Kitplanes December

[Dale]

Kitplanes Readers Choice Awards for 2004 article in the December issue.

Question #9
Which of these new kit aircraft do you currently own or would you most like
to build?

The poll revealed:
Dream Aircraft's Tundra 19%

Me thinks someone stuffed the ballot box. According to the Kitplanes
directory in the same issue there are only 2 completed and flying.

There are 19% of the respondants that own or would like to build this
aircraft? I've been messing with this stuff for about 10 years now and never
heard of the plane or company.

Some of the other poll results raise the eyebrows too.

Dale

[Lou Parker]

"Dale" > wrote in message >...
> Kitplanes Readers Choice Awards for 2004 article in the December issue.
>
> Question #9
> Which of these new kit aircraft do you currently own or would you most like
> to build?
>
> The poll revealed:
> Dream Aircraft's Tundra 19%
>
> Me thinks someone stuffed the ballot box. According to the Kitplanes
> directory in the same issue there are only 2 completed and flying.
>
> There are 19% of the respondants that own or would like to build this
> aircraft? I've been messing with this stuff for about 10 years now and never
> heard of the plane or company.
>
> Some of the other poll results raise the eyebrows too.
>
> Dale

Don't get to worried about it Dale, it's kitplanes. Not exactly the
brightest writers or staff. Their information and articles are written
so bad I cancled my subscription years ago. Their staff is so bad, I
keep getting the magazine for free. You have to pressume that if they
did any kind of examining or cross refenceing of the information they
recive, that maybe the magazine would take some time to publish and
you wouldn't get Decembers issue in October.
Lou

[Kyle Boatright]

"Dale" > wrote in message ...
> Kitplanes Readers Choice Awards for 2004 article in the December issue.
>
> Question #9
> Which of these new kit aircraft do you currently own or would you most
> like to build?
>
> The poll revealed:
> Dream Aircraft's Tundra 19%
>
> Me thinks someone stuffed the ballot box. According to the Kitplanes
> directory in the same issue there are only 2 completed and flying.
>
> There are 19% of the respondants that own or would like to build this
> aircraft? I've been messing with this stuff for about 10 years now and
> never heard of the plane or company.
>
> Some of the other poll results raise the eyebrows too.
>
> Dale

Consider that Kitplanes doesn't have a particularly large circulation.
Also, consider that not many of their subscribers are going to respond to a
poll. Then, consider that if a the survey is mentioned in a type specific
newsgroup or e-mail forum, it might result in builders/flyers of that
aircraft responding to the poll, which could/would lead to biased results..
Same thing with any uncontrolled poll. Take 'em with a grain of salt.

KB

[Jim Weir]

I BEG your pardon? Some of those not bright writers lurk in here. {;-)

The pot calling the kettle black? too, not to. Kitplanes, not kitplanes.
canceled, not cancled. presume, not pressume. referencing, not refenceing.
receive, not recive. December's, not Decembers.

Jim



(Lou Parker)
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->Don't get to worried about it Dale, it's kitplanes. Not exactly the
->brightest writers or staff. Their information and articles are written
->so bad I cancled my subscription years ago. Their staff is so bad, I
->keep getting the magazine for free. You have to pressume that if they
->did any kind of examining or cross refenceing of the information they
->recive, that maybe the magazine would take some time to publish and
->you wouldn't get Decembers issue in October.
-> Lou


Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:16:31 -0800, Richard Riley >
wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:23:48 -0800, Jim Weir > wrote:
>
>:I BEG your pardon? Some of those not bright writers lurk in here. {;-)
>:
>:The pot calling the kettle black? too, not to. Kitplanes, not kitplanes.
>:canceled, not cancled. presume, not pressume. referencing, not refenceing.
>:receive, not recive. December's, not Decembers.
>:
>:Jim
>
>Trying to spell everything with precision...
>
>Any idea why the survey results were so strange?

Don't recall seeing the survey, but the most likely answer is a small sample
size. With few participants, a couple of well-meaning fans can skew the results
without deliberately trying to stuff the ballot box.

Ron Wanttaja

[Lou Parker]

Jim Weir > wrote in message >...
> I BEG your pardon? Some of those not bright writers lurk in here. {;-)
>
> The pot calling the kettle black? too, not to. Kitplanes, not kitplanes.
> canceled, not cancled. presume, not pressume. referencing, not refenceing.
> receive, not recive. December's, not Decembers.
>
> Jim
>
>
> Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
> VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
> http://www.rst-engr.com

Jim,
As much as I value both yours and Ron's information and idea's, how
many chapters does it take to tell how a piston engine produces power?
I lost interest months ago. Many of the articles in this publication
seem to be 50% fluff or filler or something to take up space. It's as
if the editors are sitting on their ass'es and trying to pay people by
the word not the context.

Look at Decembers issue. Go on-line to some of the companies that
have a kit listed. 1/2 the prices are way off, the performances are
off, even some of the web addresses are wrong. What did the writer do,
send out a post card asking for information? Obviously nothing was
investigated to see what was true or false. Last year they stopped
printing the engine directory. Thats only half the cost of your plane,
so why bother? Every month there is an apology for something wrong
only because a subscriber has to point it out. Maybe it's time they
knew the truth. They need help at the information business.

Lou

[Jim Weir]

Fifteen years ago they had an avionics writer that didn't know which end of the
soldering iron got hot. I bitched EVERY MONTH to the editor with factual
information as to what was correct and what was wrong. He finally got so tired
of my bitching that he offered me the chance to do it better.

So far, every month for fifteen years I've been doing it better. Why not get on
the editor's case and show where the errors are. Don't be MEAN about it, but be
persistent. We don't get paid a hell of a lot, but it buys a case of iced
orangeade from time to time.

