Cirrus Killer? Cessna just doesn't get it...

[ET]

Reading Avwebs latest addition (avweb.com) I'm reading all about how
Cessna is developing (very hush hush) their "cirrus killer", new high
performance 4 place single. They are being very hush hush about the
whole thing, except for one point; the new design will be a high
wing....

Without debating the idea of high wing vs low wing as far as flying
advantages, the "perception" (right or wrong)of the high wing is a lower
& slower plane . When have you seen a jet fighter with a high wing??

To the public at large, a low wing plane is just a sexier, faster
"look" to it. I predict for that reason alone, the new "Cirrus Killer"
Cessna will fail, not because it won't be a superior airplane, it
probably will be, by the mere fact that it is designed to be, but
because it will not "look" sexy enough with the high wing... no matter
how well it performs, it will still have at its heart, the look of a
150/172.....

When I spend 350grand I want people to look at my plane and say ohhhh,
ahhhh, not just pilots either…. A high wing will design will not make me
feel like Maverick on "Top Gun"… (Tell me honestly you don't see almost
every Cirrus buyer playing "highway to the danger zone" mentally in his
head at some point while flying his new Cirrus…<heh>)

And if it doesnt have the BRS or GRS or equivelent, it will also fail.
Many pilots wives are much less nervous about flying with a BRS
installed (again, right or wrong, what is important in this level of the
market is perception... if it was all about money, they would all be
buying 20 year old 180's..)

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Denny]

Well, high wing and shoulder wings come to mind...
AV8 Harrier
FA18
F14 Tomcat
B52
FA22

Probably more but I'm not a military type... Let others chime in...

The $350K Cirrus driver on our field sold it, and his brand new hangar,
after he wrecked the plane - twice... Dunno what was playing in his
head at the time, but it should have been the theme from Get Smart...

denny

[Icebound]

"ET" > wrote in message
...


...snip...
> I predict for that reason alone, the new "Cirrus Killer"
> Cessna will fail, not because it won't be a superior airplane, it
> probably will be, by the mere fact that it is designed to be, but
> because it will not "look" sexy enough with the high wing... no matter
> how well it performs, it will still have at its heart, the look of a
> 150/172.....

....snip...
>
> When I spend 350grand I want people to look at my plane and say ohhhh,
> ahhhh, not just pilots either…. A high wing will design will not make me
> feel like Maverick on "Top Gun"…


While not very sexy, catering to the masses may be a lot more likely to be
"successful", financially, than catering only to "top guns". You sell a lot
more Chevys than Corvettes. Even a lot more Cadillacs than Corvettes.

When I spend 350grand on an airplane, I won't really care whether people
look at it or not. I will want to be able to carry me and my passengers and
lots of luggage in it safely, efficiently, cheaply, for reasonably long
hauls, and for a long, long time.

Of course the masses have to find the 350g to spend. But then if only "top
guns" have the money for GA, it is doomed anyway.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ET" > wrote in message
...
>
> Without debating the idea of high wing vs low wing as far as flying
> advantages, the "perception" (right or wrong)of the high wing is a lower
> & slower plane . When have you seen a jet fighter with a high wing??
>

He 162, La15, F8U, Yak-28, F-111, Mirage, Tornado, Jaguar, Harrier, F-14,
F-15, MiG-23, MiG-25, MiG-31, etc.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"ET" > wrote in message
...
> When have you seen a jet fighter with a high wing??
>


A-7 Corsair

[Peter R.]

ET > wrote:

> To the public at large, a low wing plane is just a sexier, faster
> "look" to it.

I dunno... if Cessna were to sweep the high wing back, I think it might
look sexy. :)

Also, my guess if this aircraft is going to be Cessna's attempt at "killing
off" the Cirrus marketshare, you can count on it having a BRS, along with
seatbelt-mounted airbags.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[john smith]

I will take being able to stand up out of the weather under the
protection of the high wing any day over trying to hold an umbrella
while loading pax and baggage.

[Peter R.]

john smith > wrote:

> I will take being able to stand up out of the weather under the
> protection of the high wing any day over trying to hold an umbrella
> while loading pax and baggage.

Not to mention stepping up onto the wing to enter the cabin. I have been
flying more Angel Flight patients lately who are having a problem with
this.

--
Peter
(a low wing aircraft owner)

















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Frankie]

>...When have you seen a jet fighter with a high wing??

F-15, F-14, Panavia Tornado, AV-8B Harrier.....

> To the public at large, a low wing plane is just a sexier, faster
> "look" to it. I predict for that reason alone, the new "Cirrus Killer"
> Cessna will fail....

....but, you have an interesting perspective.

I tend to agree, but there is much that can be done with creativity. Just
how creative Cessna can be is open to debate. If the design is left up to a
few passionate people, it could succeed. If design by committee prevails,
then probably not. Look at the attractive designs from Ted Smith such as the
Twin Commanders.

More important for Cessna is what this will mean for product direction. Will
this new design be a stand-alone product in their line up, or will it be
part of a larger re-design of their whole family tree (172, 182, 206)? A
stand-alone airplane will stand out and be a clean break with traditional
Cessna design and, unless that new design is incorporated in their other
planes, Cessna will lose their "family" look. A strutless, glass airplane
certainly won't fit in, and will validate competitor Cirrus.

An interesting question, no...?

> And if it doesnt have the BRS or GRS or equivelent, it will also fail.

Debatable.

It is interesting to note however that the arguments against BRS are similar
to anti-parachute arguments in WWI (ex: pilots won't stay and fight,
prematurely leave airplane, lower the skill level....).

Frankie

[Stefan]

john smith wrote:

> I will take being able to stand up out of the weather under the
> protection of the high wing any day over trying to hold an umbrella
> while loading pax and baggage.

You mean like this:
http://community.webshots.com/photo/105928170/280638909QTqtNi

Stefan

[JohnH]

> When I spend 350grand I want people to look at my plane and say ohhhh,
> ahhhh, not just pilots either….

Most people don't give a rodent's petunia where the wings are as long as
they stay on. High wing planes have lots of comfort and visibility
advantages, things I'd rather have for my pax as opposed to a certain
"look".

Cessna obviously knows how to make high wing small planes; why fix something
that isn't broken?

[[email protected]]

I am a partner in a Piper Archer and a Cessna Cardinal. I greatly
prefer the Cardinal, and my passengers like it even better.

Aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder, but with a new paint job
many of my passengers think my airplane is newer and faster than a
Cirrius parked on the same ramp. I know because I ask them to guess.
The Cirrus is a great plane, but its not a really pretty one. I
parked next to a new Columbia the other day, and that airplane is
really pretty (at the cost of passenger comfort). I have to admit that
I might not have won that beauty contest.

The key to making a high wing pretty is to move the wing as far aft as
possible. Not only does this look better it greatly improves visiblity
and gives a better cg range. If you've only flown 152/172/182 you
haven't flown a properly designed high wing airplane.

Now sweep the tail, install a stabilator, saw off the struts, make the
tiedown rings retract, and use mostly flush rivets and your high wing
airplane is now a stunner, with far more ramp appeal than a clorox
bottle with wings. In other words, make a Cardinal.

I'd suggest Cessna take the already clean and fast Cardinal, make it
even slicke. Aircraft design has come a long way since 1968, there are
a n easy 15 knots left in the basic airframe. They should sell the
fixed gear version with a 200hp motor and the retract with a 230hp
turbocharged motor. Throw in glass and FADAC. Lower the glareshield,
as Mooney did recently, giving even better visiblity.

Cessna would be swamped with orders for a plane like that.

Cirrus wouldn't be killed, but it would be hurt really really bad.

Jim Howard

[Casey Wilson]

"Denny" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Well, high wing and shoulder wings come to mind...
> AV8 Harrier
> FA18
> F14 Tomcat
> B52
> FA22
>
> Probably more but I'm not a military type... Let others chime in...

A-7
F-8
F-111

[Andrew Gideon]

Stefan wrote:

> You mean like this:
> http://community.webshots.com/photo/105928170/280638909QTqtNi

Here, kitty kitty kitty.

- Andrew

[JJS]

> I'd suggest Cessna take the already clean and fast Cardinal, make it
> even slicke. Aircraft design has come a long way since 1968, there are
> a n easy 15 knots left in the basic airframe. They should sell the
> fixed gear version with a 200hp motor and the retract with a 230hp
> turbocharged motor. Throw in glass and FADAC. Lower the glareshield,
> as Mooney did recently, giving even better visiblity.
>
> Cessna would be swamped with orders for a plane like that.
>
> Cirrus wouldn't be killed, but it would be hurt really really bad.
>
> Jim Howard
>
This was exactly the vision I had. Unfortunately I'll have to hope for winning the Sporty's Pilot Shop give away
version I'm afraid.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

wrote:
> The key to making a high wing pretty is to move the wing as far aft as
> possible. Not only does this look better it greatly improves visiblity
> and gives a better cg range. If you've only flown 152/172/182 you
> haven't flown a properly designed high wing airplane.


To my way of thinking, there isn't a finer aircraft built than the C-210. Twin
speed and carrying capacity at 13 gallons per hour.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Andrew Gideon]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

> To my way of thinking, there isn't a finer aircraft built than the C-210.
> Twin speed and carrying capacity at 13 gallons per hour.

I was day-dreaming out loud at a recent MAPA meeting about getting a C-206
as my "family wagon" (two adults, two kids, some friends {8^). A 210 was
sitting next to me, and seemed quite adamant that the 210 was a better
choice than the 206. But there were enough others around that I was never
able to get details.

So...why the 210 instead of the 206?

- Andrew

[Peter Duniho]

"ET" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Without debating the idea of high wing vs low wing as far as flying
> advantages, the "perception" (right or wrong)of the high wing is a lower
> & slower plane . When have you seen a jet fighter with a high wing??

That's silly. People who actually *care* about something like speed look at
the specs, not the wing position.

Plenty of fast high-wings exist. The Mitsubishi MU-2, and the Extra 400 and
500 come to mind.

> To the public at large, a low wing plane is just a sexier, faster
> "look" to it.

Well, when the public at large are buying the airplane, then maybe they
might want to worry about that. But the public at large isn't, so Cessna
doesn't need to.

> I predict for that reason alone, the new "Cirrus Killer"
> Cessna will fail, not because it won't be a superior airplane, it
> probably will be, by the mere fact that it is designed to be, but
> because it will not "look" sexy enough with the high wing...

Assuming the airplane provides the performance they expect to get, your
prediction will go down in flames.

> [...]
> When I spend 350grand I want people to look at my plane and say ohhhh,

Fortunately, most people have more sensible heads on their shoulders. Don't
mistake your own opinion for common sense.

Pete

[George Patterson]

Stefan wrote:

> You mean like this:
> http://community.webshots.com/photo/105928170/280638909QTqtNi

Just remember that it's the co-pilot's job to do the preflight. :-)

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Montblack]

("Peter Duniho" wrote)
[snip]
> Plenty of fast high-wings exist. The Mitsubishi MU-2, and the Extra 400
> and 500 come to mind.


I have heard and read (meaning stumbled across) very little about the Extra
400 and 500 - saw some at OSH, that's it. I wonder if it's because so few
are flying?

Very little 'buzz' on those planes.


Montblack

[Dave Stadt]

"ET" > wrote in message
...
> Reading Avwebs latest addition (avweb.com) I'm reading all about how
> Cessna is developing (very hush hush) their "cirrus killer", new high
> performance 4 place single. They are being very hush hush about the
> whole thing, except for one point; the new design will be a high
> wing....
>
> Without debating the idea of high wing vs low wing as far as flying


> advantages, the "perception" (right or wrong)of the high wing is a lower
> & slower plane . When have you seen a jet fighter with a high wing??

Cessna has always gotten it better than any other aircraft company. They
have much more utility than Cirrus could even dream about. Wanna load a
bulky heavy object into a Cirrus in the rain? Not me. Wing position has
nothing to do with performance. People don't spend $350K based on
"perception." Most people I know do not believe in your "perception." To
sum it up you are simply wrong on all accounts. If you have stock in Cirrus
now would be a good time to sell.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> john smith wrote:
>
>> I will take being able to stand up out of the weather under the
>> protection of the high wing any day over trying to hold an umbrella while
>> loading pax and baggage.
>
> You mean like this:
> http://community.webshots.com/photo/105928170/280638909QTqtNi
>


Attention passenger of Blue Sky Flight 999. There will be a slight delay
before boarding.

[Peter Duniho]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> I have heard and read (meaning stumbled across) very little about the
> Extra 400 and 500 - saw some at OSH, that's it. I wonder if it's because
> so few are flying?

As far as I know, the 400 is no longer being produced, and the 500 isn't
certified yet. That information isn't exactly current though.

However, that doesn't mean that the airplanes aren't viable, and especially
not because of their wing position. Their lack of success in the market has
to do with issues like price, pilot qualifications, lack of "brand name" (in
the non-aerobatic world) and (in the case of the 500) lack of a deliverable
airplane.

IMHO, the price is the biggest issue. Just as they finally got the 400 into
production, the stock market collapsed, and around that same time several
light jet proposals appeared, promising twin-engine jet performance at the
same price as the 400. Given the slow production rate, I think a lot of
people figured if they were going to be on a waiting list, they might as
well wait for a jet.

I seriously doubt that the position of the wing has anything to do with the
relative obscurity of the 400/500 line.

Pete

[Andrew Gideon]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> Attention passenger of Blue Sky Flight 999. There will be a slight delay
> before boarding.

I forwarded this to a friend, and he didn't see "preflight". He saw kitties
lining up for a buffet immediately following a landing.

- Andrew

[Frankie]

> The Cirrus is a great plane, but its not a really pretty one. I
> parked next to a new Columbia the other day, and that airplane is
> really pretty....

Straying off topic......I think the Cirrus looks better than the Columbia.
The only problem with the Cirrus is its landing gear: the main wheels are
too far apart and the nose strut looks chunky since it's straight. Install a
nice arched nose wheel strut - like on the Grumman Tiger - and move the main
gear together and the problem would be corrected.

The proportions of a Columbia just don't look right to me, especially the
window lines. It looks too much like an experimental (still) - kinda goofy.

You're right about Cardinals: they look great and have much airspeed
potential if cleaned up.

Frankie

[ET]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in
m:

> People don't spend $350K based on
> "perception." Most people I know do not believe in your "perception."
> To sum it up you are simply wrong on all accounts. If you have stock
> in Cirrus now would be a good time to sell.
>

Actually, people DO buy many things based on perception, including $350
+K aircraft.

How many threads on this newsgroup have talked about "Cirrus pilots have
"the wrong stuff""..

How many people buy a $25-$30k Harley for the "cool" factor, even though
a $9K Kawasaki may be every bit as good a bike???


How many of your wives out there would have (again, right or wrong)
climbed into the cockpit with you sooner if the plane had a BRS
installed??

Call it Perception... call it Emotion.. That's what drives sales. Not
talking about a better plane... it's "marketing"

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Stefan]

Montblack wrote:

> I have heard and read (meaning stumbled across) very little about the
> Extra 400 and 500 - saw some at OSH, that's it. I wonder if it's because
> so few are flying?

Extra was in financial trouble. (I think they actually went bankrupt.)
At the Aero this spring I talked to a representant of them, they found
investors and are in production again, but I don't have any numbers.

Stean

[Brian]

Wouldn't surpise me if that is what they have in mind is a Fixed Gear
Late Model 210.

Fixed gear simplfies the systems and pilot skills required. A
Cantelevered wing from the 210 would give some speed inprovement. It
would probably be a bit slower than the Cirrus for equivalant Horse
power, but you would gain almost 500lbs of useful load and probably 2
more seats.

Actually if the could sell compriably equiped late model 210's for the
same price as the Cirrus they would probably put a large dent in the
Cirrus sales.

Just my speculation

Brian

[[email protected]]

"How many of your wives out there would have (again, right or wrong)
climbed into the cockpit with you sooner if the plane had a BRS
installed?? "

The BRS is a wife pleaser, no doubt about it. But how many wives would
like an airplane with huge SUV sized doors that don't require any
climbing at all? An airplane they just step into to, like they do their
Ford Explorer?

That would be a Cardinal or C210 with a BRS.

[john smith]

In article >,
Stefan > wrote:

> http://community.webshots.com/photo/105928170/280638909QTqtNi

Yes, and to walk around outside the airplane (on top of the wing)
without getting eaten.

[john smith]

In article >,
"Peter R." > wrote:

> john smith > wrote:
>
> > I will take being able to stand up out of the weather under the
> > protection of the high wing any day over trying to hold an umbrella
> > while loading pax and baggage.
>
> Not to mention stepping up onto the wing to enter the cabin. I have been
> flying more Angel Flight patients lately who are having a problem with
> this.

That is where the Cherokee Six/Saratoga are the most practical.
The rear doors are low enough to allow the pax to set their butts down
on the lower door sill and slide/turn into the cabin.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> I was day-dreaming out loud at a recent MAPA meeting about getting a C-206
> as my "family wagon" (two adults, two kids, some friends {8^). A 210 was
> sitting next to me, and seemed quite adamant that the 210 was a better
> choice than the 206. But there were enough others around that I was never
> able to get details.
>
> So...why the 210 instead of the 206?


Faster, sexier...



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[john smith]

> Call it Perception... call it Emotion.. That's what drives sales. Not
> talking about a better plane... it's "marketing"

No, what drives sales is MARKETING!
How much money and "information" are presented to the potential buyers
is what makes sales.
There are more people with money than there are people with money AND
brains.

[john smith]

> The BRS is a wife pleaser, no doubt about it.

My wife doesn't even know what a BRS is.
She still says, "Let's fly to ??? for the weekend."

[ET]

john smith > wrote in news:jsmith-6C8F3E.18045030092005
@news-rdr-02.ohiordc.rr.com:

>> Call it Perception... call it Emotion.. That's what drives sales. Not
>> talking about a better plane... it's "marketing"
>
> No, what drives sales is MARKETING!
> How much money and "information" are presented to the potential buyers
> is what makes sales.
> There are more people with money than there are people with money AND
> brains.
>


My point exactly, thanks...

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Greg Copeland]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:41:11 +0000, Dave Stadt wrote:

> nothing to do with performance. People don't spend $350K based on
> "perception." Most people I know do not believe in your "perception." To

If people didn't care about "perception", companies like Harley would have
been out of business two decades ago. Heck, I've known people that have
bought items like Porche, Ferrari, and Lamborghini just because of
"perception."

In fact, I would hazzard a guess that the vast majority of people do buy
things based solely on perception. Heck, it plays a MAJOR role in car
buying for the masses. Believe it or not, car purchases in the US is
considered an impulse buy. That tells me that they are buying strictly
based on perception rather than product knowledge.

Greg

[John Clonts]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> The key to making a high wing pretty is to move the wing as far aft as
>> possible. Not only does this look better it greatly improves visiblity
>> and gives a better cg range. If you've only flown 152/172/182 you
>> haven't flown a properly designed high wing airplane.
>
>
> To my way of thinking, there isn't a finer aircraft built than the C-210. Twin speed and carrying capacity
> at 13 gallons per hour.
>

Mortimer, you da man!

[Jase Vanover]

Great thread...

If you want to talk Ferrari's and such, yeah it doesn't matter utility at
all... charge what you want and make it sexy, exclusive and fast. Cessna
can't do this regardless of the design, however (how many times have you
equated "Cessna" with sexy, exclusive, and fast?)

They could pull the same trick as the Japanese auto makers and start a new
brand (a la Lexus (Toyota), Acura (Honda), Infinity (Nissan)), but "Cessna"
as sexy would be a long expensive pull from a marketing perspective.

At the end of the day, the question Cessna should ask themselves, is what
niche do they want to excel at? Do they want to be the GA dream plane, or
do they want to be the most performing practical utility option? If they
try to be all things to all people, they will fail. I tend to think the
practical segment has more dollars in it, but Cirrus seems to have done a
good job at getting a good deal of practical into an attractive package.
It's up to Cessna to market themselves apart from Cirrus to make sure the
public gets the picture they want them to have.

Cessna needs, and should have by now, a wake up call regarding their ancient
designs, but they need not stray from what has made them "successful" for
decades.

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:41:11 +0000, Dave Stadt wrote:
>
>> nothing to do with performance. People don't spend $350K based on
>> "perception." Most people I know do not believe in your "perception."
>> To
>
> If people didn't care about "perception", companies like Harley would have
> been out of business two decades ago. Heck, I've known people that have
> bought items like Porche, Ferrari, and Lamborghini just because of
> "perception."
>
> In fact, I would hazzard a guess that the vast majority of people do buy
> things based solely on perception. Heck, it plays a MAJOR role in car
> buying for the masses. Believe it or not, car purchases in the US is
> considered an impulse buy. That tells me that they are buying strictly
> based on perception rather than product knowledge.
>
> Greg
>

[George Patterson]

ET wrote:

> How many of your wives out there would have (again, right or wrong)
> climbed into the cockpit with you sooner if the plane had a BRS
> installed??

Neither one of them.

In fact, if my Maule had had a BRS, I would not have bought it. The useful load
wouldn't have been high enough.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Matt Whiting]

ET wrote:
> Reading Avwebs latest addition (avweb.com) I'm reading all about how
> Cessna is developing (very hush hush) their "cirrus killer", new high
> performance 4 place single. They are being very hush hush about the
> whole thing, except for one point; the new design will be a high
> wing....
>
> Without debating the idea of high wing vs low wing as far as flying
> advantages, the "perception" (right or wrong)of the high wing is a lower
> & slower plane . When have you seen a jet fighter with a high wing??

Oh, just the last time that I looked at an F-14, F-15, F-111 or F-18.
Ok, the -18 is maybe a little closer to a mid-wing like the F-16, but I
believe the wing is still above the CG of the airplane and that is what
defines a high wing to me.


> To the public at large, a low wing plane is just a sexier, faster
> "look" to it. I predict for that reason alone, the new "Cirrus Killer"
> Cessna will fail, not because it won't be a superior airplane, it
> probably will be, by the mere fact that it is designed to be, but
> because it will not "look" sexy enough with the high wing... no matter
> how well it performs, it will still have at its heart, the look of a
> 150/172.....

Baloney. If Cessna makes a high-wing that performs even close to the
Cirrus for even close to the same amount of money, people will beat a
path to their door for a few reasons.

1. Because it is a Cessna.
2. High-wing Cessnas along historically have outsold all other low wing
makes and models combined.
3. Because a high-wing simply offers greater utility than a low-wing
and more people buy airplanes for utility than for pleasure flying.


