Stop Making Sense

[Bret Ludwig]

Light aircraft are not a business tool. There is _no such thing_ as a
rational purchase of a light airplane. It's a heinously expensive toy
that will likely be a financial disaster no matter what. Don't go 95%
broke buying an unfulfilling spam can. Buy what you want, which if you
have anything but air you-know-where is probably aerobatic and may well
have a big round oil-puking engine.

Wichita nearly killed itself with BULL**** and FRAUD selling their
product as non-toys at a time in the Reagan 80s where F** The Worker
was the mantra and the stock market skyrocketed. Ferraris and Cigarette
boats sold like hotcakes. Light aircraft didn't because, well, Wichita
was run by idiots, losers, fundamentalist idiot morons and drunks.
Still is.


Beech could make a lot of money selling a recip T-34. They won't
because, one, they are spoiled rotten with the New T-6, a misnomer and
a buttf*** par excellence for Joe and Jane Taxpayer, and two, they are
corporate-stupid.


And if you are in Sedgwick County like I was, know this: I hope the
Ollies finally get forced in the light airplane business and run your
asses out of business like they were doing with Hardly-Ableson.

[Robert M. Gary]

I think the idiot light just went off.

[Matt Whiting]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> I think the idiot light just went off.
>

I think it came on.

Matt

[Dave]

Flashing?...

...also hear a beeping noise......

D



Wed, 04 Jan 2006 23:53:54 GMT, Matt Whiting > wrote:

>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>> I think the idiot light just went off.
>>
>
>I think it came on.
>
>Matt

[RapidRonnie]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> > I think the idiot light just went off.
> >
>
> I think it came on.
Nonetheless, he's right and you are wrong. You get the point. Or maybe
you just believe God cursed Wichita for allowing abortions or some such
theory as to why the aircraft business tanked.

[Montblack]

("RapidRonnie" wrote)
>> > I think the idiot light just went off.

>> I think it came on.

> Nonetheless, he's right and you are wrong. You get the point. Or maybe you
> just believe God cursed Wichita for allowing abortions or some such theory
> as to why the aircraft business tanked.


"Squawking 7500"


Montblack
"...confirming 7500"

[RapidRonnie]

Try 7600. You are deaf, nordo.

[George Patterson]

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> I think the idiot light just went off.

Either the light just came on or that alarm just went off.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Prime]

"Bret Ludwig" > posted the exciting message
oups.com:

> Light aircraft are not a business tool. There is _no such thing_ as a
> rational purchase of a light airplane. It's a heinously expensive toy
> that will likely be a financial disaster no matter what. Don't go 95%
> broke buying an unfulfilling spam can. Buy what you want, which if you
> have anything but air you-know-where is probably aerobatic and may well
> have a big round oil-puking engine.
>
> Wichita nearly killed itself with BULL**** and FRAUD selling their
> product as non-toys at a time in the Reagan 80s where F** The Worker
> was the mantra and the stock market skyrocketed. Ferraris and Cigarette
> boats sold like hotcakes. Light aircraft didn't because, well, Wichita
> was run by idiots, losers, fundamentalist idiot morons and drunks.
> Still is.
>
>
> Beech could make a lot of money selling a recip T-34. They won't
> because, one, they are spoiled rotten with the New T-6, a misnomer and
> a buttf*** par excellence for Joe and Jane Taxpayer, and two, they are
> corporate-stupid.
>
>
> And if you are in Sedgwick County like I was, know this: I hope the
> Ollies finally get forced in the light airplane business and run your
> asses out of business like they were doing with Hardly-Ableson.
>

The gates are down, the lights are flashing, but the train is not coming.

[Blanche]

my my my....is someone is not happy about college football outcomes?

[Marco Leon]

Well, at least he told us he intended to stop making sense with the subject
line.