Something about lighting a candle instead of cursing the darkness...

Jim



(Lou Parker)
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:


Every month there is an apology for something wrong
->only because a subscriber has to point it out. Maybe it's time they
->knew the truth. They need help at the information business.
->
-> Lou

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[TaxSrv]

"Jim Weir" wrote:
> Fifteen years ago they had an avionics writer that didn't
> know which end of the soldering iron got hot.
> ....

A classic was in Custom Planes, whose avionics writer had nothing in
his bio I found elsewhere to suggest he should be. He was explaining,
in an article entitled "Understanding Parallel Feeds," series verses
parallel wiring in a airplane, for practical reasons hard to fathom
once you thought you understood the title. He described an example of
a builder wiring two 14V radios in series in a plane with a 14V system
(who would?), but his reasons this wouldn't work -- he said both
displays would be dim -- missed the problem of the physical
installation resulting in a common ground. One will work just fine,
the other won't at all.

In another article, he explained Watt's Law to say that if your
battery voltage were to drop to 11 volts, your circuit breakers can
pop, because when voltage goes down, current must go up. So use
bigger breakers. And you'll like his explanation of how all avionics
work, I guess Circuit Design 101:

"Every piece of avionics in your plane contains thousands of [series]
circuits. They're used to modify voltages or signals between
stages...they allow your avionics to use them to drive...even moving
map displays."

Fred F.

[Morgans]

"TaxSrv" > wrote


> "Every piece of avionics in your plane contains thousands of [series]
> circuits. They're used to modify voltages or signals between
> stages...they allow your avionics to use them to drive...even moving
> map displays."
>
> Fred F.


You sure that was not Jim W's work? I could have sworn that was the
explanation I heard him give, one time. <VBG> (ducking and running)

Actually, Jim is so far above my head, I seldom understand all of what he
writes. Even I can see the BS meter pegging, on that previous one.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.794 / Virus Database: 538 - Release Date: 11/10/2004

[Drew Dalgleish]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 17:50:02 -0500, "TaxSrv" >
wrote:

>"Jim Weir" wrote:
>> Fifteen years ago they had an avionics writer that didn't
>> know which end of the soldering iron got hot.
>> ....
>
>A classic was in Custom Planes, whose avionics writer had nothing in
>his bio I found elsewhere to suggest he should be. He was explaining,
>in an article entitled "Understanding Parallel Feeds," series verses
>parallel wiring in a airplane, for practical reasons hard to fathom
>once you thought you understood the title. He described an example of
>a builder wiring two 14V radios in series in a plane with a 14V system
>(who would?), but his reasons this wouldn't work -- he said both
>displays would be dim -- missed the problem of the physical
>installation resulting in a common ground. One will work just fine,
>the other won't at all.
>
>In another article, he explained Watt's Law to say that if your
>battery voltage were to drop to 11 volts, your circuit breakers can
>pop, because when voltage goes down, current must go up. So use
>bigger breakers. And you'll like his explanation of how all avionics
>work, I guess Circuit Design 101:
>
>"Every piece of avionics in your plane contains thousands of [series]
>circuits. They're used to modify voltages or signals between
>stages...they allow your avionics to use them to drive...even moving
>map displays."
>
>Fred F.
>
I stopped reading custom planes after I bought the issue with the
bearhawk on the cover and found out it was written by budd davisson
the owner of the quick build company. I don't really expect unbiased
reviews from any mag but that was way over the top.

[Del Rawlins]

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:08:56 GMT, (Drew
Dalgleish) wrote:

>I stopped reading custom planes after I bought the issue with the
>bearhawk on the cover and found out it was written by budd davisson
>the owner of the quick build company. I don't really expect unbiased
>reviews from any mag but that was way over the top.

As long as the magazine made it clear that the writer wasn't an
unbiased source, and it sounds like they did (I don't generally read
CP so I don't know), I don't see a problem from an ethical standpoint.
I do think that a review by somebody else would have been of more use
to their readers.

In all fairness to Budd, he was singing the praises of the Bearhawk
long before he became involved financially with it. The situation is
not unlike that of the guy who liked the electric razor so much that
he bought the company. Also, on the email list he has been extremely
generous of his time in answering questions from plans builders who
haven't bought a thing from him as well as the kit builders.

================================================== ==
Del Rawlins--
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

[Drew Dalgleish]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 03:02:23 GMT,
(Del Rawlins) wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:08:56 GMT, (Drew
>Dalgleish) wrote:
>
>>I stopped reading custom planes after I bought the issue with the
>>bearhawk on the cover and found out it was written by budd davisson
>>the owner of the quick build company. I don't really expect unbiased
>>reviews from any mag but that was way over the top.
>
>As long as the magazine made it clear that the writer wasn't an
>unbiased source, and it sounds like they did (I don't generally read
>CP so I don't know), I don't see a problem from an ethical standpoint.
>I do think that a review by somebody else would have been of more use
>to their readers.
>
>In all fairness to Budd, he was singing the praises of the Bearhawk
>long before he became involved financially with it. The situation is
>not unlike that of the guy who liked the electric razor so much that
>he bought the company. Also, on the email list he has been extremely
>generous of his time in answering questions from plans builders who
>haven't bought a thing from him as well as the kit builders.
>
>================================================== ==
>Del Rawlins--
>Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
>http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/
>Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply

I should have been clearer. I don't have anything against Budd he's a
good writer. I subscribe to the bearhawk list and am impressed with
his candor and willingness to help builders. I don't know if any other
kit manufacturers make themselves so available.
My beef is with CP they didn't make any disclaimer that I can recall.
The bearhawk was their cover story and I bought the mag for that one
story. It wasn't until I started reading it and saw the article that I
found out Budd was the author.