> When I spend 350grand I want people to look at my plane and say ohhhh,
> ahhhh, not just pilots either…. A high wing will design will not make me
> feel like Maverick on "Top Gun"… (Tell me honestly you don't see almost
> every Cirrus buyer playing "highway to the danger zone" mentally in his
> head at some point while flying his new Cirrus…<heh>)

I doubt most Cirrus owners are this shallow or this deluded, but then I
don't know any personally...


> And if it doesnt have the BRS or GRS or equivelent, it will also fail.
> Many pilots wives are much less nervous about flying with a BRS
> installed (again, right or wrong, what is important in this level of the
> market is perception... if it was all about money, they would all be
> buying 20 year old 180's..)

What is important to most pilots is data, not perception. Last data I
saw had the Cirrus being at least a likely to kill its occupants as a
Skylane.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

ET wrote:

> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in
> m:
>
>
>>People don't spend $350K based on
>>"perception." Most people I know do not believe in your "perception."
>> To sum it up you are simply wrong on all accounts. If you have stock
>>in Cirrus now would be a good time to sell.
>>
>
>
> Actually, people DO buy many things based on perception, including $350
> +K aircraft.
>
> How many threads on this newsgroup have talked about "Cirrus pilots have
> "the wrong stuff""..
>
> How many people buy a $25-$30k Harley for the "cool" factor, even though
> a $9K Kawasaki may be every bit as good a bike???
>
>
> How many of your wives out there would have (again, right or wrong)
> climbed into the cockpit with you sooner if the plane had a BRS
> installed??
>
> Call it Perception... call it Emotion.. That's what drives sales. Not
> talking about a better plane... it's "marketing"

Yes, many people do, but pilots aren't normal people. :-)

Pilots are generally thinking people by nature and I suspect much less
likely to buy based on emotion or perception.


Matt

[cjcampbell]

ET wrote:
> Reading Avwebs latest addition (avweb.com) I'm reading all about how
> Cessna is developing (very hush hush) their "cirrus killer", new high
> performance 4 place single. They are being very hush hush about the
> whole thing, except for one point; the new design will be a high
> wing....
>
> Without debating the idea of high wing vs low wing as far as flying
> advantages, the "perception" (right or wrong)of the high wing is a lower
> & slower plane . When have you seen a jet fighter with a high wing??
>

The perception is entirely yours. Most jet fighters have high wings --
more room to carry ordnance. High wing aircraft are easier to preflight
and get in and out of.

The general public does not buy airplanes. Pilots buy airplanes. If
what you want is another $350,000 ornament to show off, go get yourself
a sports car. Hardly anyone comes out to the airport to admire your
airplane.

[Dave Stadt]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:41:11 +0000, Dave Stadt wrote:
>
> > nothing to do with performance. People don't spend $350K based on
> > "perception." Most people I know do not believe in your "perception."
To
>
> If people didn't care about "perception", companies like Harley would have
> been out of business two decades ago. Heck, I've known people that have
> bought items like Porche, Ferrari, and Lamborghini just because of
> "perception."

Harley, Porsche, Ferrari and Lamborghini owners combined are an
insignificant percentage of total motorcycle and car owners. Harley has
been almost out of business numerous times during it's history.

> In fact, I would hazzard a guess that the vast majority of people do buy
> things based solely on perception. Heck, it plays a MAJOR role in car
> buying for the masses. Believe it or not, car purchases in the US is
> considered an impulse buy. That tells me that they are buying strictly
> based on perception rather than product knowledge.

Those that buy based on perception deserve what they get. I know far more
people that buy based on mission than perception.

> Greg
>

[Sylvain]

Dave Stadt wrote:

> Those that buy based on perception deserve what they get. I know far more
> people that buy based on mission than perception.

then how do you explain SUVs?

--Sylvain

[Dave Stadt]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> > The BRS is a wife pleaser, no doubt about it.
>
> My wife doesn't even know what a BRS is.
> She still says, "Let's fly to ??? for the weekend."

If my plane had a BRS my wife would question my piloting abilities being so
bad I need something akin to training wheels. She would probably not go
with as she does now often falling to sleep minutes into the flight.

[Ken Reed]

> Many pilots wives are much less nervous about flying with a BRS
> installed.

That was a very significant factor for me buying a Cirrus.

KR

[ET]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:wcn%e.1166$lb.94797
@news1.epix.net:

> Oh, just the last time that I looked at an F-14, F-15, F-111 or F-18.
> Ok, the -18 is maybe a little closer to a mid-wing like the F-16, but I
> believe the wing is still above the CG of the airplane and that is what
> defines a high wing to me.
>

OK, change "high wing" to "wing over your head" and my point is still
valid.... I believe all of the above have the wing out of the pilots
vision....


--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Dave Stadt]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>
> > Those that buy based on perception deserve what they get. I know far
more
> > people that buy based on mission than perception.
>
> then how do you explain SUVs?
>
> --Sylvain

I don't even try but if I had to guess I would say small penis.

[ET]

Ken Reed > wrote in news:mfo%e.5268$zQ3.1253
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

>> Many pilots wives are much less nervous about flying with a BRS
>> installed.
>
> That was a very significant factor for me buying a Cirrus.
>
> KR

Thanks for the admission, I know 3 other pilot personally who feel the
same... (and wrote the check to prove it) "WE" know that the "REAL"
need for the BRS is a very small percentage of accidents, but our non-
pilot friends/loved ones have a whole different perception....

"but honey, what if something goes wrong??? Well sweety, we just pull
this here handle and all is well"

"WE" all know we go through the checklist, Look for a good place to do a
deadstick landing etc... and the "REAL" need for the BRS is a VERY VERY
small percentage, but THEY know if all else fails, there is an
alternative... (and quite frankly, if WE are honest with ourselves,
doesn't is make us feel a "little" bit better???) If the plane is
designed for it, that 30ish pounds will not make a dif in usefull load
eh?

I dunno, I guess I don't need a " "rs until I NEED a " "rs.....

--
-- ET >:-)

"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Dave Stadt]

"ET" > wrote in message
...
> Ken Reed > wrote in news:mfo%e.5268$zQ3.1253
> @newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> >> Many pilots wives are much less nervous about flying with a BRS
> >> installed.
> >
> > That was a very significant factor for me buying a Cirrus.
> >
> > KR
>
> Thanks for the admission, I know 3 other pilot personally who feel the
> same... (and wrote the check to prove it) "WE" know that the "REAL"
> need for the BRS is a very small percentage of accidents, but our non-
> pilot friends/loved ones have a whole different perception....
>
> "but honey, what if something goes wrong??? Well sweety, we just pull
> this here handle and all is well"
>
> "WE" all know we go through the checklist, Look for a good place to do a
> deadstick landing etc... and the "REAL" need for the BRS is a VERY VERY
> small percentage, but THEY know if all else fails, there is an
> alternative... (and quite frankly, if WE are honest with ourselves,
> doesn't is make us feel a "little" bit better???) If the plane is
> designed for it, that 30ish pounds will not make a dif in usefull load
> eh?
>
> I dunno, I guess I don't need a " "rs until I NEED a " "rs.....
>
> --
> -- ET >:-)
>
> "A common mistake people make when trying to design something
> completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
> fools."---- Douglas Adams

Unfortunately the Cirrus BRS has a less than stellar performance record.
Although I think it did work for the guy with a sore leg.

[Morgans]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote

> I don't even try but if I had to guess I would say small penis.

I don't have a SUV, but I think that characterization is off target.

It really isn't that hard to figure out. Lots of room to haul people, kids
and their stuff, kids friends, and other general stuff. Four wheel drive,
so you can still go when it snows, or you park in the wet grass, and get
stuck. A feeling of security, when you are driving by a 53 foot long
semi-truck trailer being pulled by a 28 foot tractor, or when pitted against
a little import in a crash situation. Showing, for all to see, that you are
successful enough to be able to afford how ever much gas it burns, no matter
what the cost. The ability to pull trailers with ease, filled with whatever
toys you have, like boats, camping trailers, lawn mower trailers, covered
trailers for moving your kids into school, or what ever other trailer you
might want to pull.

Try doing all of that with your Toyota Corolla.
--
Jim in NC

[Stefan]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Yes, many people do, but pilots aren't normal people. :-)
>
> Pilots are generally thinking people by nature and I suspect much less
> likely to buy based on emotion or perception.

And that's why they absolutely refuse to buy a new design but prefer to
deliberately stick with 50s technology... :-P

Stefan

[John]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote: "To my way of thinking, there isn't a
finer aircraft built than the C-210. Twin
speed and carrying capacity at 13 gallons per hour."

Yeah but the back row of seats . . . ugh . . . I wouldnt wish riding
there on any adult. Just my opinion . . . but I did not like sitting
back there the one time I did it.

Blue skies

JP

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Morgans" > said:
>and their stuff, kids friends, and other general stuff. Four wheel drive,
>so you can still go when it snows, or you park in the wet grass, and get
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Too bad they don't give you the ability to stop when it snows.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Here in the US, we are so schizoid and deeply opposed to government
censorship that we insist on having unaccountable private parties
to do it instead. -- Bill Cole

[Matt Whiting]

Sylvain wrote:
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>
>> Those that buy based on perception deserve what they get. I know far
>> more
>> people that buy based on mission than perception.
>
>
> then how do you explain SUVs?

Have you ever owned one?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Ken Reed wrote:

>> Many pilots wives are much less nervous about flying with a BRS
>> installed.
>
>
> That was a very significant factor for me buying a Cirrus.

And folks that don't understand probability very will also buy lottery
tickets.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

ET wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote in news:wcn%e.1166$lb.94797
> @news1.epix.net:
>
>
>>Oh, just the last time that I looked at an F-14, F-15, F-111 or F-18.
>>Ok, the -18 is maybe a little closer to a mid-wing like the F-16, but I
>>believe the wing is still above the CG of the airplane and that is what
>>defines a high wing to me.
>>
>
>
> OK, change "high wing" to "wing over your head" and my point is still
> valid.... I believe all of the above have the wing out of the pilots
> vision....

Well, few, if any (I can't think of one), of the modern jet fighters has
the wing anywhere near the pilot's head. It is usually 10 or more feet
behind the pilot's head.

Yes, all of the above have the wing out of the pilot's line of vision
unless they are looking pretty much backwards. And almost all light
airplanes have the wing in the pilot's line of vision, be they low or
high wing. I could see downward and navigate and make select emergency
landing sites MUCH easier in my Skylane than I can in the club Arrow I
now fly. Yes, the Arrow makes it easier to see the runway during the
approach to landing, but I spend 95% of my time enroute, unless I'm
doing touch and goes in the pattern. I'd much rather be able to see
well 95% of the time than less than 5% of the time. And even in the
pattern, you can see the runway better all but a small fraction of the
time when you are turning. And when you roll level on base, you can
easily see the runway again to time your turn to final. I'm always
amazed at pilots who can't seem to handle this without seeing a constant
view of the runway.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Sylvain" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Dave Stadt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Those that buy based on perception deserve what they get. I know far
>
> more
>
>>>people that buy based on mission than perception.
>>
>>then how do you explain SUVs?
>>
>>--Sylvain
>
>
> I don't even try but if I had to guess I would say small penis.

Because that is your problem? I don't own an SUV, but I do own a
full-size pickup. It would be very hard to mount my snowplow and haul
firewood with a car.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Stefan wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Yes, many people do, but pilots aren't normal people. :-)
>>
>> Pilots are generally thinking people by nature and I suspect much less
>> likely to buy based on emotion or perception.
>
>
> And that's why they absolutely refuse to buy a new design but prefer to
> deliberately stick with 50s technology... :-P

The Cirrus design is also 50s, actually even earlier. Low-wing,
conventional tail airplane design is rather old. They used a newer
material, but even composites have been around now for probably 50 years.

Don't confuse new with better. I'm glad Cirrus exists as I think it
will possibly spur Cessna to build a new airplane that will have the
advantages of a Cessna with improved performance. That will benefit us
all, well at least us high-wing fans who like an airplane that can be
repaired almost anywhere in this country and most of the world.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> In a previous article, "Morgans" > said:
>
>>and their stuff, kids friends, and other general stuff. Four wheel drive,
>>so you can still go when it snows, or you park in the wet grass, and get
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Too bad they don't give you the ability to stop when it snows.

They stop as well as most other vehicles.


Matt

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-09-30, ET > wrote:
> Without debating the idea of high wing vs low wing as far as flying
> advantages, the "perception" (right or wrong)of the high wing is a lower
> & slower plane . When have you seen a jet fighter with a high wing??

Well, the Panavia Tornado and the F-15 Eagle to mention just two. I
suppose you could argue it's more of a shoulder wing, but they certainly
aren't low wing planes.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

> >and their stuff, kids friends, and other general stuff. Four wheel drive,
> >so you can still go when it snows, or you park in the wet grass, and get
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Too bad they don't give you the ability to stop when it snows.

no worse than other vehicles.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-10-01, Jase Vanover > wrote:
> can't do this regardless of the design, however (how many times have you
> equated "Cessna" with sexy, exclusive, and fast?)

Generally when travelling in a C210, C310 or CitationJet.
I think the 180 is sexy and exclusive. It may not be fast though :-)

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dave Stadt]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote
>
> > I don't even try but if I had to guess I would say small penis.
>
> I don't have a SUV, but I think that characterization is off target.
>
> It really isn't that hard to figure out. Lots of room to haul people,
kids
> and their stuff, kids friends, and other general stuff. Four wheel drive,
> so you can still go when it snows, or you park in the wet grass, and get
> stuck. A feeling of security, when you are driving by a 53 foot long
> semi-truck trailer being pulled by a 28 foot tractor, or when pitted
against
> a little import in a crash situation. Showing, for all to see, that you
are
> successful enough to be able to afford how ever much gas it burns, no
matter
> what the cost. The ability to pull trailers with ease, filled with
whatever
> toys you have, like boats, camping trailers, lawn mower trailers, covered
> trailers for moving your kids into school, or what ever other trailer you
> might want to pull.
>
> Try doing all of that with your Toyota Corolla.
> --
> Jim in NC

Most SUVs are driven by one person going to work on dry pavement. Most do
not pull trailers. Most do not have 4-wheel drive and I quite often pass
them like they were standing still in the snow with my Saturn wagon. The
safety aspect is suspect.

[Dave Stadt]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Stadt wrote:
> > "Sylvain" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Dave Stadt wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Those that buy based on perception deserve what they get. I know far
> >
> > more
> >
> >>>people that buy based on mission than perception.
> >>
> >>then how do you explain SUVs?
> >>
> >>--Sylvain
> >
> >
> > I don't even try but if I had to guess I would say small penis.
>
> Because that is your problem? I don't own an SUV, but I do own a
> full-size pickup. It would be very hard to mount my snowplow and haul
> firewood with a car.
>
> Matt

Well no, I have owned a number of full size pick-ups when I had a mission
that required one.

[Jase Vanover]

Perhaps, but the point I'm trying to make is that regardless of the plane,
"Cessna" the brand isn't sexy. Ask 10 people what image the brand conjures
up for them, and see how many times sexy, fast or exclusive comes up. I'd
be that for every one who thinks CitationJet, there will be 9 that think of
172's.

PS. I also think the Cardinal is rather a looker...

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2005-10-01, Jase Vanover > wrote:
>> can't do this regardless of the design, however (how many times have you
>> equated "Cessna" with sexy, exclusive, and fast?)
>
> Generally when travelling in a C210, C310 or CitationJet.
> I think the 180 is sexy and exclusive. It may not be fast though :-)
>

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Bob Noel > said:
>In article >,
> (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>> >and their stuff, kids friends, and other general stuff. Four wheel drive,
>> >so you can still go when it snows, or you park in the wet grass, and get
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Too bad they don't give you the ability to stop when it snows.
>
>no worse than other vehicles.

Only twice as heavy and more susceptable to side winds.

I've gotten into a lot more trouble when I can't stop when it's snowing
than I have when I can't go. "Can't go" is an inconvenience, "can't stop"
is life threatening.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Can I LART an aol'r for attempting to subscribe to a majordomo list
with their street address, or should I wait for a second offence?
-- Allan Stojanovic

[Andrew Gideon]

Sylvain wrote:

> then how do you explain SUVs?

My brother in law has one. He explains that his accountant told him that it
saved him money somehow based upon some tax break specifically designed to
encourage purchase of that type of vehicle. Since he drives very little
(ie. the fuel cost is less of a factor in his life), it made sense.

Why there'd be such a law, I've zero idea. It seems odd to me.

A friend of mine also owns one, but he uses it for lugging his boat around.
He drives a far more sensible vehicle other times.

[Of course, one could question the sense of a large boat in terms of fuel
costs. But then I'm sure some people could raise the same spectre for
aircraft <laugh>.]

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Jase Vanover wrote:

> AskÂ*10Â*peopleÂ*whatÂ*imageÂ*theÂ*brandÂ*conjures
> up for them, and see how many times sexy, fast or exclusive comes up.

That just makes it easier to surprise them.

- Andrew

[john smith]

In article >,
ET > wrote:

> Ken Reed > wrote in news:mfo%e.5268$zQ3.1253
> @newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> >> Many pilots wives are much less nervous about flying with a BRS
> >> installed.
> >
> > That was a very significant factor for me buying a Cirrus.
> >
> > KR
>
> Thanks for the admission, I know 3 other pilot personally who feel the
> same... (and wrote the check to prove it) "WE" know that the "REAL"
> need for the BRS is a very small percentage of accidents, but our non-
> pilot friends/loved ones have a whole different perception....

Only two situations I can think of where having a BRS would save my
butt...
1.) mid-air collision
2.) loss of prop and/or engine (due to vibration from broken prop).
Yes, I have seen the Sean Tucker video.

[beavis]

In article e.com>,
Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> My brother in law has [an SUV]. He explains that his accountant told him that it
> saved him money somehow based upon some tax break specifically designed to
> encourage purchase of that type of vehicle....
>
> Why there'd be such a law, I've zero idea. It seems odd to me.

Have you seen the President and his cabinet? It looks like an oil
company board meeting. I think it's fairly obvious why a tax break for
fuel-thirsty vehicles is on the books, while the tax credit for hybrids
is whittled away.

[Matt Whiting]

Dave Stadt wrote:

> Most SUVs are driven by one person going to work on dry pavement.
Most do
> not pull trailers. Most do not have 4-wheel drive and I quite often pass
> them like they were standing still in the snow with my Saturn wagon. The
> safety aspect is suspect.

Yes, most folks don't tow their trailer to work every day with them.
However, they may tow it every weekend. Would you rather they waste the
resources and have two vehicles, one for the weekend and one to drive to
work? The energy required to make the car and operate it is much
greater than the incremental gas required to drive the SUV to work
during the week and not have a second vehicle.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dave Stadt wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Dave Stadt wrote:
>>
>>>"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dave Stadt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Those that buy based on perception deserve what they get. I know far
>>>
>>>more
>>>
>>>
>>>>>people that buy based on mission than perception.
>>>>
>>>>then how do you explain SUVs?
>>>>
>>>>--Sylvain
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't even try but if I had to guess I would say small penis.
>>
>>Because that is your problem? I don't own an SUV, but I do own a
>>full-size pickup. It would be very hard to mount my snowplow and haul
>>firewood with a car.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Well no, I have owned a number of full size pick-ups when I had a mission
> that required one.

And I know a number of people for whom an SUV is an ideal vehicle. They
routinely haul 7 people and tow trailers and boats. I have two minivans
and a pickup as I also routinely haul 7 people and a camper, but not at
the same time. If I needed to do both simultaneously, then I'd like own
an SUV also.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dave Stadt wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Dave Stadt wrote:
>>
>>>"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dave Stadt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Those that buy based on perception deserve what they get. I know far
>>>
>>>more
>>>
>>>
>>>>>people that buy based on mission than perception.
>>>>
>>>>then how do you explain SUVs?
>>>>
>>>>--Sylvain
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't even try but if I had to guess I would say small penis.
>>
>>Because that is your problem? I don't own an SUV, but I do own a
>>full-size pickup. It would be very hard to mount my snowplow and haul
>>firewood with a car.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Well no, I have owned a number of full size pick-ups when I had a mission
> that required one.

Most airplanes are flown much of the time by a single pilot. Do you
think we should all have only single pax airplanes and not have the
typical 4-place light plane?


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jase Vanover wrote:

> Perhaps, but the point I'm trying to make is that regardless of the plane,
> "Cessna" the brand isn't sexy. Ask 10 people what image the brand conjures
> up for them, and see how many times sexy, fast or exclusive comes up. I'd
> be that for every one who thinks CitationJet, there will be 9 that think of
> 172's.

Maybe. However, ask those same 10 people what image the Cirrus brand
conjures up for them and they'll either say "a what?" or they'll say it
isn't a bad car as Chryslers go.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> In a previous article, Bob Noel > said:
>
>>In article >,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>>
>>>>and their stuff, kids friends, and other general stuff. Four wheel drive,
>>>>so you can still go when it snows, or you park in the wet grass, and get
>>>
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>Too bad they don't give you the ability to stop when it snows.
>>
>>no worse than other vehicles.
>
>
> Only twice as heavy and more susceptable to side winds.

You obviously haven't driven many SUVs and are just reading what others
write, who also haven't driven SUVs.


> I've gotten into a lot more trouble when I can't stop when it's snowing
> than I have when I can't go. "Can't go" is an inconvenience, "can't stop"
> is life threatening.

True. And this has exactly what to do with SUVS vs. cars? Cars have
the same problem stopping on slick surfaces as do SUVs.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

john smith wrote:

> Only two situations I can think of where having a BRS would save my
> butt...
> 1.) mid-air collision
> 2.) loss of prop and/or engine (due to vibration from broken prop).
> Yes, I have seen the Sean Tucker video.

What Tucker video? Is available online?

Matt

[Dave Stadt]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Stadt wrote:
>
> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Dave Stadt wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Sylvain" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Dave Stadt wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Those that buy based on perception deserve what they get. I know far
> >>>
> >>>more
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>people that buy based on mission than perception.
> >>>>
> >>>>then how do you explain SUVs?
> >>>>
> >>>>--Sylvain
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I don't even try but if I had to guess I would say small penis.
> >>
> >>Because that is your problem? I don't own an SUV, but I do own a
> >>full-size pickup. It would be very hard to mount my snowplow and haul
> >>firewood with a car.
> >>
> >>Matt
> >
> >
> > Well no, I have owned a number of full size pick-ups when I had a
mission
> > that required one.
>
> Most airplanes are flown much of the time by a single pilot. Do you
> think we should all have only single pax airplanes and not have the
> typical 4-place light plane?
>
>
> Matt

Quite a few people I know are moving from 4 place to 2 place airplanes.
I'll let you figure out the reason. One can ususlly rent a four place when
the need arises.