"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Light aircraft are not a business tool. There is _no such thing_ as a
> rational purchase of a light airplane. It's a heinously expensive toy
> that will likely be a financial disaster no matter what. Don't go 95%
> broke buying an unfulfilling spam can. Buy what you want, which if you
> have anything but air you-know-where is probably aerobatic and may well
> have a big round oil-puking engine.
>
> Wichita nearly killed itself with BULL**** and FRAUD selling their
> product as non-toys at a time in the Reagan 80s where F** The Worker
> was the mantra and the stock market skyrocketed. Ferraris and Cigarette
> boats sold like hotcakes. Light aircraft didn't because, well, Wichita
> was run by idiots, losers, fundamentalist idiot morons and drunks.
> Still is.
>
>
> Beech could make a lot of money selling a recip T-34. They won't
> because, one, they are spoiled rotten with the New T-6, a misnomer and
> a buttf*** par excellence for Joe and Jane Taxpayer, and two, they are
> corporate-stupid.
>
>
> And if you are in Sedgwick County like I was, know this: I hope the
> Ollies finally get forced in the light airplane business and run your
> asses out of business like they were doing with Hardly-Ableson.
>

[Otis Winslow]

Blanche wrote:
> my my my....is someone is not happy about college football outcomes?

Must be a USC fan.

[Otis Winslow]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> It's a heinously expensive toy
> that will likely be a financial disaster no matter what.

Not if you buy something resaleable. The value of all my
planes has increased enough to cover all the money
I put into them except for fuel.

[Mike Spera]

>>[stuff deleted]
>
> Although some of what Bret said is pretty outrageous, I do believe
> that general aviation would be better off if flight training emphasized
> the "sport" aspect more and the "travel" aspect less.

I agree completely.

When I started out, I had the impression that light airplanes were much
more capable than they really are. I think this is an important point.
The flight schools are trying to stay afloat and emphasize the "utility"
of flying light airplanes. Their instructors have their sights on flying
big iron. Both do a disservice to students when they don't stress the
limitations of these planes. Pilots tempt fate by challenging weather
that is inappropriate for their skills and these airplanes perhaps in
part because the school and the instructors don't do enough to stress
these limits. Neither one wants to scare away students and be put out of
business. It is a fine line.

Once I attained an instrument rating, it really became obvious on how
limited these planes really were. Everyone said that an instrument
rating would INCREASE the airplane's utility. I found that it did
nothing of the sort. Flying in the clouds in winter often means icing
and in the summer, thunderstorms. Adding in all sorts of modern gadgets
may help you stay out of trouble (if you actually use them and heed
their information), but you still end up on the ground waiting out the
weather. So, safety can go way up but UTILITY is still not there. Sure,
you can now see the pretty satellite downloaded image of the weather in
your path, but you still have to fly around it. Given the high
possibility of not making the planned flight, many choose not to go. For
those who like "adventure" and are willing to sit in an airport for
several hours or days to complete a flight, have a ball.

I have had lively discussions about the above view. Usually it is with
those who are in denial and want to keep the dream alive of a "personal
airliner" in their mind's eye. After all, if you cannot really look
forward to USING these things, what would be the point in the time and
expense to fly? The answer is: you better love flying for its own sake
(which some call "sport flying").

Good Luck,
Mike

[Vaughn]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> It seems to me that more people would get interested in flight
> training if the trainers were something like an updated Chipmunk.
> (Looks and feels like a military trainer, delightful handling and can
> do basic aerobatics if the student wants to.) It would have to have
> a nose wheel to make the insurance companies and instructors
> happy, but that wouldn't be too big a loss.

You are in luck, they made exactly that plane years ago. I guess it never
caught on: http://tinyurl.com/9dgx7

Vaughn

[Jay Honeck]

> Once I attained an instrument rating, it really became obvious on how
> limited these planes really were. Everyone said that an instrument rating
> would INCREASE the airplane's utility. I found that it did nothing of the
> sort. Flying in the clouds in winter often means icing and in the summer,
> thunderstorms. Adding in all sorts of modern gadgets may help you stay out
> of trouble (if you actually use them and heed their information), but you
> still end up on the ground waiting out the weather. So, safety can go way
> up but UTILITY is still not there. Sure, you can now see the pretty
> satellite downloaded image of the weather in your path, but you still have
> to fly around it. Given the high possibility of not making the planned
> flight, many choose not to go. For those who like "adventure" and are
> willing to sit in an airport for several hours or days to complete a
> flight, have a ball.

