is much
better. (I see some good deals on 727's and you can always talk your
A&P into the FE seat...)

If a person with your way of thinking can't write a check for a G-III
or MD80 or 737-100 or -200 you are probably too busy playing with
yourself and need to put more attention into your business. You do own
one don't you??

_________________________________

Of course the above is what the BAD Captain Kirk would say, if you
remember that episode. naturally neither myself nor any other poster
here would be that rude.

[Drew Dalgleish]

On 22 Dec 2004 11:38:42 -0800, "Michael"
> wrote:

>Drew Dalgleish wrote:
>> I think there's a lot more homebuilts registered each year than
>> factory built planes.
>
>How many homebuilts out there with more than 1000 hours on them?
Lots but what does this have to do with anything
>> If you can't find a homebuilt that outpreforms
>> your spam can you're not looking very hard. post your requirments and
>> I think you'll be amazed at the choices
>
>I think you're the one who is going to be amazed. Here are my
>requirements (which are actually less that what I currently have):
>
>Twin engine, with a single engine absolute ceiling at gross not less
>than 5000 ft (not negotiable - not interested in singles)
>
>150 kts cruise at low altitudes (less than 8000 ft) at less than 65%
>power (don't like running the engines hard) and less than 18 gph (don't
>like spending money either). Must be able to burn either Avgas or
>Jet-A (no special fueling issues). Note that this is a bare minimum -
>my spam can does better in every respect.
>Does it burn coal and natural gas too
>5 hours endurance at 150 kts (including climb fuel and VFR reserves).
>Enough useful load to carry the fuel required for that endurance and an
>additional 600 lbs of pax/cargo as well as a full redundant IFR panel
>(dual nav-coms, dual AI's, GPS and LORAN, stormscope, autopilot, ADF,
>DME, etc). Again, these are bare minima.
>
>Cabin room for full size adults (think Bonanza and up - not Mooney).
>
>Not interested in building - will only buy one that is already built
>and flying. No one-offs - only want a design with enough track record
>to be insurable for hull (I will take whatever training and meet
>whatever experience requirements they want).
>I'm looking forward to your suggestions.
>
>Michael
>
I guess I was Wrong I can't think of a single homebuilt that is worthy
of you. What kind of magic carpet are you flying?

[Roger]

On 22 Dec 2004 11:38:42 -0800, "Michael"
> wrote:

<snip>
>
>150 kts cruise at low altitudes (less than 8000 ft) at less than 65%
>power (don't like running the engines hard) and less than 18 gph (don't

I'm firm believer in running those big engines at 75% and don't
believe running them less is doing them any favors.

>like spending money either). Must be able to burn either Avgas or
>Jet-A (no special fueling issues). Note that this is a bare minimum -
>my spam can does better in every respect.
>
>5 hours endurance at 150 kts (including climb fuel and VFR reserves).
>Enough useful load to carry the fuel required for that endurance and an
>additional 600 lbs of pax/cargo as well as a full redundant IFR panel

You said 4 full size adults. Today that is 4 X 170 = 680# (if you are
lucky to find 4 trim adults) plus at least 20# each for baggage makes
760# after fuel.

At 9 GPH at 65% you are pretty much talking 4 cylinder engines. Even
an IO-470N will run about 12 GPH at 65%.

But figuring your optimistic 18 GPH @ 5 hours plus a half hour reserve
= 99 gallons useable so figure at least 110 to 120 gallons @ 6#/gal =
660 to 720# plus 760# for pax and baggage means about 1500# useful
load.

The hard part is going to be getting it all together. The hardest
part is the speed at 65% at low altitude loaded and that fuel burn.

>(dual nav-coms, dual AI's, GPS and LORAN, stormscope, autopilot, ADF,
>DME, etc). Again, these are bare minima.
>
>Cabin room for full size adults (think Bonanza and up - not Mooney).

Now you are talking bigger engines and more fuel burn which means long
range tanks in something like a Baron. According to the specs the
Aztec will do it all except for the fuel burn. At 65% you are still
looking at least at 22 to 24 GPH, but they are docile and the panel
can always be upgraded. Anything smaller has miserable single engine
performance.

I can't think of any recent/new small twin that can match the Aztec
for useful load and it comes the closest to your specs.