[john smith]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> john smith wrote:
>
> > Only two situations I can think of where having a BRS would save my
> > butt...
> > 1.) mid-air collision
> > 2.) loss of prop and/or engine (due to vibration from broken prop).
> > Yes, I have seen the Sean Tucker video.
>
> What Tucker video? Is available online?

Sean Tucker took his niece out for a ride in a Pitts.
After some easy maneuvers to get her accustomed to acro, he pulled up
into a hammerhead. While going vertical, the prop went one way and the
Pitts another. Immediately recognizing the situation, he go the nose
down and continued to fly the airplane. While calmly and repeatedly
assuring his niece that "everything is alright", he found a suitable
landing site and set up his approach. He executed a flawless landing and
they walked away. The whole thing was recorded on a cockpit audio/video
device. From the loss of the prop to rolling to a stop was less than two
minutes. It is one of the most incredible videos I have seen
demonstrating cockpit cool under pressure. Airspeed to maintain control
was around 140 kts, including the approach and touchdown.
I do not know if it is on his website. He shows it during his Oshkosh
presentations.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Matt Whiting > said:
>And folks that don't understand probability very will also buy lottery
>tickets.

So will folks who find a momentary thrill is worth a buck. I've paid more
for less.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Get with the program, jeffrey. No one is 'wrong' on Usenet. They are
either 100% totally correct, or they are 'a lying, scum sucking weasel.'
There is no in-between. -- Garrett Johnson

[Sylvain]

Ash Wyllie wrote:
> The tax break was designed to help out small businesses thaat use heavy
> pickups: farmers, snowplowers et al.
>
> It seems that doctors, lawyers and dentists driving Suburbans also qualify.

in fact, depending on how much revenue, one such business can
practically get a brand spanking new SUV every year (if I remember
correctly can deduct something like 100k a year -- providing the
thing is over 6000 lbs); in other words, they have the choice
between a brand new car for free, or to pay like the rest of
us (who are also subsidizing the SUVs), gas milleage doesn't
make much of a difference.

This is an area where I would really like to see free market
doing its thing...

--Sylvain

[George Patterson]

Ash Wyllie wrote:

> But how many high wing /piston/ fighters were made[1]?

There were several. The Fokker D-8 was an excellent fighter for it's day. France
made another in the 30s.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Ash Wyllie]

ET opined

>Matt Whiting > wrote in news:wcn%e.1166$lb.94797
:

>> Oh, just the last time that I looked at an F-14, F-15, F-111 or F-18.
>> Ok, the -18 is maybe a little closer to a mid-wing like the F-16, but I
>> believe the wing is still above the CG of the airplane and that is what
>> defines a high wing to me.
>>

>OK, change "high wing" to "wing over your head" and my point is still
>valid.... I believe all of the above have the wing out of the pilots
>vision....


Whether jet fighters are high wing or midwing is an interesting question...
But how many high wing /piston/ fighters were made[1]?

-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

1. biplanes don't count.

[Ash Wyllie]

Andrew Gideon opined

>Sylvain wrote:

>> then how do you explain SUVs?

>My brother in law has one. He explains that his accountant told him that it
>saved him money somehow based upon some tax break specifically designed to
>encourage purchase of that type of vehicle. Since he drives very little
>(ie. the fuel cost is less of a factor in his life), it made sense.

>Why there'd be such a law, I've zero idea. It seems odd to me.

The tax break was designed to help out small businesses thaat use heavy
pickups: farmers, snowplowers et al.

It seems that doctors, lawyers and dentists driving Suburbans also qualify.

To my mind, cutting a few percent off of the corporate tax would have been a
better idea, and would not have cost anymore.


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

> >> Too bad they don't give you the ability to stop when it snows.
> >
> >no worse than other vehicles.
>
> Only twice as heavy

many cars weigh more than my SUV.

>and more susceptable to side winds.

like mini-vans?

Seriously, there is no great secret to driving in the snow.
Take it easy, take it slow, allow plenty of room. This doesn't
change one bit whether it's a regular car or an SUV.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[[email protected]]

>>>The key to making a high wing pretty is to move the wing as far aft as
possible. Now sweep the tail, install a stabilator, saw off the
struts, make the
tiedown rings retract, and use mostly flush rivets and your high wing
airplane is now a stunner, with far more ramp appeal than a clorox
bottle with wings. In other words, make a Cardinal. <<<

Amazing. That's exactly the airplane I'd pictured when I first read
about Cessna's new plane. A composite Cardinal. Although I doubt Cessna
would build another retract because of product liability(?) Besides,
look how fast the SR-22 and Columbias go with fixed gear. Apparently
retracts are not required any more to make a plane go fast.

[Morgans]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Morgans" > said:
> >and their stuff, kids friends, and other general stuff. Four wheel
drive,
> >so you can still go when it snows, or you park in the wet grass, and get
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Too bad they don't give you the ability to stop when it snows.

Actually, with anti-lock braking, they stop very well. Common sense goes a
long way, in driving.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote
>
> Only twice as heavy and more susceptable to side winds.

twice as heavy (which they really are not) means more weight on the wheels,
which give a higher coefficient of friction, plus the fact that they have
bigger tires. It also helps if you don't drive faster than your ability to
stop for the conditions.

If you don't like SUV's, OK, but this is a stupid argument to base the cons
on.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote

> Most SUVs are driven by one person going to work on dry pavement.

True, for most of the time, but when you do want to go somewhere on
vacation, or the weekend, you have the capability.

>Most do not pull trailers.

Some do, sometimes. Not which ones have a hitch. Lots do.

> Most do not have 4-wheel drive

More do, than do not, I would guess. More vehicles with 4WD are pickups or
SUV's, though, right?

> and I quite often pass
> them like they were standing still in the snow with my Saturn wagon.

You still have to know how to drive in snow, which most do not. They are
worthless on ice, as is your wagon.

> The safety aspect is suspect.

Ah, so true, but notice I said a "feeling" of security. <g> I *do* like
sitting up higher than a low car, even if they are not as safe as some cars,
though.

I'm not a fan of SUV's for everyone, but I do understand why so many people
want them. In my ideal world, I would have a SUV for times when the size is
needed, and a little gas mizer for when I am driving to work and back.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote

> Quite a few people I know are moving from 4 place to 2 place airplanes.

The problem I see with that, is that so many 4 place airplanes are really
only 2 place with full fuel and luggage. If the 2 place is really a 2 place
with decent range and load carrying, there are great reasons to change.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Duniho]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> in fact, depending on how much revenue, one such business can
> practically get a brand spanking new SUV every year (if I remember
> correctly can deduct something like 100k a year -- providing the
> thing is over 6000 lbs); in other words, they have the choice
> between a brand new car for free

It's a deduction, not a tax credit. A person would have to be pretty dumb
to think they are getting a brand new car for free.

Pete

[Morgans]

> wrote

> Amazing. That's exactly the airplane I'd pictured when I first read
> about Cessna's new plane. A composite Cardinal.

My guess is that it will still be aluminum, but with better aerodynamic
lines. I can't see Cessna going away from what it knows, and what it is set
up for.

I think there would have been some talk among the community, of composite
guys, or equipment, or companies being pulled in.
--
Jim in NC

[Seth Masia]

How about a fixed-gear Extra 500? Fast, sexy, practical.
http://www.mach-flyg.com/notiser/bilder/extra500_1.jpg

Seth


"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
...
> Andrew Gideon wrote:
>> I was day-dreaming out loud at a recent MAPA meeting about getting a
>> C-206
>> as my "family wagon" (two adults, two kids, some friends {8^). A 210 was
>> sitting next to me, and seemed quite adamant that the 210 was a better
>> choice than the 206. But there were enough others around that I was
>> never
>> able to get details.
>>
>> So...why the 210 instead of the 206?
>
>
> Faster, sexier...
>
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
>
>
>

[Seth Masia]

You'd better look up "coefficient of friction" in a physics text.

I've driven plenty of rented SUVs in snow, in mountain rangers across the
continent and around the world -- and none of them handles, goes or stops as
well as my 98 Subaru with IRS and Michelin snow tires.

And my 40-year-old airplane does 80% of what a Cirrus will do but cost me
15% of the Cirrus purchase price. It gets better gas mileage than a Ford
Explorer, at three times the speed.

When will I buy a new airplane? When it's priced like my old airplane.

Seth
Comanche N8100R

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote
>>
>> Only twice as heavy and more susceptable to side winds.
>
> twice as heavy (which they really are not) means more weight on the
> wheels,
> which give a higher coefficient of friction, plus the fact that they have
> bigger tires. It also helps if you don't drive faster than your ability
> to
> stop for the conditions.
>
> If you don't like SUV's, OK, but this is a stupid argument to base the
> cons
> on.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Seth Masia]

PZL P.11 and P.24
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/pzl.html

Northrop P-61 (okay, it's arguable)

Fokker D.8

The Russians also had an oddball fighter that was a biplane for landing and
takeoff but retracted the lower wing into the upper wing for cruise and
combat. It was pretty vulnerable during the retraction process . . .

Seth


"Ash Wyllie" > wrote in message
...
> ET opined
>
>>Matt Whiting > wrote in news:wcn%e.1166$lb.94797
:
>
>>> Oh, just the last time that I looked at an F-14, F-15, F-111 or F-18.
>>> Ok, the -18 is maybe a little closer to a mid-wing like the F-16, but I
>>> believe the wing is still above the CG of the airplane and that is what
>>> defines a high wing to me.
>>>
>
>>OK, change "high wing" to "wing over your head" and my point is still
>>valid.... I believe all of the above have the wing out of the pilots
>>vision....
>
>
> Whether jet fighters are high wing or midwing is an interesting
> question...
> But how many high wing /piston/ fighters were made[1]?
>
> -ash
> Cthulhu in 2005!
> Why wait for nature?
>
> 1. biplanes don't count.
>

[Happy Dog]

"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
news:

> I'm now waiting for some idiot to post that my wife has
> "penis envy" 'cause she's driving a SUV.

Took a long time to see that pointed out.

m

[Happy Dog]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message

> Seriously, there is no great secret to driving in the snow.
> Take it easy, take it slow, allow plenty of room. This doesn't
> change one bit whether it's a regular car or an SUV.

Except if you're going uphill. Go hard keep your foot in it. Ice racing is
a cheap sport and an eye opener.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Morgans" > wrote in message news:EBI%
> > wrote
>
>> Amazing. That's exactly the airplane I'd pictured when I first read
>> about Cessna's new plane. A composite Cardinal.
>
> My guess is that it will still be aluminum, but with better aerodynamic
> lines. I can't see Cessna going away from what it knows, and what it is
> set
> up for.
>
> I think there would have been some talk among the community, of composite
> guys, or equipment, or companies being pulled in.

Fly a Cirrus. It's free. Then wait for the Cessna version.

moo

[Thomas Borchert]

Dave,

> Unfortunately the Cirrus BRS has a less than stellar performance record.
>

Care to back that statement up with numbers? IMHO, you're wrong.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Jase,

> Perhaps, but the point I'm trying to make is that regardless of the plane,
> "Cessna" the brand isn't sexy.
>

Thanks! At last! What, pray, tell, is inherently good about Cessna? Let alone
"cool" or "sexy".

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jay Honeck]

> > Those that buy based on perception deserve what they get. I know far more
> > people that buy based on mission than perception.
>
> then how do you explain SUVs?

I suspect it goes something like this:

Wife: "We need a mini-van to haul these kids!"

Husband: (To himself) "I'm not going to be caught dead driving a wimpy
mini-van!"

Husband: (To wife) "Hey, I've got an idea..."

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

[Jay Honeck]

> I've driven plenty of rented SUVs in snow, in mountain rangers across the
> continent and around the world -- and none of them handles, goes or stops as
> well as my 98 Subaru with IRS and Michelin snow tires.

I'm with you on that. I've got a '97 Subaru Outback that is absolutely
unstoppable in snow. It makes my old Chevy Blazer look like the POS it
was.

> When will I buy a new airplane? When it's priced like my old airplane.

Amen, brother -- me, too. (Which, of course, means "never" -- but I
can live with that.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Sylvain wrote:
> Ash Wyllie wrote:
>
>> The tax break was designed to help out small businesses thaat use heavy
>> pickups: farmers, snowplowers et al.
>>
>> It seems that doctors, lawyers and dentists driving Suburbans also
>> qualify.
>
>
> in fact, depending on how much revenue, one such business can
> practically get a brand spanking new SUV every year (if I remember
> correctly can deduct something like 100k a year -- providing the
> thing is over 6000 lbs); in other words, they have the choice
> between a brand new car for free, or to pay like the rest of
> us (who are also subsidizing the SUVs), gas milleage doesn't
> make much of a difference.

I find this hard to believe. Rarely can you deduct 3X what something
cost. Do you have a reference that supports this claim?

Any accountants or tax attorneys here who can comment?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:

> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote
>
>>Only twice as heavy and more susceptable to side winds.
>
>
> twice as heavy (which they really are not) means more weight on the wheels,
> which give a higher coefficient of friction, plus the fact that they have
> bigger tires. It also helps if you don't drive faster than your ability to
> stop for the conditions.

More weight means more total friction all else being equal, but it
doesn't, to a first order, change the coefficient of friction. That is
largely a function of the materials that are in contact. The total
friction force is the coefficient of friction times the normal force
(weight in this case) clamping the two surfaces together.


> If you don't like SUV's, OK, but this is a stupid argument to base the cons
> on.

That's a fact. My pickup is blown around much less in cross winds than
are my minivans.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:

> "Dave Stadt" > wrote
>
>
>>Quite a few people I know are moving from 4 place to 2 place airplanes.
>
>
> The problem I see with that, is that so many 4 place airplanes are really
> only 2 place with full fuel and luggage. If the 2 place is really a 2 place
> with decent range and load carrying, there are great reasons to change.

True, but you have the flexibility for short trips of taking 4 people
with partial fuel, especially if it is a day trip and you have no
baggage. A two seater doesn't give you that option.

This is much like the argument for SUVS. You don't need all of the
capability all of the time, but one vehicle gives you a lot of
flexibility whereas a more specialized vehicle such as a pickup, does not.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:

> > wrote
>
>
>>Amazing. That's exactly the airplane I'd pictured when I first read
>>about Cessna's new plane. A composite Cardinal.
>
>
> My guess is that it will still be aluminum, but with better aerodynamic
> lines. I can't see Cessna going away from what it knows, and what it is set
> up for.

Yes, there is hydro and stretch forming technology now readily available
that could make a very sleep aluminum airplane. Look at the Venture
homebuilt for example. The technology was just too espensive to support
a low volume homebuilt, but think what Cessna could do with it.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Seth Masia wrote:

> You'd better look up "coefficient of friction" in a physics text.
>
> I've driven plenty of rented SUVs in snow, in mountain rangers across the
> continent and around the world -- and none of them handles, goes or stops as
> well as my 98 Subaru with IRS and Michelin snow tires.

I've driven a number of Subarus and also trucks and SUVS. My K1500 will
go through deep, wet snow much better than any Subaru. That simple
reason is ground clearance. I have about twice what a Sub has. If you
really believe that this doesn't make a difference, then your experience
is much more limited than you claim. Sure, in 5" of snow, the Sub will
perform as well or better. But in 12" of snow, the tables turn. My
truck is barely dragging at that point, but the Sub is pushing 5" or so
of snow.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Jase,
>
>
>>Perhaps, but the point I'm trying to make is that regardless of the plane,
>>"Cessna" the brand isn't sexy.
>>
>
>
> Thanks! At last! What, pray, tell, is inherently good about Cessna? Let alone
> "cool" or "sexy".
>

The good part is they make reliable airplanes that have stood the test
of time. They also have a world-wide support organization that few
other small airplane makers can match. That is the inherently good
part. As for cool and sexy, that is in the mind of the beholder, but I
think the Citation jets are both cool and sexy.


Matt

[john smith]

> I suspect it goes something like this:
> Wife: "We need a mini-van to haul these kids!"
> Husband: (To himself) "I'm not going to be caught dead driving a wimpy
> mini-van!"
> Husband: (To wife) "Hey, I've got an idea..."
> :-)

Paul and I both drive minivans.
What are you saying Jay?
Tell us what you really think.
:-))

[beavis]

In article >, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

> I've driven a number of Subarus and also trucks and SUVS. My K1500 will
> go through deep, wet snow much better than any Subaru.

No question about that.

I would like to take this time to point out, though, that the Subaru
wagons have *more* ground clearance than the Ford Explorer. I found
the latter to be a real dog in deep snow.

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

Things could be phrased just a little differently here:

> The good part is they make reliable airplanes that have stood the test
> of time.

The bad part is they have sat on their dollar-fat behinds for decades,
not taken any risks with developing new designs, blocked innovation and
milked everything they possibly could out of ancient, outdated designs
while...

>They also have a world-wide support organization that few
> other small airplane makers can match.
>

... conveniently excerting their monopoly-like power on a small market.

The above holds only for the piston market, of course, and is a
simplification - as much as your statements were.

I've said it before: We as a group can't complain all the time about
there being no development in this market and at the same time badmouth
every newcomer there is and standing fast with the old companies that
don't deliver the innovation. Cessna isn't looking into a new plane
because they WANT to, it's because they were MADE to - by Cirrus and
Diamond. Strong competition for Cessna is something we should ALL desire.
It makes them move - at long last. Their first try was just beginning to
offer "new" 50-year-old designs. It didn't work to squash Cirrus, so now
they're trying something else. Something at which Cirrus and Diamond
might well have way more experience.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Stefan]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> The Cirrus design is also 50s, actually even earlier. Low-wing,
> conventional tail airplane design is rather old.

Using two wings to fly is a pretty old design, indeed.

Stefan

[TaxSrv]

> > in fact, depending on how much revenue, one such business can
> > practically get a brand spanking new SUV every year (if I
remember
> > correctly can deduct something like 100k a year -- providing
the
> > thing is over 6000 lbs); in other words, they have the choice
> > between a brand new car for free, or to pay like the rest of
> > us ...
>
> I find this hard to believe. Rarely can you deduct 3X what
something
> cost. Do you have a reference that supports this claim?
>
> Any accountants or tax attorneys here who can comment?
>
> Matt

Congress patched that for SUVs placed in service after 10/22/04, so
it's now limited to $25K. It's not an additional deduction, but
merely allows depreciation to be claimed in the year of
acquisition. People often screw themselves by electing "section
179," due to steeply graduated tax brackets. They fail to compare
potential future savings by depreciating over 5 years, verses
taking it all in one year, chewing down into the lower marginal
brackets now as low as 10%, and even limiting the effect of certain
tax credits. Add to this the effect of progressivity and similar
wasted credits of the state income tax in some of the states.

Fred F.

[Montblack]

("john smith" wrote)
>> Husband: (To himself) "I'm not going to be caught dead driving a wimpy
>> mini-van!"

> Paul and I both drive minivans.
> What are you saying Jay?
> Tell us what you really think.
> :-))


I drive the sporty 2 seat version :-)

I went with the 94 Dodge Grand Caravan after getting much "chick car" grief
for driving an 89 Ford Probe!


Montblack
If it hauls around a 3/4" sheet of plywood, set on top of a couple of free
floating 2x4 rails (our portable work table + legs) ...it's manly <g>.

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Matt,
>
> Things could be phrased just a little differently here:
>
>
>>The good part is they make reliable airplanes that have stood the test
>>of time.
>
>
> The bad part is they have sat on their dollar-fat behinds for decades,
> not taken any risks with developing new designs, blocked innovation and
> milked everything they possibly could out of ancient, outdated designs
> while...

That is true with respect to their light airplanes, although the new
avionics are being fitted pretty much at the same pace as other
manufacturers. They have innovated a lot in the bizjet marketplace.
The reality is that the light plane business isn't all that lucrative.
It will be interesting to see if Cirrus survives longer term. I'm
guessing they won't, but hopefully they will get enough planes in the
market so that someone else will buy them and not leave them stranded a
la the Commander line and others.



>>They also have a world-wide support organization that few
>>other small airplane makers can match.
>>
>
>
> .. conveniently excerting their monopoly-like power on a small market.
>
> The above holds only for the piston market, of course, and is a
> simplification - as much as your statements were.
>
> I've said it before: We as a group can't complain all the time about
> there being no development in this market and at the same time badmouth
> every newcomer there is and standing fast with the old companies that
> don't deliver the innovation. Cessna isn't looking into a new plane
> because they WANT to, it's because they were MADE to - by Cirrus and
> Diamond. Strong competition for Cessna is something we should ALL desire.
> It makes them move - at long last. Their first try was just beginning to
> offer "new" 50-year-old designs. It didn't work to squash Cirrus, so now
> they're trying something else. Something at which Cirrus and Diamond
> might well have way more experience.

No, they want to. My guess is that making light planes is a losing
proposition for Cessna. From a purely business standpoint, they would
probably me money ahead if they had never re-entered the light plane
market. This is sad, but I'm guessing true. Cirrus is surviving on
OPM. It will be curious to see if their investors ever make money on
their investment.

How did Cessna try to squash Cirrus?


Matt

[TaxSrv]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:
> ...
> My guess is that making light planes is a losing
> proposition for Cessna. From a purely business standpoint,
> they would probably me money ahead if they had never
> re-entered the light plane market. This is sad, but I'm
> guessing true.

It is possible they make money too, as the light singles can share
some of the infrastructure in place to make and market the
profitable lines. However, Cessna is a small part of a big company
(Textron), and their financial statements by segment suggest only
that building Citations is certainly worthwhile even in bad years.
At the unit volume of piston singles, they may make some, or lose
some, and it's possible the Board of Directors cares little one way
or the other if Cessna managers have a rationale for their biz
model. As an inconsequential part of a big picture, I think it
erroneous to compare Cessna decision-making on the singles to that
of competitors who I think are all standalone companies and
nonpublic.

Fred F.

[Sylvain]

Nomen Nescio wrote:

> Not free, but still a good saving.
> My self employed wife got a Yukon Denali last year
....
> That gets her a new vehicle for about $21.9 k.

about 10k lower than what you can sell it second
hand a year later (roughly speaking, did a quick
check on edmunds): so it is not free, but better
than free, as you can actually make a profit (at
my, and other taxpayers, expenses), and iterate
every year.