Well put, Mike. This sums up exactly how I feel about VFR flying, the IFR
ticket, and aircraft ownership. At our level of aircraft ownership (Spam
can), instrument flight adds little utility to flying.

However, unlike you, we *are* willing to sit in an airport for hours (not
days) to complete a cross-country flight. Because we happen to really enjoy
airports, this relatively rare occurrence (it's happened only a hand-full of
times in eleven years) has become an acceptable -- even a delightful -- part
of our many cross-country journeys.

In fact, I dare say that we have often had *more* fun at our unexpected
stops (3 days in Nashville come to mind) than we've had at our intended
destinations! Remember, with personal flying, it's the journey, not the
destination, that is important. Once you understand that, getting there
isn't so important, and the stress simply evaporates.

Our way of getting around the conundrum of unreliable weather is to simply
plan three separate flights for each planned vacation. We routinely do
this, and don't decide until the morning of our departure which way we're
going to fly. Our entire decision depends on the current weather and prog
charts, and -- since we really don't care *which* vacation we take -- we
usually end up flying with great weather!

Remember, personal flying *is* an adventure. Trying to make your airplane
into a "personal airliner" is, IMHO, a huge mistake, as it is not only
doomed to fail, but simply not any fun.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike Spera]

Remember, with personal flying, it's the journey, not the
> destination, that is important. Once you understand that, getting there
> isn't so important, and the stress simply evaporates.
>

Exactly! Remember though, that when you accept the above as the reason
for making the trip, you no longer are using the airplane as a "utility"
for transportation. The fact that you are traveling is now incidental.
You are really going out to enjoy what you encounter during the flight,
and not just trying to get somewhere specifically.

When we started out, we had the silly notion that the plane was going to
be a faster car that could take us to specific places we wanted to go
(farther away). As you said, you will be happier if you accept that the
place you started out going to may not be where you end up.

But the public contemplating flight does not handle "adventure" well. In
this world where people are afraid of every little thing, the flight
schools battle the "dangerous little airplane" syndrome. Their defense
it often to sell the airplane as a safe tool for serious transportation.

I think some of this stems from people who genuinely WANT to fly needing
some sort of sane reason to justify the time and expense. When the plane
is proposed as a transportation tool, these folks tend to focus on that.
In doing so, they lose the real value (as you stated above) in merely
FLYING.

Mike

[Chuck]

I found that the IFR ticket was the best thing for peace of mind. I
now don't fly in weather that I am allowed to, rather than the other
way around. Climbing thru stratus to smooth air, decent thru same to
land, seeing the beauty of sun on a cloud deck below ...

Took off from SRQ a month ago with a 500 ft ceiling that was about 200
ft thick. The sight of TV towers poking thru when we got on top was
something that the IFR ticket allowed.