Anything newer that I can remember will burn a lot of fuel to meet
your specs.

Get the Geronimo conversion, put 70 grand into a new panel...well
maybe 80 grand and you'll have your machine...except for the fuel burn
and easy to find parts.

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

>
>Not interested in building - will only buy one that is already built
>and flying. No one-offs - only want a design with enough track record
>to be insurable for hull (I will take whatever training and meet
>whatever experience requirements they want).
>I'm looking forward to your suggestions.
>
>Michael

[Michael]

Roger wrote:
> >150 kts cruise at low altitudes (less than 8000 ft) at less than 65%
> >power (don't like running the engines hard) and less than 18 gph
(don't
>
> I'm firm believer in running those big engines at 75% and don't
> believe running them less is doing them any favors.

Then we'll agree to disagree. I think 65% or less and LOP is the way
to go. 1500+ hours, and only replaced 1 of 8 jugs.

> You said 4 full size adults. Today that is 4 X 170 = 680# (if you
are
> lucky to find 4 trim adults) plus at least 20# each for baggage makes
> 760# after fuel.

A plane that can put full size adults in every seat and still fill the
tanks has tanks that are too small. My normal mission is 2 full sized
adults, bags, and full fuel for long range flight. My alternate
mission is 3-4 adults, light baggage, short range. I adjust fuel load
accordingly.

My normal launch states are full tanks (allowing me 600+ lbs of payload
and a 5 hour endurance) and mains only (allowing me 800 lbs of payload
and 3 hour endurance).

> At 9 GPH at 65% you are pretty much talking 4 cylinder engines. Even
> an IO-470N will run about 12 GPH at 65%.

No argument. Both my certified choices feature small fours.

> But figuring your optimistic 18 GPH @ 5 hours plus a half hour
reserve
> = 99 gallons useable so figure at least 110 to 120 gallons @ 6#/gal =
> 660 to 720# plus 760# for pax and baggage means about 1500# useful
> load.

Remember I said my plane does better in all respects. For me, 150 kts
happens at 15 gph at 8000, so my 90 gallon load is plenty. Also given
that with full fuel I only need to carry 2 adults and bags, we're down
to about 1200 lbs useful load. But of course with less efficient
airframe/bigger engines it might need to be more.

> The hard part is going to be getting it all together. The hardest
> part is the speed at 65% at low altitude loaded and that fuel burn.

Not hard at all. There are two certified twins that meet my
requiremens, and either can be had in very good condition for less than
$100K. Those twins are the Beech Travel-Air and the Piper Twin
Comanche. The Twin Comanche is somewhat more efficient and has cheaper
parts, but is more demanding to fly.

> Anything smaller has miserable single engine
> performance.

I only need a 5000 ft absolute ceiling on one engine at gross - my
flying is almost all in the lowlands. Therefore, I am not concerned
about the miserable single engine performance. Actually, when you
compare light twins at full gross, they all do just about the same
until you get into the cabin class.

> Get the Geronimo conversion, put 70 grand into a new panel...well
> maybe 80 grand and you'll have your machine...except for the fuel
burn
> and easy to find parts.

I already have my machine - and it meets all my specs and then some.
Unfortunately, it is certified. If I could have an experimental I
could buy (not build) to meet those specs, I would pay up to 50% more
up front to buy it than I paid for the certified airplane.
Unfortunately, it's not there at any price.

Michael

[Michael]

>I guess I was Wrong I can't think of a single homebuilt that is worthy
of you.

You know, I find it amazing that proponents of homebuilts seem to get
defensive when you point out that the homebuilt is not the be-all and
end-all. It's not a matter of being worthy, it's a matter of meeting
mission requirements. In this case I can't find a homenuilt to meet my
mission requirements.

I'm not against homebuilts. In fact, I own and fly a homebuilt glider
(HP-11T). I love it. It gives me performance that no certified glider
can match at anything less than twice the price. It meets my mission
requirements and saves me money and hassle.

If I could find a homebuilt to meet the mission requirements of my twin
(long range, overwater, night&IFR) I would own it. I hate dealing with
the FAA any time I want to upgrade, and I hate being locked into
obsolete and expensive parts. But there's nothing out there. I've
looked before. I would have been genuinely happy if you found
something I had missed the first time around. I would have bought it.
If someone comes up with something that meets those requirements (I
might even bend on the insurable-for-hull bit) I'll write him a check
for $100K tomorrow. That is substantially more than I have in my
existing twin.