--Sylvain

[Sylvain]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> cost. Do you have a reference that supports this claim?
>
> Any accountants or tax attorneys here who can comment?

one of the first rules of argueing on usenet: when
you don't agree on something, demand 'references to
support' whatever you disagree with (and of course don't
bother checking them out)

anyway: yes, I do have references, talk to your CPA
if you don't believe me, meanwhile have a look at the
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003;

no I don't have an URL, you'll have to head for the
library,

--Sylvain

[Doug Carter]

On 2005-10-02, Sylvain > wrote:
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>> That gets her a new vehicle for about $21.9 k.
>
> about 10k lower than what you can sell it second
> hand a year later (roughly speaking, did a quick
> check on edmunds): so it is not free, but better
> than free, as you can actually make a profit (at
> my, and other taxpayers, expenses), and iterate
> every year.
>

Except for depreciation recapture when you sell it.
--
Doug Carter

[Seth Masia]

You're certainly right about ground clearance for deep snow. I don't
off-road in the Subaru -- I have skis for that. I do however drive long
distances in blizzards. Last Xmas I caught a storm at Tahoe, skied two days
of powder in it, surfed it across to Utah, skied pow at Alta, surfed across
to Steamboat and skied two more days of Colorado pow. One storm, five days
of untracked powder, 1000 miles of snowpacked roads at night, and never saw
the sun. And never got sideways in the Subaru.

My idea of heaven.

Seth
"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Seth Masia wrote:
>
>> You'd better look up "coefficient of friction" in a physics text.
>>
>> I've driven plenty of rented SUVs in snow, in mountain rangers across the
>> continent and around the world -- and none of them handles, goes or stops
>> as well as my 98 Subaru with IRS and Michelin snow tires.
>
> I've driven a number of Subarus and also trucks and SUVS. My K1500 will
> go through deep, wet snow much better than any Subaru. That simple reason
> is ground clearance. I have about twice what a Sub has. If you really
> believe that this doesn't make a difference, then your experience is much
> more limited than you claim. Sure, in 5" of snow, the Sub will perform as
> well or better. But in 12" of snow, the tables turn. My truck is barely
> dragging at that point, but the Sub is pushing 5" or so of snow.
>
>
> Matt

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> More weight means more total friction all else being equal, but it
> doesn't, to a first order, change the coefficient of friction. That is
> largely a function of the materials that are in contact. The total
> friction force is the coefficient of friction times the normal force
> (weight in this case) clamping the two surfaces together.

Actually, the determining factor is tire pressure. Now, many trucks and
SUVs use higher tire pressures than what is normally found in passenger
cars, but some are the same or lower. The actual weight of the vehicle
isn't that important, assuming adequate brakes (which, when on snow or other
low-friction surfaces, is the case for basically every vehicle), as long as
the tire pressure is sufficiently high.

As with most generalizations, one cannot simply say "all SUVs are bad", no
more than one can say "all passenger cars are good".

As far as I'm concerned, all you on the pro-SUV of this debate just got
baited into one of the classic stupid debates. You might as well be arguing
Ford vs Chevy or high-wing vs low-wing. The people claiming there's no
valid reason for driving an SUV don't have a clue, and the pro-SUV folks are
unlikely to change that. At the same time, anyone defending ALL SUVs in ALL
situations is just as lacking in clues (not that I see much of that, but
still...)

I feel dumb even bothering to post to this topic...but too many posts have
gone by arguing that weight matters, without a single mention of what really
affects the friction between the tire and driving surface: tire pressure.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> one of the first rules of argueing on usenet: when
> you don't agree on something, demand 'references to
> support' whatever you disagree with (and of course don't
> bother checking them out)

It's a rule because so many people post so many idiotic things, like
claiming that you can get an SUV for free, or that you can turn a profit
taking advantage of the tax benefit (both statements are simply wrong).

> anyway: yes, I do have references, talk to your CPA
> if you don't believe me, meanwhile have a look at the
> Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003;

I guess the second rule of "argueing [sic] on usenet" is when you are asked
for references, to tell the person "look it up yourself".

Pete

[Sylvain]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>>if you don't believe me, meanwhile have a look at the
>>Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003;
>
> I guess the second rule of "argueing [sic] on usenet" is when you are asked
> for references, to tell the person "look it up yourself".

you'll notice that I did provide the reference as requested;
what more do you want?

--Sylvain

[Matt Whiting]

TaxSrv wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
>>...
>>My guess is that making light planes is a losing
>>proposition for Cessna. From a purely business standpoint,
>>they would probably me money ahead if they had never
>>re-entered the light plane market. This is sad, but I'm
>>guessing true.
>
>
> It is possible they make money too, as the light singles can share
> some of the infrastructure in place to make and market the
> profitable lines. However, Cessna is a small part of a big company
> (Textron), and their financial statements by segment suggest only
> that building Citations is certainly worthwhile even in bad years.
> At the unit volume of piston singles, they may make some, or lose
> some, and it's possible the Board of Directors cares little one way
> or the other if Cessna managers have a rationale for their biz
> model. As an inconsequential part of a big picture, I think it
> erroneous to compare Cessna decision-making on the singles to that
> of competitors who I think are all standalone companies and
> nonpublic.

Why? Most companies at least ostensibly exist to make a profit. Except
for the companies chartered specifically as not-for-profit, and even
some of them profit their managers quite nicely. :-)

Matt

[Dave Stadt]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Jase,
>
> > Perhaps, but the point I'm trying to make is that regardless of the
plane,
> > "Cessna" the brand isn't sexy.
> >
>
> Thanks! At last! What, pray, tell, is inherently good about Cessna?

Just about everything. No negatives that I have ever noticed. Their
success speaks for itself.

Let alone
> "cool" or "sexy".
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Matt Whiting]

Sylvain wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> cost. Do you have a reference that supports this claim?
>>
>> Any accountants or tax attorneys here who can comment?
>
>
> one of the first rules of argueing on usenet: when
> you don't agree on something, demand 'references to
> support' whatever you disagree with (and of course don't
> bother checking them out)
>
> anyway: yes, I do have references, talk to your CPA
> if you don't believe me, meanwhile have a look at the
> Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003;
>
> no I don't have an URL, you'll have to head for the
> library,

OK, I did some research and found that your assertions are quite wrong
as I expected. As a reminder, here is what you wrote:

"in fact, depending on how much revenue, one such business can
practically get a brand spanking new SUV every year (if I remember
correctly can deduct something like 100k a year -- providing the
thing is over 6000 lbs); in other words, they have the choice
between a brand new car for free, or to pay like the rest of
us (who are also subsidizing the SUVs), gas milleage doesn't
make much of a difference."

I see at least three errors in your post.

1. The deduction is now $25,000 maximum. It was $100K maximum, but that
was changed last year.

2. You couldn't deduct $100K unless the vehicle cost $100K or more, and
few SUVs cost that much. You made it sound like you could buy a Tahoe
and get a $100K tax deduction.

3. It wasn't a $100K deduction EVERY year it was a one-time deduction
the year you bought the vehicle.

Still a good deal, but not nearly the deal you made it sound.


Matt

[cjcampbell]

ET wrote:
> Reading Avwebs latest addition (avweb.com) I'm reading all about how
> Cessna is developing (very hush hush) their "cirrus killer", new high
> performance 4 place single. They are being very hush hush about the
> whole thing, except for one point; the new design will be a high
> wing....

The Cessna rumor mill has been going for years. I have heard (from
people inside Cessna who ought to know) that they are working on:

A light twin.

A small turbo-prop single between the Stationair and the Caravan.

The Cirrus killer.

A low wing single.

A new retractable gear single.

I have also heard that all of these rumors are:

Bunk. The cost of developing a new airplane far outweighs whatever
profits that there might be in it.

Secret marketing surveys to see what Cessna really wants to build.

Real, but unlikely ever to reach production.

Real, and they are going to produce all these aircraft.

You take your pick.

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>More weight means more total friction all else being equal, but it
>>doesn't, to a first order, change the coefficient of friction. That is
>>largely a function of the materials that are in contact. The total
>>friction force is the coefficient of friction times the normal force
>>(weight in this case) clamping the two surfaces together.
>
>
> Actually, the determining factor is tire pressure. Now, many trucks and
> SUVs use higher tire pressures than what is normally found in passenger
> cars, but some are the same or lower. The actual weight of the vehicle
> isn't that important, assuming adequate brakes (which, when on snow or other
> low-friction surfaces, is the case for basically every vehicle), as long as
> the tire pressure is sufficiently high.

How so?


> As with most generalizations, one cannot simply say "all SUVs are bad", no
> more than one can say "all passenger cars are good".
>
> As far as I'm concerned, all you on the pro-SUV of this debate just got
> baited into one of the classic stupid debates. You might as well be arguing
> Ford vs Chevy or high-wing vs low-wing. The people claiming there's no
> valid reason for driving an SUV don't have a clue, and the pro-SUV folks are
> unlikely to change that. At the same time, anyone defending ALL SUVs in ALL
> situations is just as lacking in clues (not that I see much of that, but
> still...)
>
> I feel dumb even bothering to post to this topic...but too many posts have
> gone by arguing that weight matters, without a single mention of what really
> affects the friction between the tire and driving surface: tire pressure.

That is because you aren't correct. Tire pressure only has a
significant impact on very soft surfaces such as sand, where the extra
surface area helps with flotation. In most snow, it makes little
difference.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Sylvain" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>one of the first rules of argueing on usenet: when
>>you don't agree on something, demand 'references to
>>support' whatever you disagree with (and of course don't
>>bother checking them out)
>
>
> It's a rule because so many people post so many idiotic things, like
> claiming that you can get an SUV for free, or that you can turn a profit
> taking advantage of the tax benefit (both statements are simply wrong).
>
>
>>anyway: yes, I do have references, talk to your CPA
>>if you don't believe me, meanwhile have a look at the
>>Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003;
>
>
> I guess the second rule of "argueing [sic] on usenet" is when you are asked
> for references, to tell the person "look it up yourself".

Especially when you are wrong. :-)

Matt

[Sylvain]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> I see at least three errors in your post.

I see three errors in your understanding of my post
(you might want to read it more carefully)...

(I didn't say the IRS was going to hand you a 100k
every year for buying a SUV, heck, if that was
true, I'd be rushing to the local dealership :-))

but I do stand corrected on the 100k limit having been
reduced to 25k last year.

--Sylvain

[Matt Whiting]

Sylvain wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> I see at least three errors in your post.
>
>
> I see three errors in your understanding of my post
> (you might want to read it more carefully)...
>
> (I didn't say the IRS was going to hand you a 100k
> every year for buying a SUV, heck, if that was
> true, I'd be rushing to the local dealership :-))
>
> but I do stand corrected on the 100k limit having been
> reduced to 25k last year.

I read it again when I replied to it. It said nothing about "up to
$100K" or "$100K maximum", it just said that you get $100K if you buy an
SUV. That isn't correct now and never was correct.

Matt

[john smith]

I just got a mailing from Cessna yesterday. Look here...
www.cessnareasons.com

[TaxSrv]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
> Why? Most companies at least ostensibly exist to make a profit.
>
> Matt

Sure, and Textron is profitable, but the impact of piston singles
on their financials is insignificant, perhaps less than 1% of their
$12 billion business. What I was trying to say is if they lose
money on singles, as you theorize and so might I, they can still
have a business reason to tolerate it and not uncommon in industry
at all. In their latest annual report, they mention the singles
only in passing, but as opposed to lengthy discussion of jets and
other product lines, they don't state the amount of "segment
profit" on the piston products. Maybe there ain't any?

Fred F.

[TaxSrv]

"Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
> Why? Most companies at least ostensibly exist to make a profit.
>
> Matt

Sure, and Textron is profitable, but the impact of piston singles
on their financials is insignificant, perhaps less than 1% of their
$12 billion business. What I was trying to say is if they lose
money on singles, as you theorize and so might I, they can still
have a business reason to tolerate it and not uncommon in industry
at all. In their latest annual report, they mention the singles
only in passing, but as opposed to lengthy discussion of jets and
other product lines, they don't state the amount of "segment
profit" on the piston products. Maybe there ain't any?

Fred F.

[john smith]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "john smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I just got a mailing from Cessna yesterday. Look here...
> > www.cessnareasons.com
>
> What did you find interesting in this mailing, relevant (or even close) to
> this thread?

According to the brouchure, it lists 43 reasons to buy a Cessna.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> TaxSrv wrote:
>> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>>
>>>...
>>>My guess is that making light planes is a losing
>>>proposition for Cessna. From a purely business standpoint,
>>>they would probably me money ahead if they had never
>>>re-entered the light plane market. This is sad, but I'm
>>>guessing true.
>>
>>
>> It is possible they make money too, as the light singles can share
>> some of the infrastructure in place to make and market the
>> profitable lines. However, Cessna is a small part of a big company
>> (Textron), and their financial statements by segment suggest only
>> that building Citations is certainly worthwhile even in bad years.
>> At the unit volume of piston singles, they may make some, or lose
>> some, and it's possible the Board of Directors cares little one way
>> or the other if Cessna managers have a rationale for their biz
>> model. As an inconsequential part of a big picture, I think it
>> erroneous to compare Cessna decision-making on the singles to that
>> of competitors who I think are all standalone companies and
>> nonpublic.
>
> Why? Most companies at least ostensibly exist to make a profit. Except
> for the companies chartered specifically as not-for-profit, and even some
> of them profit their managers quite nicely. :-)
>
> Matt

Here are a few reasons Cessna might want to keep its piston single business:

1) Product support. As a seller of high end products (i.e. Citations), you
want your customers and prospective customers to believe you'll support them
down the road. So, you continue making and selling replacement parts for
"legacy" aircraft.

2) Since you're keeping the people, equipment, and facilities to manufacture
replacement parts, you might as well assemble some of those parts into
airplanes. After all, the guy who's gonna buy a Citation 10 years from now
needs a nice new airplane so he can get flight training.

3) Brand loyalty. The guy who learns to fly in a Cessna has a good chance of
moving up in the Cessna family of products. Hopefully to a Caravan or
Citation. So, sell him a new 182 as his first airplane, and sell him
something turbine driven after he makes it big with oil futures.

4) Maybe (maybe not) the piston single market will become *the hot thing*
one day. It's easier to capitalize on that opportunity if you're already in
the piston single business.

[George Patterson]

Sylvain wrote:

> about 10k lower than what you can sell it second
> hand a year later (roughly speaking, did a quick
> check on edmunds): so it is not free, but better
> than free, as you can actually make a profit (at
> my, and other taxpayers, expenses), and iterate
> every year.

Sales of used cars are taxable income.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[Morgans]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> I just got a mailing from Cessna yesterday. Look here...
> www.cessnareasons.com

What did you find interesting in this mailing, relevant (or even close) to
this thread?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> More weight means more total friction all else being equal, but it
> doesn't, to a first order, change the coefficient of friction.

Correct. I got my terminology wrong. What you said is what I meant.

I have not taken any physics in a long time, and that is a *Good Thing*, to
me! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Duniho]

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> you'll notice that I did provide the reference as requested;
> what more do you want?

You did not provide a reference. You provided the name of an Act which may
or may not actually support your position.

A true reference would quote the pertinent part of the Act that you believe
supports your statement, and provide the information about where in the Act
your quoted text could be found.

Pete

[Morgans]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Morgans" > wrote:
>
> > "john smith" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I just got a mailing from Cessna yesterday. Look here...
> > > www.cessnareasons.com
> >
> > What did you find interesting in this mailing, relevant (or even close)
to
> > this thread?
>
> According to the brouchure, it lists 43 reasons to buy a Cessna.

Right!
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> That is because you aren't correct. Tire pressure only has a significant
> impact on very soft surfaces such as sand, where the extra surface area
> helps with flotation. In most snow, it makes little difference.

Actually, we're both incorrect.

My statement was based on a theoretical understanding of friction in which
the friction depends on the force over an area. Since tire pressure
directly determines this, I assumed it had a direct effect on friction.

I found at least one reference that says that physicists ignore the area
over which the force is distributed, for the purpose of determining
friction. It did say that's actually an incorrect assumption, but that it's
"close enough" for most purposes.

I didn't bother to look further to see just how far off this "close enough"
assumption is. The reference didn't go into much detail on that regard.

Beyond that, the same reference also had a discussion of tires on snow,
oddly enough (I wasn't even looking for that specifically). They claim that
increased tire pressure actually *reduces* friction, because packed snow has
lower friction than unpacked snow, and higher tire pressures result in
greater packing of the snow.

So, tire pressure has a very significant effect on tire friction when
driving on snow. But it's opposite what would be the case on a solid
surface. So, chalk that point up for the anti-SUV crowd.

I still think it's a silly argument.

Pete

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message \

> That is because you aren't correct. Tire pressure only has a significant
> impact on very soft surfaces such as sand, where the extra surface area
> helps with flotation. In most snow, it makes little difference.

Makes a big difference on packed snow and ice. Ice racers use inner tubes
and run the tire pressures very low. Pump them up and they don't stick.

moo

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-10-01, Paul Tomblin > wrote:
> In a previous article, "Morgans" > said:
>>and their stuff, kids friends, and other general stuff. Four wheel drive,
>>so you can still go when it snows, or you park in the wet grass, and get
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Too bad they don't give you the ability to stop when it snows.

Justice was served a couple of years ago in the Cottonwood Canyons (I
don't remember which one, I think it was the one going to Brighton).
Friends and I were carefully going up the canyon in a Volkswagon Jetta
TDi with snow chains. The guy in the 4x4 behind us was obviously getting
impatient, and went roaring by us.

Half a mile later, we passed him - as he was trying to extract his truck
from a ditch.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-10-01, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Yes, most folks don't tow their trailer to work every day with them.
> However, they may tow it every weekend.

Most folks with SUVs never tow anything at all. SUVs were popular where
I used to live in Houston. I'd estimate from suburban driveways that
about 1 in 10 SUVs ever towed anything at all, and about the same
proportion ever used more than 4 seats - ever. Out of the 1 in 10 that
had a trailer to pull, about half of those trailers could easily be
towed safely by a normal midsize car. Most SUVs are bought not to
offroad, tow, haul 7 passengers - but to look cool.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Matt Whiting]

TaxSrv wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
>>Why? Most companies at least ostensibly exist to make a profit.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Sure, and Textron is profitable, but the impact of piston singles
> on their financials is insignificant, perhaps less than 1% of their
> $12 billion business. What I was trying to say is if they lose
> money on singles, as you theorize and so might I, they can still
> have a business reason to tolerate it and not uncommon in industry
> at all. In their latest annual report, they mention the singles
> only in passing, but as opposed to lengthy discussion of jets and
> other product lines, they don't state the amount of "segment
> profit" on the piston products. Maybe there ain't any?

OK, I see what you were saying. I suspect it is mainly based on the
personal desires of some Cessna executives as well as a
marketing/strategic purpose to build brand loyalty in pilots early. I
don't think it was purely the airplanes themselves that catapulted
Cessna to the top of the bizjet market relatively quickly. I suspect it
was also at least partly due to all of the pilots trained in Cessna's
who now fly for, or own, many of the companies that fly Cessna jets.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>[...]
>>That is because you aren't correct. Tire pressure only has a significant
>>impact on very soft surfaces such as sand, where the extra surface area
>>helps with flotation. In most snow, it makes little difference.
>
>
> Actually, we're both incorrect.
>
> My statement was based on a theoretical understanding of friction in which
> the friction depends on the force over an area. Since tire pressure
> directly determines this, I assumed it had a direct effect on friction.

I don't recall area being a part of the thoeretical equation. My
Physics book says that F=uN, where F is the total force due to friction,
u (mu) is the coefficient of static or dynamic friction as the case may
be, and N is the normal force holding the two surfaces together. Area
isn't part of the equation. Now there are materials reasons that area
does have an impact, that that isn't in the basic theory.


> I found at least one reference that says that physicists ignore the area
> over which the force is distributed, for the purpose of determining
> friction. It did say that's actually an incorrect assumption, but that it's
> "close enough" for most purposes.

Actually, every reference I've ever seen ignores area, because it is
only a factor in special circumstances and then it is related to the
materials failing, not to the underlying theory of friction.


> I didn't bother to look further to see just how far off this "close enough"
> assumption is. The reference didn't go into much detail on that regard.

That is because you are wrong and didn't want to further show that.


> Beyond that, the same reference also had a discussion of tires on snow,
> oddly enough (I wasn't even looking for that specifically). They claim that
> increased tire pressure actually *reduces* friction, because packed snow has
> lower friction than unpacked snow, and higher tire pressures result in
> greater packing of the snow.

That is a somewhat specious description, but in any event tire pressure
is at best a second or third order effect, it isn't a first order affect.


> So, tire pressure has a very significant effect on tire friction when
> driving on snow. But it's opposite what would be the case on a solid
> surface. So, chalk that point up for the anti-SUV crowd.

Still wrong. Tire pressure is little affect.


> I still think it's a silly argument.

Yes, when I'm shown to be wrong, I usually think it was a silly argument
at that point as well. :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Happy Dog wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message \
>
>
>>That is because you aren't correct. Tire pressure only has a significant
>>impact on very soft surfaces such as sand, where the extra surface area
>>helps with flotation. In most snow, it makes little difference.
>
>
> Makes a big difference on packed snow and ice. Ice racers use inner tubes
> and run the tire pressures very low. Pump them up and they don't stick.

Most also use studs or spikes. :-)


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> On 2005-10-01, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>Yes, most folks don't tow their trailer to work every day with them.
>>However, they may tow it every weekend.
>
>
> Most folks with SUVs never tow anything at all. SUVs were popular where
> I used to live in Houston. I'd estimate from suburban driveways that
> about 1 in 10 SUVs ever towed anything at all, and about the same
> proportion ever used more than 4 seats - ever. Out of the 1 in 10 that
> had a trailer to pull, about half of those trailers could easily be
> towed safely by a normal midsize car. Most SUVs are bought not to
> offroad, tow, haul 7 passengers - but to look cool.

I can't speak for TX as I don't live there, but I don't think your stats
hold true in PA.


Matt

[[email protected]]

Not to mention:

C130
C141
C5
C17

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> OK, I see what you were saying. I suspect it is mainly based on the
> personal desires of some Cessna executives as well as a
> marketing/strategic purpose to build brand loyalty in pilots early. I
> don't think it was purely the airplanes themselves that catapulted Cessna
> to the top of the bizjet market relatively quickly. I suspect it was also
> at least partly due to all of the pilots trained in Cessna's who now fly
> for, or own, many of the companies that fly Cessna jets.
>

From "70 YEARS OF EXCELLENCE -
AN OVERVIEW OF THE CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY"

Citation Business Jets
In 1967, Cessna launched a new era in business aviation when it announced
plans to introduce the Citation. The new business jet was quieter, simpler,
more capable of operating safely in and out of short fields, substantially
more fuel efficient and much less expensive to own and operate than any
other business jet on the market or the drawing board.

Five years later, in 1972, Cessna delivered the first Citation. In 1976 the
company dramatically increased its leadership role by announcing three new
business jets: the improved Citation I; the larger, better-performing
Citation II; and the Citation III.

The Citation II quickly became the best-selling business jet in the world.
It was replaced in 1984 by the improved Citation S/II. The Citation III was
the first all-new business jet designed and produced in the United States
since the original Citation in 1972. More than 200 Citation IIIs entered
service after deliveries of the aircraft began in 1983. In response to
popular demand, the Citation II returned to the Cessna product line in 1987.
More than 800 Citation IIs and S/IIs were delivered by the end of 1994 when
the Citation Bravo replaced them in the Cessna line.

In September 1987, Cessna introduced the Citation V, a larger, faster
aircraft that has set sales records since deliveries began early in 1989. In
October 1989, Cessna introduced the CitationJet, a new aircraft tailored to
first time jet owners. The CitationJet was certified in October of 1992 and
the first delivery followed in March of 1993. The CitationJet quickly became
the most popular entry-level business jet in the world, and in July 1997,
the 200th CitationJet was delivered.

In May 1990, Cessna added two more aircraft to its business jet line: the
Citation VI and Citation VII, which were derived from and replaced the
Citation III. The first Citation VI was delivered in May 1991, with
deliveries of the higher-powered Citation VII starting in March 1992.

In October 1990, Cessna took another industry standard-setting step when the
Citation X was introduced. Flying at .92 Mach, the Citation X is the world's
fastest business jet. Among non-military aircraft, only the Concorde is
faster. The new Cessna flagship travels from Los Angeles to New York in
under four hours. The Citation X's first flight was in December of 1993 and
certification was received May 31, 1996. The first Citation X was delivered
to golf legend and Citation pilot, Arnold Palmer. By summer, 1997, the
Citation X fleet grew to over 30 and had accumulated over 10,000 flight
hours.

The National Aeronautics Administration recognized the Citation X's
accomplishments, bestowing upon the aircraft and its design team the 1996
Robert J. Collier Trophy. The Collier is awarded annually for outstanding
achievement in the fields of aeronautics or astronautics. Cessna has earned
the award twice, first in 1985 for the safety record of the Citation fleet,
and is the only general aviation manufacturer to have ever been honored with
the most prestigious award in United States aviation.

In 1994 Cessna introduced the Citation Ultra, an updated version of the
Citation V, and announced the Citation Bravo, a replacement for the Citation
II. Completing certification in 1996, the Bravo incorporates
customer-recommended improvements including upgraded avionics, trailing link
landing gear, more speed, range and payload. Deliveries began in February
1997.

In October of 1994, Cessna also announced the Citation Excel. The only light
jet to offer a stand-up cabin, the Excel approached the 200-order marker by
mid-1997. The Excel was certified in April 1998 and deliveries began in
early July 1998.

The Citation fleet of business jet aircraft, based in over 75 countries, is
the largest in the world as evidenced on September 10, 1997, with the
delivery of the 2,500th Citation - a Citation X.

At the National Business Aviation Association Convention in Las Vegas,
October 19 - 21, 1998, Cessna made the biggest new product announcement in
its history. Four new Citations were revealed: Citation CJ1, Citation CJ2,
Citation Encore and Citation Sovereign. The Citation CJ1 is the successor to
the best-selling CitationJet; the Citation CJ2 is a longer, faster version
of the CJ that seats 6 passengers; the Citation Encore inherits the
worldwide recognition and acceptance of the Ultra with new engines, a
trailing link landing gear and more; and the Citation Sovereign is an
all-new midsize business jet that will begin deliveries in third quarter of
2002.
----------------------------------------------

Yes, it many respects it WAS the aircraft, as a differentiated product, that
did catapault Cessna to the top of the BizJet market.

Learning in a 152 and flying a 182 or 210 is a world apart from the bizjet.
Cessna could not have "cornered" the market with a mediocre product.

--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Dave Stadt]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> TaxSrv wrote:
> > "Matt Whiting" wrote:
> >
> >>Why? Most companies at least ostensibly exist to make a profit.
> >>
> >>Matt
> >
> >
> > Sure, and Textron is profitable, but the impact of piston singles
> > on their financials is insignificant, perhaps less than 1% of their
> > $12 billion business. What I was trying to say is if they lose
> > money on singles, as you theorize and so might I, they can still
> > have a business reason to tolerate it and not uncommon in industry
> > at all. In their latest annual report, they mention the singles
> > only in passing, but as opposed to lengthy discussion of jets and
> > other product lines, they don't state the amount of "segment
> > profit" on the piston products. Maybe there ain't any?
>
> OK, I see what you were saying. I suspect it is mainly based on the
> personal desires of some Cessna executives as well as a
> marketing/strategic purpose to build brand loyalty in pilots early. I
> don't think it was purely the airplanes themselves that catapulted
> Cessna to the top of the bizjet market relatively quickly. I suspect it
> was also at least partly due to all of the pilots trained in Cessna's
> who now fly for, or own, many of the companies that fly Cessna jets.
>
>
> Matt

If you would research the subject you would find that since 1927 Cessna has
found markets not exploited by other manufacturers. It was and is the
airplanes. Dwayne Wallace had unbelievable insight into the market and his
list of hits from 1933 to the late 1970's is unmatched. The Citation line
alone disproves your theory much less the dozens of other models that do
what no other airplane can do. On the other hand they have had flops along
the way which is to be expected. That thing they called a helicopter is one
that comes to mind.

[TaxSrv]

> I don't think it was purely the airplanes themselves that
>catapulted Cessna to the top of the bizjet market relatively
> quickly. I suspect it was also at least partly due to all of
> the pilots trained in Cessna's who now fly for, or own,
> many of the companies that fly Cessna jets.
>
> Matt

I have little clue on that, but I would say that these are
hard-dollar propositions, with many competitive choices, new or
used. A corp's flight dept, or outside consultant even, in an
ideal world should do a purely objective analysis for top
management. Nevertheless, I suspect a more common personal bias in
the process is where a turboprop may be the correct choice, but the
guys would really rather pilot a jet!

I dunno, but do you think where a company upgrades from the rather
ubiquitous King Air, they'll tend to buy a Beechjet? Comparative
jet shipment stats don't look conclusive in that regard. Maybe
there's a growing factor in the female voices I'm now hearing
working radios in these things. Not to stir up trouble, but just
what is the cutest bizjet they make? :-)

Fred F.

[Greg Copeland]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 04:14:34 +0000, Dave Stadt wrote:

>
> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:41:11 +0000, Dave Stadt wrote:
>>
>> > nothing to do with performance. People don't spend $350K based on
>> > "perception." Most people I know do not believe in your "perception."
> To
>>
>> If people didn't care about "perception", companies like Harley would have
>> been out of business two decades ago. Heck, I've known people that have
>> bought items like Porche, Ferrari, and Lamborghini just because of
>> "perception."
>
> Harley, Porsche, Ferrari and Lamborghini owners combined are an
> insignificant percentage of total motorcycle and car owners.

Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Besides, last I checked,
Harley owns ~35% of the US market...which is far from "insignificant".
And that is based on market share in sales...not all bikes. Back in the
60's, they owned something like 80% of the market. And all of this
ignores used sales. Needless to say, Harley sales are significant
based on its perception of quality. Sadly, quality is an oxymoron when
talking about Harley. Which, is exactly the point I was making. MOST
people buy based on perception.

> Harley has
> been almost out of business numerous times during it's history.
>

And yet are going strong today. You ask the American masses, especially
the blue collar guys, and they'll tell you they want the POS that is
Harley...because of its perceived strengths. The fact that it's a total
POS in reality doesn't seem to impact its sales or its preception of
quality. Which was my point. My point is, people often buy name brands
based on a perception of x.

>
> Those that buy based on perception deserve what they get. I know far more
> people that buy based on mission than perception.
>

I agree with you, but it doesn't address the nature of humanity. Most
people do buy based on perception. I would guess that those that read
usenet groups are also those that tend to be swayed more by facts and
analysis rather than perception. On the other hand, if you find those
that have lots and lots of money, buying based on perception is not
uncommon.


Greg

[Thomas Borchert]

Dave,

> Their
> success speaks for itself.
>

Like with Microsoft? ;-)

IMHO there can be no doubt that they have done a lot to stall
innovation in the light-plane business through the 70s onward.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Greg Copeland]

On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 13:49:44 +0000, Dave Stadt wrote:


>
> Most SUVs are driven by one person going to work on dry pavement. Most do
> not pull trailers. Most do not have 4-wheel drive and I quite often pass
> them like they were standing still in the snow with my Saturn wagon. The
> safety aspect is suspect.

Actually, the safety aspect is not suspect. It's fairly well accepted
that SUVs are safer because there are so many SUVs on the road. If you
remove SUVs from the equation then pretty much all other, smaller,
vehicles sudden become much, much safer. Last I read, the roads would be
much safer if it were not for SUVs.

In otherwords, driving an SUV addresses the safety problem created by
those that drive SUVs. Go figure...

Greg

[Greg Copeland]

On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 08:44:27 +0000, Dylan Smith wrote:

> On 2005-10-01, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Yes, most folks don't tow their trailer to work every day with them.
>> However, they may tow it every weekend.
>
> Most folks with SUVs never tow anything at all. SUVs were popular where
> I used to live in Houston. I'd estimate from suburban driveways that
> about 1 in 10 SUVs ever towed anything at all, and about the same
> proportion ever used more than 4 seats - ever. Out of the 1 in 10 that
> had a trailer to pull, about half of those trailers could easily be
> towed safely by a normal midsize car. Most SUVs are bought not to
> offroad, tow, haul 7 passengers - but to look cool.

IIRC, you're not far off form the real stats. Again, IIRC, only 2 out of
10 actually tow/haul anything, ever leave pavement, ever have more than
four people in them. Basically, only 1/5 of all SUVs owners, own them for
anything other than status or coolness factors.

[Skylune]

There is nothing wrong with a dual use vehicle. I attach the following as
an example:

http://www.lookatentertainment.com/v/v-507.htm

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Actually, every reference I've ever seen ignores area, because it is only
> a factor in special circumstances and then it is related to the materials
> failing, not to the underlying theory of friction.

Whatever. It should be painfully obvious that area DOES have an effect,
since you cannot decrease the area arbitrarily without affecting friction.
Make the contact point small enough, and friction WILL increase.

> [...]
> That is because you are wrong and didn't want to further show that.

Now you're just being stupid. I found a reference that showed I was wrong,
commented on that here, and you're accusing me of not want to FURTHER show I
was wrong? Just how much "wrong" do you need someone to own up to before
you are finished insulting them?

> [...]
> That is a somewhat specious description, but in any event tire pressure is
> at best a second or third order effect, it isn't a first order affect.

No one said anything about whether it's "first order", "second order", or
"millionth order". You claimed it "makes little difference", when in fact
it does make more than a "little difference".

> [...]
>> I still think it's a silly argument.
>
> Yes, when I'm shown to be wrong, I usually think it was a silly argument
> at that point as well. :-)

I was talking about the argument about whether SUVs are a valid choice for
any driver, genius.

Pete

[Montblack]

("Greg Copeland" wrote)
> Actually, the safety aspect is not suspect. It's fairly well accepted
> that SUVs are safer because there are so many SUVs on the road. If you
> remove SUVs from the equation then pretty much all other, smaller,
> vehicles sudden become much, much safer. Last I read, the roads would be
> much safer if it were not for SUVs.


Check the accident stats. Many fatalities are single car accidents. Now we
need to figure out if SUV's are more, or less, safe than "smaller" cars in
this category?

Single vehicle deaths is a healthy percentage of the pie.


Montblack

[Dave Stadt]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Greg Copeland" wrote)
> > Actually, the safety aspect is not suspect. It's fairly well accepted
> > that SUVs are safer because there are so many SUVs on the road. If you
> > remove SUVs from the equation then pretty much all other, smaller,
> > vehicles sudden become much, much safer. Last I read, the roads would
be
> > much safer if it were not for SUVs.
>
>
> Check the accident stats. Many fatalities are single car accidents. Now we
> need to figure out if SUV's are more, or less, safe than "smaller" cars in
> this category?
>
> Single vehicle deaths is a healthy percentage of the pie.
>
>
> Montblack

A factor that cannot be determined is how many accidents are avoided by
smaller vehicles due to their greater maneuverability.

[Peter Duniho]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. ..
> A factor that cannot be determined is how many accidents are avoided by
> smaller vehicles due to their greater maneuverability.

Many factors are difficult or impossible to determine using current
statistical data gathering.

However, as in aviation, driver error is fundamentally the root cause of
most accidents. I find it amusing to see so many people (not just in this
newsgroup either) argue about which vehicle is "safer" when first of all
they haven't even agreed on what "safer" means, but more importantly when
most of those drivers need a "safer" vehicle because they and everyone else
on the road refuse to drive safely in the first place.

I'm not pointing fingers here. For all I know, every single person
commenting on SUVs here is in the top 1% of safe drivers. I doubt that's
even close to the truth, but the real question is drivers in general. On
the whole, they are terrible. If they approached driving with any real
sense of responsibility and care, then maybe it wouldn't matter so much
which vehicle was "safer".

Pete

[Matt Whiting]

TaxSrv wrote:

>>I don't think it was purely the airplanes themselves that
>>catapulted Cessna to the top of the bizjet market relatively
>>quickly. I suspect it was also at least partly due to all of
>>the pilots trained in Cessna's who now fly for, or own,
>>many of the companies that fly Cessna jets.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> I have little clue on that, but I would say that these are
> hard-dollar propositions, with many competitive choices, new or
> used. A corp's flight dept, or outside consultant even, in an
> ideal world should do a purely objective analysis for top
> management. Nevertheless, I suspect a more common personal bias in
> the process is where a turboprop may be the correct choice, but the
> guys would really rather pilot a jet!
>
> I dunno, but do you think where a company upgrades from the rather
> ubiquitous King Air, they'll tend to buy a Beechjet? Comparative
> jet shipment stats don't look conclusive in that regard. Maybe
> there's a growing factor in the female voices I'm now hearing
> working radios in these things. Not to stir up trouble, but just
> what is the cutest bizjet they make? :-)

Well, I've talked to a few folks in corporate procurement and flight
departments, and you would be surprised how much "other" factors beyond
cost weigh in. Things such as which jet the CEO likes or which interior
the CEO better half likes. Anyone who thinks selling bizjets is based
mainly on the objective analysis is deluded indeed. :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Greg Copeland wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 08:44:27 +0000, Dylan Smith wrote:
>
>
>>On 2005-10-01, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, most folks don't tow their trailer to work every day with them.
>>>However, they may tow it every weekend.
>>
>>Most folks with SUVs never tow anything at all. SUVs were popular where
>>I used to live in Houston. I'd estimate from suburban driveways that
>>about 1 in 10 SUVs ever towed anything at all, and about the same
>>proportion ever used more than 4 seats - ever. Out of the 1 in 10 that
>>had a trailer to pull, about half of those trailers could easily be
>>towed safely by a normal midsize car. Most SUVs are bought not to
>>offroad, tow, haul 7 passengers - but to look cool.
>
>
> IIRC, you're not far off form the real stats. Again, IIRC, only 2 out of
> 10 actually tow/haul anything, ever leave pavement, ever have more than
> four people in them. Basically, only 1/5 of all SUVs owners, own them for
> anything other than status or coolness factors.

If that is true, then there are a lot of deluded Americans out there.
An SUV for status or coolness as compared to a Vette, Miata, etc. That
is hilarious.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>A factor that cannot be determined is how many accidents are avoided by
>>smaller vehicles due to their greater maneuverability.
>
>
> Many factors are difficult or impossible to determine using current
> statistical data gathering.
>
> However, as in aviation, driver error is fundamentally the root cause of
> most accidents. I find it amusing to see so many people (not just in this
> newsgroup either) argue about which vehicle is "safer" when first of all
> they haven't even agreed on what "safer" means, but more importantly when
> most of those drivers need a "safer" vehicle because they and everyone else
> on the road refuse to drive safely in the first place.

Yes, it is unfortunate that to the auto crowd, especially folks in
government or the IIHS, that "safety" is defined as "crash worthiness"
rather than "capable of crash avoidance."


Matt

[Bob Chilcoat]

Stirling Moss was commentating at the Watkins Glen GP years ago. He
described being pulled over the day before by a NY State Trooper while
"enthusiastically" motoring along the winding upstate NY roads in a borrowed
Mini Cooper S (the original one). The cop walked up the window and asked,
"Who the hell do you think YOU are, Stirling Moss?" After a bit of humorous
confusion over his driver's license, the cop was pretty nice until they got
into a heated debate about the relative safety of the Mini versus the cop's
Police Cruiser. The incident ended with Moss getting a ticket. True story.

Having had a Mini in the 70's, I would rather be driving one of those than
any SUV anytime. The ability to AVOID the accident in the first place is
always better than just surviving one.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
>> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>
>>>A factor that cannot be determined is how many accidents are avoided by
>>>smaller vehicles due to their greater maneuverability.
>>
>>
>> Many factors are difficult or impossible to determine using current
>> statistical data gathering.
>>
>> However, as in aviation, driver error is fundamentally the root cause of
>> most accidents. I find it amusing to see so many people (not just in
>> this newsgroup either) argue about which vehicle is "safer" when first of
>> all they haven't even agreed on what "safer" means, but more importantly
>> when most of those drivers need a "safer" vehicle because they and
>> everyone else on the road refuse to drive safely in the first place.
>
> Yes, it is unfortunate that to the auto crowd, especially folks in
> government or the IIHS, that "safety" is defined as "crash worthiness"
> rather than "capable of crash avoidance."
>
>
> Matt

[Happy Dog]

"Bob Chilcoat" > wrote in

> Having had a Mini in the 70's, I would rather be driving one of those than
> any SUV anytime. The ability to AVOID the accident in the first place is
> always better than just surviving one.

I doubt that maneuverability trumps crashworthiness. I suspect that the
most important maneuverabilty feature of small cars is the shorter stopping
distance. Driving around an accident situation is usually a pretty tough
challenge. And, when it comes to taking a hit, most small cares, and
certainly small cars from the 70s don't fare so well.

moo



>
> --
> Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)
>
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Peter Duniho wrote:
>>
>>> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>
>>>>A factor that cannot be determined is how many accidents are avoided by
>>>>smaller vehicles due to their greater maneuverability.
>>>
>>>
>>> Many factors are difficult or impossible to determine using current
>>> statistical data gathering.
>>>
>>> However, as in aviation, driver error is fundamentally the root cause of
>>> most accidents. I find it amusing to see so many people (not just in
>>> this newsgroup either) argue about which vehicle is "safer" when first
>>> of all they haven't even agreed on what "safer" means, but more
>>> importantly when most of those drivers need a "safer" vehicle because
>>> they and everyone else on the road refuse to drive safely in the first
>>> place.
>>
>> Yes, it is unfortunate that to the auto crowd, especially folks in
>> government or the IIHS, that "safety" is defined as "crash worthiness"
>> rather than "capable of crash avoidance."
>>
>>
>> Matt
>
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> A factor that cannot be determined is how many accidents are avoided by
> smaller vehicles due to their greater maneuverability.
>

That assumes that many people know how to maneuver out of an accident
situation. Attend a Bondurant Driving School and see how many people have
that skill (hint: about 2%).


--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-10-03, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> If that is true, then there are a lot of deluded Americans out there.
> An SUV for status or coolness as compared to a Vette, Miata, etc. That
> is hilarious.

I reached this conclusion long ago - there are indeed a lot of deluded
people out there. The advertisments tell them an SUV is gung ho and
cool, so they think it is so. The Corvette now has a
boy-racer/mid-life-crisis image, and the Miata has an image of being a
hairdresser's car, but a giant 4x4 now has accepted macho appeal. The
same thing to a lesser extent goes for a pickup truck, but most the
people I know with pickup trucks actually do throw **** in the back of
them from time to time.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-10-03, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Yes, it is unfortunate that to the auto crowd, especially folks in
> government or the IIHS, that "safety" is defined as "crash worthiness"
> rather than "capable of crash avoidance."

It's the Volvo driver effect. In this country, Volvo drivers have a poor
reputation (mainly amongst motorcyclists) for being dangerous drivers.

What happens is a bad driver tends to gravitate towards Volvo cars
because Volvo are always pimping their safety features (and Volvo cars
do have very good passive safety features). Instead of correcting the
driving errors that caused their last crash, they just buy a Volvo so
they have a better chance of walking away from the next crash they
cause.

I think in the US, this forms part of the SUV buying mentality from the
people who would be perfectly well served by a mid size car.

Governments don't help either - they just bring out initiatives to make
it look as if they are doing something (lowering speed limits, speed
cameras, traffic aggravationg^W calming measures etc.) which are quick,
simple, popular and cheap - instead of addressing the real cause of poor
road safety (which would be very unpopular - I think there should be a
BDR - Biennial Driving Review, and the mandatory driving instruction and
tests should be much tougher - and include emergency training, such as
skid pan training, plus eye and reaction tests as a simple medical).

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Bob Chilcoat]

Having driven around at least five wouldbe accidents over the years, in
everything from a Buick Riviera, Mini, Renault Fuego, and Porsche 356, I
disagree. Perhaps maneuverability PLUS driving skill and experience trumps
crashworthiness (I have Skip Barber training and some autocross experience).
At any rate, I'd always rather avoid the accident entirely than have one.
:-)

That said, if the accident is truly unavoidable, having a bit more metal
around you is certainly nice. Sort of like the BRS parachute debate: Do
you want to have the ultimate backup to use that one time the wings fold, at
the expense of reduced payload all the time and the increased temptation to
push the limits a bit more often.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Bob Chilcoat" > wrote in
>
>> Having had a Mini in the 70's, I would rather be driving one of those
>> than any SUV anytime. The ability to AVOID the accident in the first
>> place is always better than just surviving one.
>
> I doubt that maneuverability trumps crashworthiness. I suspect that the
> most important maneuverabilty feature of small cars is the shorter
> stopping distance. Driving around an accident situation is usually a
> pretty tough challenge. And, when it comes to taking a hit, most small
> cares, and certainly small cars from the 70s don't fare so well.
>
> moo
>
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)
>>
>>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Peter Duniho wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>>>
>>>>>A factor that cannot be determined is how many accidents are avoided by
>>>>>smaller vehicles due to their greater maneuverability.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Many factors are difficult or impossible to determine using current
>>>> statistical data gathering.
>>>>
>>>> However, as in aviation, driver error is fundamentally the root cause
>>>> of most accidents. I find it amusing to see so many people (not just
>>>> in this newsgroup either) argue about which vehicle is "safer" when
>>>> first of all they haven't even agreed on what "safer" means, but more
>>>> importantly when most of those drivers need a "safer" vehicle because
>>>> they and everyone else on the road refuse to drive safely in the first
>>>> place.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is unfortunate that to the auto crowd, especially folks in
>>> government or the IIHS, that "safety" is defined as "crash worthiness"
>>> rather than "capable of crash avoidance."
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>>
>
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

And just to add an international flavor to this conversation about SUVs.