> What kind of magic carpet are you flying?

I'm flying a Twin Comanche, but a Beech Travel-Air would also work for
me.

Michael

[zatatime]

On 23 Dec 2004 13:08:26 -0800, "Michael"
> wrote:

>A plane that can put full size adults in every seat and still fill the
>tanks has tanks that are too small.


Not true. I can put 4 full sized adults and full fuel, and still have
over 500 pounds left for baggage! All this and I can fly 6 hours
without stopping!

The 235 is a wonderful plane....and a 182 can do it too, among many
others.

z

[jim rosinski]

LGHarlan wrote:

> My _grandchildren_? How about me. If I could earn a decent living driving
> rivets, I would never have went to law school. Think about it.
^^^^^^^^^
Sounds like you need to go back to grammar school and learn how to
write.

> Just as outlawing abortion will hapen when Republican legislators no longer
> have teenage daughters, effective tort reform will happen when Republican
> administrations and legislators can do without highly motivated attorneys-the
> kind who play for blood more than money.

You poor brainwashed fool. It's the bloody trial lawyers giving all that
money to Democrats (www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.asp?order=A) that's
holding up tort reform as much as anything.

The tripe emanating from your fingers in every post you've made in this
thread is a modern-day version of the big lie. Like nobody has ever done
in any of the rec.aviation.* newsgroups, you really do make me want to
puke. Sorry to say, but people like you epitomize so much of what is bad
about this country.

Jim Rosinski

[Michael]

zatatime wrote:
> >A plane that can put full size adults in every seat and still fill
the
> >tanks has tanks that are too small.
>
> Not true. I can put 4 full sized adults and full fuel, and still
have
> over 500 pounds left for baggage! All this and I can fly 6 hours
> without stopping!

VFR. Now try flying when the weather is widespread IFR with an iffy
forecast. Your nearest solid gold alternate might be 2+ hours away -
and all of a sudden, when it's just you and maybe one other guy in the
plane, you start wishing you could carry more fuel. Or maybe you
wouldn't but I know I would. More than once I've had to make an extra
fuel stop I really didn't want to make not because I couldn't make my
destination but because I didn't have enough reserve fuel to miss at my
destination and then make an alternate I was sure of.

Of course I suppose this is the sort of attitude that might lead others
to believe I should never fly anything but a kerosene-burner with a
crew, but to me it just seems like a reasonable plan for staying alive
while flying in crappy weather.

> The 235 is a wonderful plane....and a 182 can do it too, among many
> others.

Actually, I like both of those planes - but there are at least a few
people who agree with me that the tanks are sometimes too small, since
extended range tanks are available for both.

Remember - just because the tanks are there does NOT mean you have to
fill them for every flight. On my airplane you can fill every seat
with a full sized adult and carry bags and still make 500 mile legs
with reserves - but not by filling all the tanks.

Michael

[Michael McKelvy]

"Denny" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Of course, a big ticket manufacturer is in a different ball game... Non
> the less, if more businesse in the Untied States were structured so
> that there are no deep pockets to go after, there would be a marked
> diminishment in frivolous suits, including against the big guys...

It could be solved just as easily by changing the law as it is in the U.K.
Loser Pays.

> There are attorneys who make a career out of looking for deep pockets
> to sue - for a huge chunk of the judgement of course - knowing that
> they will lose 9 suits out of every 10... But, that tenth suit is like
> winning the lottery, Christmas, and having your rich uncle leave you
> everything, all rolled into one... If the first nine deep pockets
> aren't there the tenth suit is going to be fewer and farther between...
> Grin right back at ya... Denny
>
California just had a ballot initiative to get rid of a law that the hippies
in Sacramento wouldn't repeal. It allowed lawyers to on behalf of the
public, while all they really did was line their own pockets. One firm, The
Trevor Law Group was put out of business and it's lawyers disbarred because
of the way they used this law to go after small businesses and threaten them
with a law suit for some minor infraction or other. Is it any wonder so
many politicians are lawyers and that the Trial Lawyers are such big
contributors to the Democrats?