I heard a story on NPRs Morning Eddition today. Sales of SUVs has increased
5 fold in the last few years. The number one reason given is to protect
themselves from "aggressive French drivers."


The French want to by USAians so bad they can taste it.

[Happy Dog]

"Bob Chilcoat" > wrote in message
...
> Having driven around at least five wouldbe accidents over the years, in
> everything from a Buick Riviera, Mini, Renault Fuego, and Porsche 356, I
> disagree. Perhaps maneuverability PLUS driving skill and experience
> trumps crashworthiness (I have Skip Barber training and some autocross
> experience). At any rate, I'd always rather avoid the accident entirely
> than have one.

And you are certain that driving, say, a BMW X5 would have caused a
different outcome? How about a Ford Explorer? What are you going to do
when you get older and your reflexes slow?

> That said, if the accident is truly unavoidable, having a bit more metal
> around you is certainly nice.

It's much more than "nice". It's your ass.

> Sort of like the BRS parachute debate: Do you want to have the ultimate
> backup to use that one time the wings fold, at the expense of reduced
> payload all the time and the increased temptation to push the limits a bit
> more often.

Just because you can't control yourself doesn't mean nobody else can. Your
argument about temptation applies more to quick cars than planes and pilots.
I have an old M3, street legal, sort of, but basically ready to race. I
take it out for fun every few weeks. I can barely make it to the curb
before some yahoo is practically driving up the sidewalk to have a go. Back
when I used to do this stuff on track with other real race cars, I never saw
so much focussed yet misplaced testosterone fueled adrenaline displays.
Flying is hanging with a bunch of girls by comparison.

moo

moo


>
> --
> Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)
>
>
> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "Bob Chilcoat" > wrote in
>>
>>> Having had a Mini in the 70's, I would rather be driving one of those
>>> than any SUV anytime. The ability to AVOID the accident in the first
>>> place is always better than just surviving one.
>>
>> I doubt that maneuverability trumps crashworthiness. I suspect that the
>> most important maneuverabilty feature of small cars is the shorter
>> stopping distance. Driving around an accident situation is usually a
>> pretty tough challenge. And, when it comes to taking a hit, most small
>> cares, and certainly small cars from the 70s don't fare so well.
>>
>> moo
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)
>>>
>>>
>>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Peter Duniho wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
>>>>> . ..
>>>>>
>>>>>>A factor that cannot be determined is how many accidents are avoided
>>>>>>by
>>>>>>smaller vehicles due to their greater maneuverability.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Many factors are difficult or impossible to determine using current
>>>>> statistical data gathering.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, as in aviation, driver error is fundamentally the root cause
>>>>> of most accidents. I find it amusing to see so many people (not just
>>>>> in this newsgroup either) argue about which vehicle is "safer" when
>>>>> first of all they haven't even agreed on what "safer" means, but more
>>>>> importantly when most of those drivers need a "safer" vehicle because
>>>>> they and everyone else on the road refuse to drive safely in the first
>>>>> place.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it is unfortunate that to the auto crowd, especially folks in
>>>> government or the IIHS, that "safety" is defined as "crash worthiness"
>>>> rather than "capable of crash avoidance."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Happy Dog]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in
> On 2005-10-03, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Yes, it is unfortunate that to the auto crowd, especially folks in
>> government or the IIHS, that "safety" is defined as "crash worthiness"
>> rather than "capable of crash avoidance."
>
> It's the Volvo driver effect. In this country, Volvo drivers have a poor
> reputation (mainly amongst motorcyclists) for being dangerous drivers.
>
> What happens is a bad driver tends to gravitate towards Volvo cars
> because

You imagine they do? I just find Volvo drivers to be a bit weird. And they
all seem to wear hats. Ever noticed that?

moo

[Matt Whiting]

Happy Dog wrote:
> "Bob Chilcoat" > wrote in
>
>
>>Having had a Mini in the 70's, I would rather be driving one of those than
>>any SUV anytime. The ability to AVOID the accident in the first place is
>>always better than just surviving one.
>
>
> I doubt that maneuverability trumps crashworthiness. I suspect that the
> most important maneuverabilty feature of small cars is the shorter stopping
> distance. Driving around an accident situation is usually a pretty tough
> challenge. And, when it comes to taking a hit, most small cares, and
> certainly small cars from the 70s don't fare so well.

Maybe not for you, but for me I'll take accident avoidance over an
accident in the most crashworthy vehicle made.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> On 2005-10-03, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>If that is true, then there are a lot of deluded Americans out there.
>>An SUV for status or coolness as compared to a Vette, Miata, etc. That
>>is hilarious.
>
>
> I reached this conclusion long ago - there are indeed a lot of deluded
> people out there. The advertisments tell them an SUV is gung ho and
> cool, so they think it is so. The Corvette now has a
> boy-racer/mid-life-crisis image, and the Miata has an image of being a
> hairdresser's car, but a giant 4x4 now has accepted macho appeal. The
> same thing to a lesser extent goes for a pickup truck, but most the
> people I know with pickup trucks actually do throw **** in the back of
> them from time to time.

I find that the combination of my snowplow mount on the front, receiver
hitch on the rear and NRA stickers all around, makes my K1500 plenty
macho. :-) I don't need no steenkin' SUV for macho.


Matt

[George Patterson]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> I find that the combination of my snowplow mount on the front, receiver
> hitch on the rear and NRA stickers all around, makes my K1500 plenty
> macho. :-) I don't need no steenkin' SUV for macho.

Yeah, my Nissan 4WD PU has a brush guard instead of plow mount, but I find I get
the same effect.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

[[email protected]]

Happy Dog wrote:
> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in
> > On 2005-10-03, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >> Yes, it is unfortunate that to the auto crowd, especially folks in
> >> government or the IIHS, that "safety" is defined as "crash worthiness"
> >> rather than "capable of crash avoidance."
> >
> > It's the Volvo driver effect. In this country, Volvo drivers have a poor
> > reputation (mainly amongst motorcyclists) for being dangerous drivers.
> >
> > What happens is a bad driver tends to gravitate towards Volvo cars
> > because
>
> You imagine they do? I just find Volvo drivers to be a bit weird. And they
> all seem to wear hats. Ever noticed that?
>
> moo

Thank you very much, the both of you.

-Kees, accidentless Volvo driver.

P.S. I do not wear hats, I'm weird though.
P.S.P.S. Is either one of you flying Cessna? Hmmmm?

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message news:
>> "Bob Chilcoat" > wrote in
>>
>>
>>>Having had a Mini in the 70's, I would rather be driving one of those
>>>than any SUV anytime. The ability to AVOID the accident in the first
>>>place is always better than just surviving one.
>>
>>
>> I doubt that maneuverability trumps crashworthiness. I suspect that the
>> most important maneuverabilty feature of small cars is the shorter
>> stopping distance. Driving around an accident situation is usually a
>> pretty tough challenge. And, when it comes to taking a hit, most small
>> cares, and certainly small cars from the 70s don't fare so well.
>
> Maybe not for you, but for me I'll take accident avoidance over an
> accident in the most crashworthy vehicle made.

Hit anything going really fast? Really believe that a BMW X5 is
significantly less able to keep you out of an accident than a Mini? Wanna
bet your kids? Given a hundred years to live, and drive, which ride will
yield more survivors?
moo

[Matt Whiting]

Happy Dog wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message news:
>
>>>"Bob Chilcoat" > wrote in
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Having had a Mini in the 70's, I would rather be driving one of those
>>>>than any SUV anytime. The ability to AVOID the accident in the first
>>>>place is always better than just surviving one.
>>>
>>>
>>>I doubt that maneuverability trumps crashworthiness. I suspect that the
>>>most important maneuverabilty feature of small cars is the shorter
>>>stopping distance. Driving around an accident situation is usually a
>>>pretty tough challenge. And, when it comes to taking a hit, most small
>>>cares, and certainly small cars from the 70s don't fare so well.
>>
>>Maybe not for you, but for me I'll take accident avoidance over an
>>accident in the most crashworthy vehicle made.
>
>
> Hit anything going really fast?

Nothing over 30 MPH, but much above 40 and you are toast no matter what
you drive.


> Really believe that a BMW X5 is
> significantly less able to keep you out of an accident than a Mini?

Yes, and the BMW is probably the best handling SUV on the market.
Compare a more typical SUV such as an Expedition or Tahoe and the
difference witht he mini is even more dramatic.

> Wanna bet your kids?

Yes, I'd much rather have my kids in no accident than in a 50 MPH
accident in an SUV.


> Given a hundred years to live, and drive, which ride will
> yield more survivors?

I'm betting on the mini. Compare the death and accident rates for SUVs
against cars. Cars are already better.


Matt

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-10-05, > wrote:

(Happy Dog wrote...)
>> You imagine they do? I just find Volvo drivers to be a bit weird. And they
>> all seem to wear hats. Ever noticed that?

Certainly a common theme amongst Volvo drivers :-)

> Thank you very much, the both of you.

Like all generalisations, it's not necessarily true for everything, but
there is a high preponderance of it being true.

> P.S.P.S. Is either one of you flying Cessna? Hmmmm?

Well, my recent flight hours have been in:

Piper TriPacer
Grumman Cheetah
Auster (160hp conversion)

Although I did fly my friend's Cessna 180 a bit on my last trip to Salt
Lake City.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2005-10-05, > wrote:
>
> (Happy Dog wrote...)
>>> You imagine they do? I just find Volvo drivers to be a bit weird. And
>>> they
>>> all seem to wear hats. Ever noticed that?
>
> Certainly a common theme amongst Volvo drivers :-)
>

They're probably also worried about skin cancer.

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in
>>>Maybe not for you, but for me I'll take accident avoidance over an
>>>accident in the most crashworthy vehicle made.
>>
>>
>> Hit anything going really fast?
>
> Nothing over 30 MPH, but much above 40 and you are toast no matter what
> you drive.

Wrong. Now how about something hitting you?
>
>> Really believe that a BMW X5 is significantly less able to keep you out
>> of an accident than a Mini?
>
> Yes, and the BMW is probably the best handling SUV on the market. Compare
> a more typical SUV such as an Expedition or Tahoe and the difference witht
> he mini is even more dramatic.

Certainly. But the question is whether the difference is enough to make up
for the significant crashworthiness difference.
>
>> Wanna bet your kids?
>
> Yes, I'd much rather have my kids in no accident than in a 50 MPH accident
> in an SUV.

You might wish to live forever, but that, and your response, are irrelevant.
You *do* have a choice between an X5 and a Mini though. Which is it and
why? You might be a supremely gifted driver and able to avoid most
collisions. Most people aren't *and never will be no matter how much they
try*. FWIW, when I was a poor aspiring racer, many years ago, I used to
trade track time for instruction. The worst crash I have ever been in was
with a student driver. They hit the gas instead of locking up the brakes.
Think cruising at 60 MPH, turning as hard as you can into the guardrail
(from the left lane) and standing on the throttle. We walked away. My
experience, and association with many other instructors confirms, that, like
most human endeavours, only a small percentage are prodigies. And, to
acheive the level of skill required to drive around a potential accident
nearly every time, requires too much more than good intentions and a bit of
training.

I've seen so many near misses that were unavoidable with any amount of
skill. Shot happens. And you're more likely to survive it in a larger
(crashworthy) vehicle. The car in the accident mentioned above was a BMW 3
series "Bauer". Was. A lovely, and rare, 3 series targa. The guy had told
his wife he was going golfing...
>
>> Given a hundred years to live, and drive, which ride will yield more
>> survivors?
>
> I'm betting on the mini. Compare the death and accident rates for SUVs
> against cars. Cars are already better.

Stats?

moo

[Matt Whiting]

Happy Dog wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in
>
>>>>Maybe not for you, but for me I'll take accident avoidance over an
>>>>accident in the most crashworthy vehicle made.
>>>
>>>
>>>Hit anything going really fast?
>>
>>Nothing over 30 MPH, but much above 40 and you are toast no matter what
>>you drive.
>
>
> Wrong. Now how about something hitting you?

I've so far avoided the incompetent drivers around me both in my cars
and on my motorcycles. Riding a motorcycle tends to make one a very
alert operator.



>>>Really believe that a BMW X5 is significantly less able to keep you out
>>>of an accident than a Mini?
>>
>>Yes, and the BMW is probably the best handling SUV on the market. Compare
>>a more typical SUV such as an Expedition or Tahoe and the difference witht
>>he mini is even more dramatic.
>
>
> Certainly. But the question is whether the difference is enough to make up
> for the significant crashworthiness difference.

I only have to avoid one crash to make up the difference. You are
basing your argument on the underlying assumption that a crash is
inevitable. I don't accept that premise.


>>>Wanna bet your kids?
>>
>>Yes, I'd much rather have my kids in no accident than in a 50 MPH accident
>>in an SUV.
>
>
> You might wish to live forever, but that, and your response, are irrelevant.
> You *do* have a choice between an X5 and a Mini though. Which is it and
> why? You might be a supremely gifted driver and able to avoid most
> collisions. Most people aren't *and never will be no matter how much they
> try*. FWIW, when I was a poor aspiring racer, many years ago, I used to
> trade track time for instruction. The worst crash I have ever been in was
> with a student driver. They hit the gas instead of locking up the brakes.
> Think cruising at 60 MPH, turning as hard as you can into the guardrail
> (from the left lane) and standing on the throttle. We walked away. My
> experience, and association with many other instructors confirms, that, like
> most human endeavours, only a small percentage are prodigies. And, to
> acheive the level of skill required to drive around a potential accident
> nearly every time, requires too much more than good intentions and a bit of
> training.

It is inevitable that I will die. It is not inevitable that I will be
in an automobile crash. The only wreck I've had was a single vehicle
accident in a VW Beetle where I lost control in heavy snow. I was 17
years old and haven't had an accident since then and that was nearly 30
years ago.

Well, I've succeeded for 30 years. I also ride motorcycles, so for me
any car is a big step up in crashworthiness, but a step down in crash
avoidance. Trying to sell me an SUV for crashworthiness reasons is a
lost cause.

Also, you increase the chance of an accident due to roll-over. The last
statistics I saw showed that SUVs were LESS safe then cars, so your
argument simply doesn't hold in the real world.


> I've seen so many near misses that were unavoidable with any amount of
> skill. Shot happens. And you're more likely to survive it in a larger
> (crashworthy) vehicle. The car in the accident mentioned above was a BMW 3
> series "Bauer". Was. A lovely, and rare, 3 series targa. The guy had told
> his wife he was going golfing...

You are again equating size with crashworthiness and this simply isn't
correct based on the statistics to date.


>>>Given a hundred years to live, and drive, which ride will yield more
>>>survivors?
>>
>>I'm betting on the mini. Compare the death and accident rates for SUVs
>>against cars. Cars are already better.
>
>
> Stats?

Do some research. The last stats I saw were in Consumer Reports, but I
believe they came from NHTSA.


Matt

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in
>>>Nothing over 30 MPH, but much above 40 and you are toast no matter what
>>>you drive.
>>
>>
>> Wrong. Now how about something hitting you?
>
> I've so far avoided the incompetent drivers around me both in my cars and
> on my motorcycles. Riding a motorcycle tends to make one a very alert
> operator.

Yet the stats show motorcycles to be much more dangerous than cars. Or do
accidents mostly happen to non-alert operators? And you were about to say
about the survivability of collisions above 40 MPH?
>
>>>Yes, and the BMW is probably the best handling SUV on the market. Compare
>>>a more typical SUV such as an Expedition or Tahoe and the difference
>>>witht he mini is even more dramatic.
>>
>> Certainly. But the question is whether the difference is enough to make
>> up for the significant crashworthiness difference.
>
> I only have to avoid one crash to make up the difference. You are basing
> your argument on the underlying assumption that a crash is inevitable. I
> don't accept that premise.

Many of them are. You're an idiot if you think you're immune. And,
survivability, given enough time and miles, *is* the issue. The difference
between the great driver who avoids every accident and the one who doesn't
is, eventually, luck.

>>>Yes, I'd much rather have my kids in no accident than in a 50 MPH
>>>accident in an SUV.
>>
>> You might wish to live forever, but that, and your response, are
>> irrelevant. You *do* have a choice between an X5 and a Mini though.
>> Which is it and why? You might be a supremely gifted driver and able to
>> avoid most collisions. Most people aren't *and never will be no matter
>> how much they try*. FWIW, when I was a poor aspiring racer, many years
>> ago, I used to trade track time for instruction. The worst crash I have
>> ever been in was with a student driver. They hit the gas instead of
>> locking up the brakes. Think cruising at 60 MPH, turning as hard as you
>> can into the guardrail (from the left lane) and standing on the throttle.
>> We walked away. My experience, and association with many other
>> instructors confirms, that, like most human endeavours, only a small
>> percentage are prodigies. And, to acheive the level of skill required to
>> drive around a potential accident nearly every time, requires too much
>> more than good intentions and a bit of training.
>
> It is inevitable that I will die. It is not inevitable that I will be in
> an automobile crash. The only wreck I've had was a single vehicle
> accident in a VW Beetle where I lost control in heavy snow. I was 17
> years old and haven't had an accident since then and that was nearly 30
> years ago.

That you can't see the error in your logic is, at once, disturbing and
pedestrian.
>
> Well, I've succeeded for 30 years. I also ride motorcycles, so for me any
> car is a big step up in crashworthiness, but a step down in crash
> avoidance. Trying to sell me an SUV for crashworthiness reasons is a lost
> cause.
>
> Also, you increase the chance of an accident due to roll-over. The last
> statistics I saw showed that SUVs were LESS safe then cars, so your
> argument simply doesn't hold in the real world.

Cites, please?
>
>
>> I've seen so many near misses that were unavoidable with any amount of
>> skill. Shot happens. And you're more likely to survive it in a larger
>> (crashworthy) vehicle. The car in the accident mentioned above was a BMW
>> 3 series "Bauer". Was. A lovely, and rare, 3 series targa. The guy had
>> told his wife he was going golfing...
>
> You are again equating size with crashworthiness and this simply isn't
> correct based on the statistics to date.

No. I'm speaking about crashworthiness, period. Usually it's bigger. Not
always. And, sometimes, like the experience related above, luck plays a big
part.
>
>>>>Given a hundred years to live, and drive, which ride will yield more
>>>>survivors?
>>>
>>>I'm betting on the mini. Compare the death and accident rates for SUVs
>>>against cars. Cars are already better.
>>
>>
>> Stats?
>
> Do some research. The last stats I saw were in Consumer Reports, but I
> believe they came from NHTSA.

You made the claim. Just cite your stats. You're comparing SUVs and small
(compact & sub-compact) cars, right?

moo

[[email protected]]

I was only kidding.

Nice choice of aircraft BTW.

-Kees.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-10-05, Happy Dog > wrote:
> I've seen so many near misses that were unavoidable with any amount of
> skill. Shot happens. And you're more likely to survive it in a larger
> (crashworthy) vehicle. The car in the accident mentioned above was a BMW 3

People also drive a lot more carelessly in a vehicle they feel is
'safe'. This is part of the self-reinforcing problem: people feel unsafe
in a car with all these big SUVs around (being driven carelessly) so end
up buying a huge SUV and driving carelessly themselves.

It has often been speculated that having a big spike sticking out the
steering wheel would do wonders for improving road safety.

In this country, at least, the Mini had quite a good safety record
despite its lack of crashworthiness. Since a Mini was my student car, I
know why - you feel very vulnerable in a Mini. So you drive bloody
carefully and try and avoid the situations in the first place that may
result in a crash. You look extra carefully at junctions. You make sure
there really is enough space to overtake (especially in an 850cc car).
You never ever tailgate because you feel extremely vulnerable tailgating
someone. You drive carefully in snow and ice because you know hitting a
tree is going to put you in hospital at best. You take care to look far
ahead on the road to see a traffic situation developing that you don't
want to be a part of. Unlike my teenage peers at the time who drove by
and large their bigger, more modern cars in a reckless manner (and
frequently roofed them), I drove very carefully because I knew roofing
my car == hospital stay.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Matt Whiting]

Happy Dog wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in
>
>>>>Nothing over 30 MPH, but much above 40 and you are toast no matter what
>>>>you drive.
>>>
>>>
>>>Wrong. Now how about something hitting you?
>>
>>I've so far avoided the incompetent drivers around me both in my cars and
>>on my motorcycles. Riding a motorcycle tends to make one a very alert
>>operator.
>
>
> Yet the stats show motorcycles to be much more dangerous than cars. Or do
> accidents mostly happen to non-alert operators? And you were about to say
> about the survivability of collisions above 40 MPH?

Yes, most accidents happen to folks that aren't paying attention and
maintaining situational awareness. Just as in flying.

>
>>>>Yes, and the BMW is probably the best handling SUV on the market. Compare
>>>>a more typical SUV such as an Expedition or Tahoe and the difference
>>>>witht he mini is even more dramatic.
>>>
>>>Certainly. But the question is whether the difference is enough to make
>>>up for the significant crashworthiness difference.
>>
>>I only have to avoid one crash to make up the difference. You are basing
>>your argument on the underlying assumption that a crash is inevitable. I
>>don't accept that premise.
>
>
> Many of them are. You're an idiot if you think you're immune. And,
> survivability, given enough time and miles, *is* the issue. The difference
> between the great driver who avoids every accident and the one who doesn't
> is, eventually, luck.

Never said I was immune. A vehicle that is even 50% more crashworthy
than another (if there is even a decent way to make such a comparison),
still doesn't GUARANTEE survival. That is my point. Avoiding an
accident guarantees survival. Getting in an accident, even in the
biggest, baddest SUV, doesn't guarantee survival. Personally, I'd
rather focus on avoiding the accident and having 100% survivability,
than to accept a few accidents and hope that I survive the accident.

The fundamental point is that I believe it is a better deal to increase
my odds of avoiding an accident and trading a little crashworthiness to
do that (although, the SUV data doesn't even support that they are
better overall than cars). You are saying you would rather have more
accidents, but have them in a more crashworthy vehicle. That is your
choice, but you may want to do some research on crash statistics before
you make your purchase as your SUV isn't the best choice.


>>>>Yes, I'd much rather have my kids in no accident than in a 50 MPH
>>>>accident in an SUV.
>>>
>>>You might wish to live forever, but that, and your response, are
>>>irrelevant. You *do* have a choice between an X5 and a Mini though.
>>>Which is it and why? You might be a supremely gifted driver and able to
>>>avoid most collisions. Most people aren't *and never will be no matter
>>>how much they try*. FWIW, when I was a poor aspiring racer, many years
>>>ago, I used to trade track time for instruction. The worst crash I have
>>>ever been in was with a student driver. They hit the gas instead of
>>>locking up the brakes. Think cruising at 60 MPH, turning as hard as you
>>>can into the guardrail (from the left lane) and standing on the throttle.
>>>We walked away. My experience, and association with many other
>>>instructors confirms, that, like most human endeavours, only a small
>>>percentage are prodigies. And, to acheive the level of skill required to
>>>drive around a potential accident nearly every time, requires too much
>>>more than good intentions and a bit of training.
>>
>>It is inevitable that I will die. It is not inevitable that I will be in
>>an automobile crash. The only wreck I've had was a single vehicle
>>accident in a VW Beetle where I lost control in heavy snow. I was 17
>>years old and haven't had an accident since then and that was nearly 30
>>years ago.
>
>
> That you can't see the error in your logic is, at once, disturbing and
> pedestrian.

There is no error in my logic. I'm basically doing an expected value
calculation mentally. Look it up.


>>Well, I've succeeded for 30 years. I also ride motorcycles, so for me any
>>car is a big step up in crashworthiness, but a step down in crash
>>avoidance. Trying to sell me an SUV for crashworthiness reasons is a lost
>>cause.
>>
>>Also, you increase the chance of an accident due to roll-over. The last
>>statistics I saw showed that SUVs were LESS safe then cars, so your
>>argument simply doesn't hold in the real world.
>
>
> Cites, please?

Consumer Reports. I don't recall which issue and am not going to dig
through my 10 years of back issues on your behalf. Do you own research.


>>>I've seen so many near misses that were unavoidable with any amount of
>>>skill. Shot happens. And you're more likely to survive it in a larger
>>>(crashworthy) vehicle. The car in the accident mentioned above was a BMW
>>>3 series "Bauer". Was. A lovely, and rare, 3 series targa. The guy had
>>>told his wife he was going golfing...
>>
>>You are again equating size with crashworthiness and this simply isn't
>>correct based on the statistics to date.
>
>
> No. I'm speaking about crashworthiness, period. Usually it's bigger. Not
> always. And, sometimes, like the experience related above, luck plays a big
> part.

Yes, but competent alert drivers have much greater luck than the average
driver. :-)


>>>>>Given a hundred years to live, and drive, which ride will yield more
>>>>>survivors?
>>>>
>>>>I'm betting on the mini. Compare the death and accident rates for SUVs
>>>>against cars. Cars are already better.
>>>
>>>
>>>Stats?
>>
>>Do some research. The last stats I saw were in Consumer Reports, but I
>>believe they came from NHTSA.
>
>
> You made the claim. Just cite your stats. You're comparing SUVs and small
> (compact & sub-compact) cars, right?

I don't need to cite the stats. I know the data and am comfortable with
that. If you want to see the data, go find it. I told you above where
to look.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> On 2005-10-05, Happy Dog > wrote:
>
>>I've seen so many near misses that were unavoidable with any amount of
>>skill. Shot happens. And you're more likely to survive it in a larger
>>(crashworthy) vehicle. The car in the accident mentioned above was a BMW 3
>
>
> People also drive a lot more carelessly in a vehicle they feel is
> 'safe'. This is part of the self-reinforcing problem: people feel unsafe
> in a car with all these big SUVs around (being driven carelessly) so end
> up buying a huge SUV and driving carelessly themselves.
>
> It has often been speculated that having a big spike sticking out the
> steering wheel would do wonders for improving road safety.
>
> In this country, at least, the Mini had quite a good safety record
> despite its lack of crashworthiness. Since a Mini was my student car, I
> know why - you feel very vulnerable in a Mini. So you drive bloody
> carefully and try and avoid the situations in the first place that may
> result in a crash. You look extra carefully at junctions. You make sure
> there really is enough space to overtake (especially in an 850cc car).
> You never ever tailgate because you feel extremely vulnerable tailgating
> someone. You drive carefully in snow and ice because you know hitting a
> tree is going to put you in hospital at best. You take care to look far
> ahead on the road to see a traffic situation developing that you don't
> want to be a part of. Unlike my teenage peers at the time who drove by
> and large their bigger, more modern cars in a reckless manner (and
> frequently roofed them), I drove very carefully because I knew roofing
> my car == hospital stay.
>

What is your definition of crashworthiness? If the mini has a good
safety record and is protecting its occupants, then it IS crashworthy in
my book.


Matt

[Happy Dog]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
>> I've seen so many near misses that were unavoidable with any amount of
>> skill. Shot happens. And you're more likely to survive it in a larger
>> (crashworthy) vehicle. The car in the accident mentioned above was a BMW
>> 3
>
> People also drive a lot more carelessly in a vehicle they feel is
> 'safe'. This is part of the self-reinforcing problem: people feel unsafe
> in a car with all these big SUVs around (being driven carelessly) so end
> up buying a huge SUV and driving carelessly themselves.

I want to see some evidence of this. Cab drivers drive carelessly. They
dont drive SUVs. Does anyone have some hard numbers on this?
>
> It has often been speculated that having a big spike sticking out the
> steering wheel would do wonders for improving road safety.

Fear is the key to your soul. Already knew that.
>
> In this country, at least, the Mini had quite a good safety record
> despite its lack of crashworthiness. Since a Mini was my student car, I
> know why - you feel very vulnerable in a Mini. So you drive bloody
> carefully and try and avoid the situations in the first place that may
> result in a crash.

Oh please. Kids will drive like maniacs in anything. Anything. Teenage
boys are unstoppable when it comes to reckless behaviour and there are sound
biological reasons for this. If you really know what you're doing, you can
draw many people under the age of, say, 30, into something they can't steer
out of. Liability and the possiblity that my posts might be used in a
mental competancy hearing prevent me from expounding. (I know, H. Thompson
said this first. So don't bug me about it.)

> You look extra carefully at junctions. You make sure
> there really is enough space to overtake (especially in an 850cc car).
> You never ever tailgate because you feel extremely vulnerable tailgating
> someone. You drive carefully in snow and ice because you know hitting a
> tree is going to put you in hospital at best. You take care to look far
> ahead on the road to see a traffic situation developing that you don't
> want to be a part of. Unlike my teenage peers at the time who drove by
> and large their bigger, more modern cars in a reckless manner (and
> frequently roofed them), I drove very carefully because I knew roofing
> my car == hospital stay.

Then you got it. But don't think that everyone else did.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message news:vVf1f.

>> Yet the stats show motorcycles to be much more dangerous than cars. Or
>> do accidents mostly happen to non-alert operators? And you were about to
>> say about the survivability of collisions above 40 MPH?
>
> Yes, most accidents happen to folks that aren't paying attention and
> maintaining situational awareness. Just as in flying.

You were about to say about the survivability of collisions over 40 MPH?
Nothing, right?

Comment: When I started flying, I noticed the amount of training that went
into safety issues of all kinds far exceeded anything I saw in performance
driving. All this because you can't pull over. Almost. I know that most
training considers a career as a commercial pilot. But the number of
safeguards we learn should make us invincible. And, yet, we're taught and
reminded that, without rote procedures, things can quickly get out of hand.
The skill of being able to maintain grace under pressure and follow a
checklist, maybe one of a dozen, that others have written for you to follow,
is a proved lifesaver. Good, safe, piloting has little in common with race
or performance driving. Or great pitching or goaltending. And a great deal
depends on the equipment. Planes use technology that was old, I remember,
in the sixties. But one tends to listen to the AME's opinion with a bit
more respect than the race mechanic. So, you may think that your skill
trumps bad luck and the safeguards available to counter it. But, you're
likely dreaming.

Anyway, many accidents involve people who have no hope of avoiding them.
This happens all the time, no?
>
>>>I only have to avoid one crash to make up the difference. You are basing
>>>your argument on the underlying assumption that a crash is inevitable. I
>>>don't accept that premise.
>>
>>
>> Many of them are. You're an idiot if you think you're immune. And,
>> survivability, given enough time and miles, *is* the issue. The
>> difference between the great driver who avoids every accident and the one
>> who doesn't is, eventually, luck.
>
> Never said I was immune. A vehicle that is even 50% more crashworthy than
> another (if there is even a decent way to make such a comparison), still
> doesn't GUARANTEE survival. That is my point. Avoiding an accident
> guarantees survival. Getting in an accident, even in the biggest, baddest
> SUV, doesn't guarantee survival. Personally, I'd rather focus on avoiding
> the accident and having 100% survivability, than to accept a few accidents
> and hope that I survive the accident.

You're dreaming. Almost everyone who races cars knows how cruel luck is.
People crash, for whatever reason, including mechanical failure (a biggie
with pilots). And they take others with them. Many, many accidents involve
people who have no hope of avoiding them. You think you can? Almost nobody
who races cars thinks so. If winning just meant surviving, F1 races would
be done in Hummers.
>
> The fundamental point is that I believe it is a better deal to increase my
> odds of avoiding an accident and trading a little crashworthiness to do
> that (although, the SUV data doesn't even support that they are better
> overall than cars). You are saying you would rather have more accidents,
> but have them in a more crashworthy vehicle.

Idiot.

>>>It is inevitable that I will die. It is not inevitable that I will be in
>>>an automobile crash. The only wreck I've had was a single vehicle
>>>accident in a VW Beetle where I lost control in heavy snow. I was 17
>>>years old and haven't had an accident since then and that was nearly 30
>>>years ago.
>>
>>
>> That you can't see the error in your logic is, at once, disturbing and
>> pedestrian.
>
> There is no error in my logic. I'm basically doing an expected value
> calculation mentally. Look it up.

Asking you how you avoid a crash caused by someone who has caused havoc by
their stupidity, or not, that presents you with a hopeless situation would
require you to deal with that possible reality. GR, SR and Euclidean
Geometry ary internally consistant and contain no errors. Keep your foot
over the brake pedal entering every intersection.
>
>>>Also, you increase the chance of an accident due to roll-over. The last
>>>statistics I saw showed that SUVs were LESS safe then cars, so your
>>>argument simply doesn't hold in the real world.
>>
>>
>> Cites, please?
>
> Consumer Reports. I don't recall which issue and am not going to dig
> through my 10 years of back issues on your behalf. Do you own research.

Cites please. Just give me anything that show small cars being, generally,
more crashworthy than large cars will do.
>
>> No. I'm speaking about crashworthiness, period. Usually it's bigger.
>> Not always. And, sometimes, like the experience related above, luck
>> plays a big part.
>
> Yes, but competent alert drivers have much greater luck than the average
> driver. :-)

Luck favours the prepared. You think your are, why? You have compared your
driving skills to others how? Try to give us something other than your own
self-revering speculation.

>> You made the claim. Just cite your stats. You're comparing SUVs and
>> small (compact & sub-compact) cars, right?
>
> I don't need to cite the stats. I know the data and am comfortable with
> that. If you want to see the data, go find it. I told you above where to
> look.

Didn't think you could. Maybe you should rethink your beliefs.

moo

[Matt Whiting]

Happy Dog wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message news:vVf1f.
>
>
>>>Yet the stats show motorcycles to be much more dangerous than cars. Or
>>>do accidents mostly happen to non-alert operators? And you were about to
>>>say about the survivability of collisions above 40 MPH?
>>
>>Yes, most accidents happen to folks that aren't paying attention and
>>maintaining situational awareness. Just as in flying.
>
>
> You were about to say about the survivability of collisions over 40 MPH?
> Nothing, right?

The survivability rate goes down dramatically above 40 MPH no matter
what kind of vehicle you are in. What's your point?


> Comment: When I started flying, I noticed the amount of training that went
> into safety issues of all kinds far exceeded anything I saw in performance
> driving. All this because you can't pull over. Almost. I know that most
> training considers a career as a commercial pilot. But the number of
> safeguards we learn should make us invincible. And, yet, we're taught and
> reminded that, without rote procedures, things can quickly get out of hand.
> The skill of being able to maintain grace under pressure and follow a
> checklist, maybe one of a dozen, that others have written for you to follow,
> is a proved lifesaver. Good, safe, piloting has little in common with race
> or performance driving. Or great pitching or goaltending. And a great deal
> depends on the equipment. Planes use technology that was old, I remember,
> in the sixties. But one tends to listen to the AME's opinion with a bit
> more respect than the race mechanic. So, you may think that your skill
> trumps bad luck and the safeguards available to counter it. But, you're
> likely dreaming.

AME and race mechanic? What does a doctor and a mechanic have in common?


> Anyway, many accidents involve people who have no hope of avoiding them.
> This happens all the time, no?

I don't think it happens all of the time at all. It happens some of the
time, but I believe that more than half of the time accidents were
clearly avoidable.


>>>>I only have to avoid one crash to make up the difference. You are basing
>>>>your argument on the underlying assumption that a crash is inevitable. I
>>>>don't accept that premise.
>>>
>>>
>>>Many of them are. You're an idiot if you think you're immune. And,
>>>survivability, given enough time and miles, *is* the issue. The
>>>difference between the great driver who avoids every accident and the one
>>>who doesn't is, eventually, luck.
>>
>>Never said I was immune. A vehicle that is even 50% more crashworthy than
>>another (if there is even a decent way to make such a comparison), still
>>doesn't GUARANTEE survival. That is my point. Avoiding an accident
>>guarantees survival. Getting in an accident, even in the biggest, baddest
>>SUV, doesn't guarantee survival. Personally, I'd rather focus on avoiding
>>the accident and having 100% survivability, than to accept a few accidents
>>and hope that I survive the accident.
>
>
> You're dreaming. Almost everyone who races cars knows how cruel luck is.
> People crash, for whatever reason, including mechanical failure (a biggie
> with pilots). And they take others with them. Many, many accidents involve
> people who have no hope of avoiding them. You think you can? Almost nobody
> who races cars thinks so. If winning just meant surviving, F1 races would
> be done in Hummers.

Racing and street driving have almost nothing in common. Racing is all
about pushing the limits. And if you are pushing the limit, it takes
very little to put you over the edge. I'm a pilot and mechanical
failure isn't a big concern at all with most pilots. Less than 15% of
all accidents in airplanes involve a mechanical failure. 85% are pilot
error. The stats for car accidents aren't nearly as good as for
aviation as aviation accidents are all professionally investigated,
however, I'll be that the stats for cars are even more skewed towards
driver.


>>The fundamental point is that I believe it is a better deal to increase my
>>odds of avoiding an accident and trading a little crashworthiness to do
>>that (although, the SUV data doesn't even support that they are better
>>overall than cars). You are saying you would rather have more accidents,
>>but have them in a more crashworthy vehicle.
>
>
> Idiot.

I didn't think you would admit it in public, but I applaud your level of
self-awareness.


>>>>It is inevitable that I will die. It is not inevitable that I will be in
>>>>an automobile crash. The only wreck I've had was a single vehicle
>>>>accident in a VW Beetle where I lost control in heavy snow. I was 17
>>>>years old and haven't had an accident since then and that was nearly 30
>>>>years ago.
>>>
>>>
>>>That you can't see the error in your logic is, at once, disturbing and
>>>pedestrian.
>>
>>There is no error in my logic. I'm basically doing an expected value
>>calculation mentally. Look it up.
>
>
> Asking you how you avoid a crash caused by someone who has caused havoc by
> their stupidity, or not, that presents you with a hopeless situation would
> require you to deal with that possible reality. GR, SR and Euclidean
> Geometry ary internally consistant and contain no errors. Keep your foot
> over the brake pedal entering every intersection.

Actually, I usually do plan to hit the brakes at every intersection. I
don't keep my foot over the brake, but I'm always ready to hit it. When
riding a motorcycle, I DO "cover" the brakes at every intersection. A
half second reduction in reaction time can mean the difference between a
close call (I've had a few) and an accident (I've had none).


>>>>Also, you increase the chance of an accident due to roll-over. The last
>>>>statistics I saw showed that SUVs were LESS safe then cars, so your
>>>>argument simply doesn't hold in the real world.
>>>
>>>
>>>Cites, please?
>>
>>Consumer Reports. I don't recall which issue and am not going to dig
>>through my 10 years of back issues on your behalf. Do you own research.
>
>
> Cites please. Just give me anything that show small cars being, generally,
> more crashworthy than large cars will do.
>
>>>No. I'm speaking about crashworthiness, period. Usually it's bigger.
>>>Not always. And, sometimes, like the experience related above, luck
>>>plays a big part.
>>
>>Yes, but competent alert drivers have much greater luck than the average
>>driver. :-)
>
>
> Luck favours the prepared. You think your are, why? You have compared your
> driving skills to others how? Try to give us something other than your own
> self-revering speculation.

I have 29 years of accident-free driving. My only accident was when I
was 17 in a blizzard. I don't have any stats on driver statistics, but
my insurance agent has assured me that he has very few customers with a
29 year accident free record. What is your record?

I'm guessing you've had a series of accidents given your reliance on
crashworthiness rather than crash avoidance.



>>>You made the claim. Just cite your stats. You're comparing SUVs and
>>>small (compact & sub-compact) cars, right?
>>
>>I don't need to cite the stats. I know the data and am comfortable with
>>that. If you want to see the data, go find it. I told you above where to
>>look.
>
>
> Didn't think you could. Maybe you should rethink your beliefs.

Rethink my beliefs because you are too lazy to do some research? I
think not.


Matt

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message

>> You were about to say about the survivability of collisions over 40 MPH?
>> Nothing, right?
>
> The survivability rate goes down dramatically above 40 MPH no matter what
> kind of vehicle you are in. What's your point?

You said that collisions above 40MPH were, basically unsurvivable. That's
incorrect.
>
>
>> Comment: When I started flying, I noticed the amount of training that
>> went into safety issues of all kinds far exceeded anything I saw in
>> performance driving. All this because you can't pull over. Almost. I
>> know that most training considers a career as a commercial pilot. But
>> the number of safeguards we learn should make us invincible. And, yet,
>> we're taught and reminded that, without rote procedures, things can
>> quickly get out of hand. The skill of being able to maintain grace under
>> pressure and follow a checklist, maybe one of a dozen, that others have
>> written for you to follow, is a proved lifesaver. Good, safe, piloting
>> has little in common with race or performance driving. Or great pitching
>> or goaltending. And a great deal depends on the equipment. Planes use
>> technology that was old, I remember, in the sixties. But one tends to
>> listen to the AME's opinion with a bit more respect than the race
>> mechanic. So, you may think that your skill trumps bad luck and the
>> safeguards available to counter it. But, you're likely dreaming.
>
> AME and race mechanic? What does a doctor and a mechanic have in common?

Canadian thing. "Authorized Maintenance Engineer"

>> Anyway, many accidents involve people who have no hope of avoiding them.
>> This happens all the time, no?
>
> I don't think it happens all of the time at all. It happens some of the
> time, but I believe that more than half of the time accidents were clearly
> avoidable.

By "all the time", I meant "many, every day" But, go with less than 50%
unavoidable. (Where did that come from?) Admitting that makes your
previous stance look a bit odd.

>>>Never said I was immune. A vehicle that is even 50% more crashworthy
>>>than another (if there is even a decent way to make such a comparison),
>>>still doesn't GUARANTEE survival. That is my point. Avoiding an
>>>accident guarantees survival. Getting in an accident, even in the
>>>biggest, baddest SUV, doesn't guarantee survival. Personally, I'd rather
>>>focus on avoiding the accident and having 100% survivability, than to
>>>accept a few accidents and hope that I survive the accident.
>>
>>
>> You're dreaming. Almost everyone who races cars knows how cruel luck is.
>> People crash, for whatever reason, including mechanical failure (a biggie
>> with pilots). And they take others with them. Many, many accidents
>> involve people who have no hope of avoiding them. You think you can?
>> Almost nobody who races cars thinks so. If winning just meant surviving,
>> F1 races would be done in Hummers.
>
> Racing and street driving have almost nothing in common. Racing is all
> about pushing the limits. And if you are pushing the limit, it takes very
> little to put you over the edge.

Correct. But accident avoidance skills are honed by this type of driving.
And, silly things happen all the time at nowhere near race speeds.

> I'm a pilot and mechanical failure isn't a big concern at all with most
> pilots. Less than 15% of all accidents in airplanes involve a mechanical
> failure.

A great deal of training goes into procedures to handle mechanical failures.
It's, obviously,, a big concern to somebody. And then there's the BRS.

>>> You are saying you would rather have more accidents, but have them in a
>>> more crashworthy vehicle.
>>
>>
>> Idiot.
>
> I didn't think you would admit it in public, but I applaud your level of
> self-awareness.

It's usenet, darling. You misrepresented my position by claiming I take an
idiotic position. I'm just returning the favour using more concise
language.
>
>
>>>There is no error in my logic. I'm basically doing an expected value
>>>calculation mentally. Look it up.
>>
>>
>> Asking you how you avoid a crash caused by someone who has caused havoc
>> by their stupidity, or not, that presents you with a hopeless situation
>> would require you to deal with that possible reality. GR, SR and
>> Euclidean Geometry ary internally consistant and contain no errors. Keep
>> your foot over the brake pedal entering every intersection.
>
> Actually, I usually do plan to hit the brakes at every intersection. I
> don't keep my foot over the brake, but I'm always ready to hit it. When
> riding a motorcycle, I DO "cover" the brakes at every intersection. A
> half second reduction in reaction time can mean the difference between a
> close call (I've had a few) and an accident (I've had none).

And as your reaction time slows with age, what then? You don't seem to get
the luck factor here. And, why isn't covering the brake pedal, or using
your left foot, as important in a car WRT accident avoidance? You drive a
bike. Wouldn't you rather that all car drivers took this safety measure?

>> Luck favours the prepared. You think your are, why? You have compared
>> your driving skills to others how? Try to give us something other than
>> your own self-revering speculation.
>
> I have 29 years of accident-free driving. My only accident was when I was
> 17 in a blizzard. I don't have any stats on driver statistics, but my
> insurance agent has assured me that he has very few customers with a 29
> year accident free record. What is your record?
>
> I'm guessing you've had a series of accidents given your reliance on
> crashworthiness rather than crash avoidance.

Apart from track stuff, only two of any consequence. Both times, somebody
made an unannounced turn from the wrong lane. My experience is about
average. And my skills are at least that. There are lucky people who are
apparently unsinkable. But you are disregarding empirical reality and
believeing too much in your own prowess.

>>>I don't need to cite the stats. I know the data and am comfortable with
>>>that. If you want to see the data, go find it. I told you above where
>>>to look.
>>
> Didn't think you could. Maybe you should rethink your beliefs.
>
> Rethink my beliefs because you are too lazy to do some research? I think
> not.

I was thinking that you should rethink your beliefs because they're wrong.

http://www.central-insurance.com/docs/cmaaccid.htm#Bigger

moo

[Matt Whiting]

Happy Dog wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>
>
>>>You were about to say about the survivability of collisions over 40 MPH?
>>>Nothing, right?
>>
>>The survivability rate goes down dramatically above 40 MPH no matter what
>>kind of vehicle you are in. What's your point?
>
>
> You said that collisions above 40MPH were, basically unsurvivable. That's
> incorrect.

Hit anything hard above 40 MPH and you are in a world of hurt. Sure, if
you hit a large marshmallow, then you'll be in good shape.



>>>Comment: When I started flying, I noticed the amount of training that
>>>went into safety issues of all kinds far exceeded anything I saw in
>>>performance driving. All this because you can't pull over. Almost. I
>>>know that most training considers a career as a commercial pilot. But
>>>the number of safeguards we learn should make us invincible. And, yet,
>>>we're taught and reminded that, without rote procedures, things can
>>>quickly get out of hand. The skill of being able to maintain grace under
>>>pressure and follow a checklist, maybe one of a dozen, that others have
>>>written for you to follow, is a proved lifesaver. Good, safe, piloting
>>>has little in common with race or performance driving. Or great pitching
>>>or goaltending. And a great deal depends on the equipment. Planes use
>>>technology that was old, I remember, in the sixties. But one tends to
>>>listen to the AME's opinion with a bit more respect than the race
>>>mechanic. So, you may think that your skill trumps bad luck and the
>>>safeguards available to counter it. But, you're likely dreaming.
>>
>>AME and race mechanic? What does a doctor and a mechanic have in common?
>
>
> Canadian thing. "Authorized Maintenance Engineer"

OK, US is Aviation Medical Examiner.


>>>Anyway, many accidents involve people who have no hope of avoiding them.
>>>This happens all the time, no?
>>
>>I don't think it happens all of the time at all. It happens some of the
>>time, but I believe that more than half of the time accidents were clearly
>>avoidable.
>
>
> By "all the time", I meant "many, every day" But, go with less than 50%
> unavoidable. (Where did that come from?) Admitting that makes your
> previous stance look a bit odd.
>
>
>>>>Never said I was immune. A vehicle that is even 50% more crashworthy
>>>>than another (if there is even a decent way to make such a comparison),
>>>>still doesn't GUARANTEE survival. That is my point. Avoiding an
>>>>accident guarantees survival. Getting in an accident, even in the
>>>>biggest, baddest SUV, doesn't guarantee survival. Personally, I'd rather
>>>>focus on avoiding the accident and having 100% survivability, than to
>>>>accept a few accidents and hope that I survive the accident.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're dreaming. Almost everyone who races cars knows how cruel luck is.
>>>People crash, for whatever reason, including mechanical failure (a biggie
>>>with pilots). And they take others with them. Many, many accidents
>>>involve people who have no hope of avoiding them. You think you can?
>>>Almost nobody who races cars thinks so. If winning just meant surviving,
>>>F1 races would be done in Hummers.
>>
>>Racing and street driving have almost nothing in common. Racing is all
>>about pushing the limits. And if you are pushing the limit, it takes very
>>little to put you over the edge.
>
>
> Correct. But accident avoidance skills are honed by this type of driving.
> And, silly things happen all the time at nowhere near race speeds.

I've never raced (well not on a track anyway and I ain't talking about
anything else!), but I trust it would hone one's skills. However,
accident avoidance is about a whole lot more than raw driving skills.
It is about attitude, anticipation, alertness, situation awareness, etc.


>> I'm a pilot and mechanical failure isn't a big concern at all with most
>>pilots. Less than 15% of all accidents in airplanes involve a mechanical
>>failure.
>
>
> A great deal of training goes into procedures to handle mechanical failures.
> It's, obviously,, a big concern to somebody. And then there's the BRS.

Yes, but a lot more training goes into learning how to fly, flight plan
and exercise judgement to avoid pilot errors. I don't think more than
10% of my flight training has been invested in procedures to handle
mechanical failures.


>>>>You are saying you would rather have more accidents, but have them in a
>>>>more crashworthy vehicle.
>>>
>>>
>>>Idiot.
>>
>>I didn't think you would admit it in public, but I applaud your level of
>>self-awareness.
>
>
> It's usenet, darling. You misrepresented my position by claiming I take an
> idiotic position. I'm just returning the favour using more concise
> language.

No, I represented exactly what you are saying. You've said several
times that you would rather have a vehicle that is less likely to avoid
a crash, but more likely to allow occupant survivability in a crash.
The result is exactly what I wrote above.


>>>>There is no error in my logic. I'm basically doing an expected value
>>>>calculation mentally. Look it up.
>>>
>>>
>>>Asking you how you avoid a crash caused by someone who has caused havoc
>>>by their stupidity, or not, that presents you with a hopeless situation
>>>would require you to deal with that possible reality. GR, SR and
>>>Euclidean Geometry ary internally consistant and contain no errors. Keep
>>>your foot over the brake pedal entering every intersection.
>>
>>Actually, I usually do plan to hit the brakes at every intersection. I
>>don't keep my foot over the brake, but I'm always ready to hit it. When
>>riding a motorcycle, I DO "cover" the brakes at every intersection. A
>>half second reduction in reaction time can mean the difference between a
>>close call (I've had a few) and an accident (I've had none).
>
>
> And as your reaction time slows with age, what then? You don't seem to get
> the luck factor here. And, why isn't covering the brake pedal, or using
> your left foot, as important in a car WRT accident avoidance? You drive a
> bike. Wouldn't you rather that all car drivers took this safety measure?

The luck factor is always there. I've never said it wasn't. The reason
is most drivers can't keep their feet from getting confused if they
brake with their left foot, which is why in the US most states teach
against that. I personally brake with my left foot when driving my AT
equipped vehicles and find it works great, but most driving schools
teach against it.


>>>Luck favours the prepared. You think your are, why? You have compared
>>>your driving skills to others how? Try to give us something other than
>>>your own self-revering speculation.
>>
>>I have 29 years of accident-free driving. My only accident was when I was
>>17 in a blizzard. I don't have any stats on driver statistics, but my
>>insurance agent has assured me that he has very few customers with a 29
>>year accident free record. What is your record?
>>
>>I'm guessing you've had a series of accidents given your reliance on
>>crashworthiness rather than crash avoidance.
>
>
> Apart from track stuff, only two of any consequence. Both times, somebody
> made an unannounced turn from the wrong lane. My experience is about
> average. And my skills are at least that. There are lucky people who are
> apparently unsinkable. But you are disregarding empirical reality and
> believeing too much in your own prowess.

Two accidents in how many years of driving?

I'm not disregarding reality at all. I'm just focusing on what I can
control. I can control my driving and the selection of vehicle I drive.
I can't control fate or luck or whatever you wish to call it, so I
don't fret it.


Matt

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-10-07, Happy Dog > wrote:
>> In this country, at least, the Mini had quite a good safety record
>> despite its lack of crashworthiness. Since a Mini was my student car, I
>> know why - you feel very vulnerable in a Mini. So you drive bloody
>> carefully and try and avoid the situations in the first place that may
>> result in a crash.
>
> Oh please. Kids will drive like maniacs in anything. Anything. Teenage
> boys are unstoppable when it comes to reckless behaviour and there are sound
> biological reasons for this.

No, I related my own teenage experience. I was *not* reckless in my Mini
because I felt vulnerable in it doing stupid things, so I didn't do
stupid things. Other teenagers I knew who owned Minis generally also
drove MUCH more carefully than their peers - because they also felt
vulnerable.

Of course, careful is relative; my definition of careful at the time is
probably reckless to an old fart like yourself <g> But it was
(relatively speaking) a lot more careful than my friends. I never roofed
my car. None of my Mini-owning friends roofed their cars. However,
friends with larger cars often roofed theirs, and some to an extent that
a couple of them were uninsurable even in a Fiat 126 (which can't pull
the skin of rice pudding)

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Happy Dog]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
>> Oh please. Kids will drive like maniacs in anything. Anything. Teenage
>> boys are unstoppable when it comes to reckless behaviour and there are
>> sound
>> biological reasons for this.
>
> No, I related my own teenage experience. I was *not* reckless in my Mini
> because I felt vulnerable in it doing stupid things, so I didn't do
> stupid things. Other teenagers I knew who owned Minis generally also
> drove MUCH more carefully than their peers - because they also felt
> vulnerable.

No, what? You're an exception. If you think otherwise, a biology lesson is
in order. Teenage boys. Think arrest stats, insurance rates, girls. Our
evolved history explains it just fine. Works for just about every other
sexual being as well. Some species of shore birds excepted.

moo

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message

> Hit anything hard above 40 MPH and you are in a world of hurt. Sure, if
> you hit a large marshmallow, then you'll be in good shape.

Took you six posts to get to this bit of backpeddling. *Most* collisions do
not involve hitting an oak tree. Most collisions at 40 MPH are survivable.
And that's contrary to what you originally asserted. If you really meant to
say that most collisions that involve a 40 MPH side impact with a cement
mixer are unsurvivable, then, OK.

>>>Racing and street driving have almost nothing in common. Racing is all
>>>about pushing the limits. And if you are pushing the limit, it takes
>>>very little to put you over the edge.
>>
>> Correct. But accident avoidance skills are honed by this type of
>> driving. And, silly things happen all the time at nowhere near race
>> speeds.
>
> I've never raced (well not on a track anyway and I ain't talking about
> anything else!), but I trust it would hone one's skills. However,
> accident avoidance is about a whole lot more than raw driving skills. It
> is about attitude, anticipation, alertness, situation awareness, etc.

And you think this isn't a crucial part of racing? Qualifying laps are,
mostly, pushing the limits. But a race involves more than just getting
around an empty track as fast as you can. And many of those things
translate directly into accident avoidance maneuvers.
>
>>> A great deal of training goes into procedures to handle mechanical
>>> failures.
>> It's, obviously,, a big concern to somebody. And then there's the BRS.
>
> Yes, but a lot more training goes into learning how to fly, flight plan
> and exercise judgement to avoid pilot errors. I don't think more than 10%
> of my flight training has been invested in procedures to handle mechanical
> failures.

Even that's pretty significant. And the forced approach has the highest
failure rate of any flight test item.
>
>> And as your reaction time slows with age, what then? You don't seem to
>> get the luck factor here. And, why isn't covering the brake pedal, or
>> using your left foot, as important in a car WRT accident avoidance? You
>> drive a bike. Wouldn't you rather that all car drivers took this safety
>> measure?
>
> The luck factor is always there. I've never said it wasn't. The reason
> is most drivers can't keep their feet from getting confused if they brake
> with their left foot, which is why in the US most states teach against
> that. I personally brake with my left foot when driving my AT equipped
> vehicles and find it works great, but most driving schools teach against
> it.

They get confused for a bit if they've always used their right foot. But,
covering the brake with either foot reduces the stopping distance in an
emergency. There's also a bunch you can do with almost simultaneous use of
both power and brakes. But, it's not really applicable to street driving.
>
>> Apart from track stuff, only two of any consequence. Both times,
>> somebody made an unannounced turn from the wrong lane. My experience is
>> about average. And my skills are at least that. There are lucky people
>> who are apparently unsinkable. But you are disregarding empirical
>> reality and believeing too much in your own prowess.
>
> Two accidents in how many years of driving?

More than two. A few very minor ones as well. And about 34 years.
>
> I'm not disregarding reality at all. I'm just focusing on what I can
> control. I can control my driving and the selection of vehicle I drive. I
> can't control fate or luck or whatever you wish to call it, so I don't
> fret it.

Then you accept that you could make different choices that would raise your
chance of survival. Bikes are more dangerous than cars. Just like flying
in an airliner is safer than flying yourself.

moo

[Matt Whiting]

Happy Dog wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message

>>Two accidents in how many years of driving?
>
>
> More than two. A few very minor ones as well. And about 34 years.
>
>>I'm not disregarding reality at all. I'm just focusing on what I can
>>control. I can control my driving and the selection of vehicle I drive. I
>>can't control fate or luck or whatever you wish to call it, so I don't
>>fret it.
>
>
> Then you accept that you could make different choices that would raise your
> chance of survival. Bikes are more dangerous than cars. Just like flying
> in an airliner is safer than flying yourself.

Well, my accident record is much better than yours, so I think I'll
stick with the choices I'm making vs. yours. :-)

Matt

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in
>> Then you accept that you could make different choices that would raise
>> your chance of survival. Bikes are more dangerous than cars. Just like
>> flying in an airliner is safer than flying yourself.
>
> Well, my accident record is much better than yours, so I think I'll stick
> with the choices I'm making vs. yours. :-)

Comment:

Well, that illustrates my point pretty succinctly. I know you're not
entirely serious. But, your argument could hold for people who smoke, or
climb mountains, or base jump, or a number of other risky activities, who
don't die. Yet. Or maybe ever (due to their chosen risky activity). But
you were speaking in general terms and didn't acknowledge that the unwashed
masses do not, as proved by statistics, share your skill or luck. We don't
know why you have better than average stats and, I suspect, neither do you.
But you're not lucky beyond belief. And, if you think that the activity and
equipment choices you've made, which have been proved to relate a higher
incidence of injury or death, are less risky for you than the choices shown
to be less risky for everyone else, then you are narcissistic by nature.
Because, though you may be right, you can't really make a sensible
(testable) argument for it. Your predictive powers are unlikely to trump
empirical reality but you refuse to acknowledge it in a meaningful way.

It reminds me of Las Vegas. I've been a few times. I stay up late anyway
so a trek through the casinos in the wee hours is obligatory. The first few
times I was there I was fascinated, not by the old people pulling slots at 3
AM, but by the people betting on Roulette. There are displays that show the
previous numbers chanced by the ball. People, determinedly writing the
previous numbers on paper (I guess now punching them into their PDAs),
"predict" the next numbers and place their bets. The Gambler's Fallacy is
logic 101. And I don't doubt that the many of the people engaging it are at
least as bright as me. But they're chasing a chimera. Because of their
failure to grasp a simple part of reality, somebody took their money and
built this shining jewel in the middle of the desert. A shrine to human
irrationality that takes up space where Mormons would be raising sheep or
something like that. Do they think that the laws of chance are suspended
for a moment just for them? Some do; like kids in love. But most think
they're playing poker. And so do you.

moo

[Jim Logajan]

ET > wrote:
> When have you seen a jet fighter with a high wing??

The Heinkel He 162:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_162

> To the public at large, a low wing plane is just a sexier, faster
> "look" to it.

Perhaps - but add a touch of sweep-back to the wings and a more graceful
fuselage and a high-wing will look sexy enough.

[Jim Logajan]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> ET > wrote:
>> When have you seen a jet fighter with a high wing??
[ ... ]

Sorry about the follow-up to a two week old post. Either my NSP is getting
duplicate posts that were held-up somewhere or my news-reader is acting up.
(I just noticed the post I replied to was first posted September 30th.)

[Peter Duniho]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Sorry about the follow-up to a two week old post. Either my NSP is getting
> duplicate posts that were held-up somewhere or my news-reader is acting
> up.
> (I just noticed the post I replied to was first posted September 30th.)

It's your news server. I use the same one, and am having the same issue.
Some of the old posts never showed up previously, but many others are
duplicates of ones already seen.

[Jim Logajan]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote:
>> Sorry about the follow-up to a two week old post. Either my NSP is
>> getting duplicate posts that were held-up somewhere or my news-reader
>> is acting up.
>> (I just noticed the post I replied to was first posted September
>> 30th.)
>
> It's your news server. I use the same one, and am having the same
> issue. Some of the old posts never showed up previously, but many
> others are duplicates of ones already seen.

Thanks for the sanity check.

[Roger]

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 05:40:25 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>ET > wrote:
>> When have you seen a jet fighter with a high wing??

Corsair. Supersonic carrier based fighter with variable incidence wing
for lower landing speeds. Big sucker, looks like a flying stove pipe
with a wing stuck on top.

There is one to the right of the ME262 in the photo, but unfortunately
only a small portion shows. http://www.rogerhalstead.com/me262.htm
although the high wing is quite prominent.

Some where around here I have a couple of good photos of that Corsair
as well. I'd have to dig out the information, but the pilot became an
ace in it. BTW the 262 in the photo is the one that was disassembled
to use as a model for building the ones that are now flying. This
photo was shot at Willow Grove Naval Air Station back in the 80's.
Actually I just had a shot of memory recall. It was October 1984 when
I shot those photos.

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

>
>The Heinkel He 162:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_162
>
>> To the public at large, a low wing plane is just a sexier, faster
>> "look" to it.
>
>Perhaps - but add a touch of sweep-back to the wings and a more graceful
>fuselage and a high-wing will look sexy enough.

[Roger]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:54:51 -0400, "Icebound"
> wrote:

>
>"ET" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>..snip...
>> I predict for that reason alone, the new "Cirrus Killer"
>> Cessna will fail, not because it won't be a superior airplane, it
>> probably will be, by the mere fact that it is designed to be, but
>> because it will not "look" sexy enough with the high wing... no matter
>> how well it performs, it will still have at its heart, the look of a
>> 150/172.....
>
>...snip...
>>
>> When I spend 350grand I want people to look at my plane and say ohhhh,
>> ahhhh, not just pilots either…. A high wing will design will not make me
>> feel like Maverick on "Top Gun"…
>
>
>While not very sexy, catering to the masses may be a lot more likely to be
>"successful", financially, than catering only to "top guns". You sell a lot
>more Chevys than Corvettes. Even a lot more Cadillacs than Corvettes.
>
>When I spend 350grand on an airplane, I won't really care whether people
>look at it or not. I will want to be able to carry me and my passengers and
>lots of luggage in it safely, efficiently, cheaply, for reasonably long
>hauls, and for a long, long time.
>
>Of course the masses have to find the 350g to spend. But then if only "top
>guns" have the money for GA, it is doomed anyway.
>
Compare the price of the Cirrus or Columbia 400 to that of a new
Bonanza. The older technology has a much higher price.
Even the F-33 had a higher base price than a fairly well equipped
SR-22 when it was discontinued in the... I believe, late 80's?

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



>
>
>
>
>

[Roger]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:03:02 -0500, "JJS" <jschneider@remove socks
cebridge.net> wrote:

>
>> I'd suggest Cessna take the already clean and fast Cardinal, make it

Suprisingly the early Cardinals didn't do well. They were underpowered
for one thing and I believe the 182 still out sold them even though
"to me" they were far superiour. The Cardinal just isn't a typical
representation of a high wing aircraft.

>> even slicke. Aircraft design has come a long way since 1968, there are
>> a n easy 15 knots left in the basic airframe. They should sell the
>> fixed gear version with a 200hp motor and the retract with a 230hp

Awh, come on... Put in a 300 HP turbocharged deisel.

>> turbocharged motor. Throw in glass and FADAC. Lower the glareshield,
>> as Mooney did recently, giving even better visiblity.

The one thing I hated about the Cessnas was the high glare shield.

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

>>
>> Cessna would be swamped with orders for a plane like that.
>>
>> Cirrus wouldn't be killed, but it would be hurt really really bad.
>>
>> Jim Howard
>>
>This was exactly the vision I had. Unfortunately I'll have to hope for winning the Sporty's Pilot Shop give away
>version I'm afraid.
>
>
>
>----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
>----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Roger]

On 30 Sep 2005 14:08:06 -0700, "Brian" > wrote:

>Wouldn't surpise me if that is what they have in mind is a Fixed Gear
>Late Model 210.
>
>Fixed gear simplfies the systems and pilot skills required. A
>Cantelevered wing from the 210 would give some speed inprovement. It
>would probably be a bit slower than the Cirrus for equivalant Horse
>power, but you would gain almost 500lbs of useful load and probably 2
>more seats.
>
>Actually if the could sell compriably equiped late model 210's for the
>same price as the Cirrus they would probably put a large dent in the
>Cirrus sales.
>
It depends on what you like.
Handeling you are compairing a sports car to a Mac truck in feel.

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

>Just my speculation
>
>Brian

[Roger]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 19:39:39 GMT, "Frankie" >
wrote:

>> The Cirrus is a great plane, but its not a really pretty one. I
>> parked next to a new Columbia the other day, and that airplane is
>> really pretty....
>
>Straying off topic......I think the Cirrus looks better than the Columbia.
>The only problem with the Cirrus is its landing gear: the main wheels are
>too far apart and the nose strut looks chunky since it's straight. Install a

Wide gear is good. Narrow is bad.
Just think in those terms.
Wide means stability on the ground.

>nice arched nose wheel strut - like on the Grumman Tiger - and move the main
>gear together and the problem would be corrected.
>
>The proportions of a Columbia just don't look right to me, especially the
>window lines. It looks too much like an experimental (still) - kinda goofy.
>
>You're right about Cardinals: they look great and have much airspeed
>potential if cleaned up.

To me the Cardinal is the niced plane Cessna built, right after the
310.

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

>
>Frankie
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> Compare the price of the Cirrus or Columbia 400 to that of a new
> Bonanza. The older technology has a much higher price.
> Even the F-33 had a higher base price than a fairly well equipped
> SR-22 when it was discontinued in the... I believe, late 80's?
>
When the F33A was discontinued in 1994, it's base price was $236K.

Model Year Prices
F33A 1975 $126,000
1980 $151,000
1985 $167,500
1990 $205,000
1994 $236,000


I suspect a lot of that was liability insurance as the law was revoked later
that year.