Chuck
Jay Honeck wrote:
> > Once I attained an instrument rating, it really became obvious on how
> > limited these planes really were. Everyone said that an instrument rating
> > would INCREASE the airplane's utility. I found that it did nothing of the
> > sort. Flying in the clouds in winter often means icing and in the summer,
> > thunderstorms. Adding in all sorts of modern gadgets may help you stay out
> > of trouble (if you actually use them and heed their information), but you
> > still end up on the ground waiting out the weather. So, safety can go way
> > up but UTILITY is still not there. Sure, you can now see the pretty
> > satellite downloaded image of the weather in your path, but you still have
> > to fly around it. Given the high possibility of not making the planned
> > flight, many choose not to go. For those who like "adventure" and are
> > willing to sit in an airport for several hours or days to complete a
> > flight, have a ball.
>
> Well put, Mike. This sums up exactly how I feel about VFR flying, the IFR
> ticket, and aircraft ownership. At our level of aircraft ownership (Spam
> can), instrument flight adds little utility to flying.
>
> However, unlike you, we *are* willing to sit in an airport for hours (not
> days) to complete a cross-country flight. Because we happen to really enjoy
> airports, this relatively rare occurrence (it's happened only a hand-full of
> times in eleven years) has become an acceptable -- even a delightful -- part
> of our many cross-country journeys.
>
> In fact, I dare say that we have often had *more* fun at our unexpected
> stops (3 days in Nashville come to mind) than we've had at our intended
> destinations! Remember, with personal flying, it's the journey, not the
> destination, that is important. Once you understand that, getting there
> isn't so important, and the stress simply evaporates.
>
> Our way of getting around the conundrum of unreliable weather is to simply
> plan three separate flights for each planned vacation. We routinely do
> this, and don't decide until the morning of our departure which way we're
> going to fly. Our entire decision depends on the current weather and prog
> charts, and -- since we really don't care *which* vacation we take -- we
> usually end up flying with great weather!
>
> Remember, personal flying *is* an adventure. Trying to make your airplane
> into a "personal airliner" is, IMHO, a huge mistake, as it is not only
> doomed to fail, but simply not any fun.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

On 7-Jan-2006, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Well put, Mike. This sums up exactly how I feel about VFR flying, the IFR
> ticket, and aircraft ownership. At our level of aircraft ownership (Spam
> can), instrument flight adds little utility to flying.


I beg to differ. I fly a "spam can" (Arrow IV) and find that IFR capability
(pilot and aircraft) adds enormously to utility. My use is about 30/70
respectively business/personal. There are many, many trips I have been able
to safely complete IFR that I would not have even considered VFR. Some of
that is regional, no doubt; we get a lot of IFR weather here in the
Northwest. Icing is a factor that sometimes keeps me on the ground (or
requires route adjustment) even with IFR capability. Nevertheless, travel
in a light airplane cannot even come close to being reliable without IFR
capability, with the possible exception of regions such as the American
Southwest where IFR weather is rare.

Most of my trips in the Arrow would be impossible by airline and impractical
by car. Often it's a matter of going IFR or not going at all (or possibly
taking the huge risk of VFR in marginal weather).
--
-Elliott Drucker

[Jay Honeck]

> I beg to differ. I fly a "spam can" (Arrow IV) and find that IFR
> capability
> (pilot and aircraft) adds enormously to utility. My use is about 30/70
> respectively business/personal. There are many, many trips I have been
> able
> to safely complete IFR that I would not have even considered VFR. Some of
> that is regional, no doubt; we get a lot of IFR weather here in the
> Northwest.

The Weather Channel is reporting today that Seattle has had 20 straight days
of rain. Portland has had 20 out of 21 days.

Yep, it looks like if you live in the Northwest, it's IFR flight -- or
nothing. Thankfully, that's the exception rather than the norm.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:33:33 GMT, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > I beg to differ. I fly a "spam can" (Arrow IV) and find that IFR
> > capability
> > (pilot and aircraft) adds enormously to utility. My use is about 30/70
> > respectively business/personal. There are many, many trips I have been
> > able
> > to safely complete IFR that I would not have even considered VFR. Some of
> > that is regional, no doubt; we get a lot of IFR weather here in the
> > Northwest.
>
> The Weather Channel is reporting today that Seattle has had 20 straight days
> of rain. Portland has had 20 out of 21 days.

The statistic was '20 days that had measurable rainfall.' It's not the same as
'28,200 continuous minutes of rain.' About a quarter to a half of those 20 days
had daylight periods of acceptable flying weather.

> Yep, it looks like if you live in the Northwest, it's IFR flight -- or
> nothing. Thankfully, that's the exception rather than the norm.

Tsk, tsk. Rain <> IFR. It's raining right now, and I can see the foothills of
the Cascade mountains, ~15 miles away. Sea-Tac airport is reporting 5500
broken, 11,000 overcast. I just got back from a flight. Other than a drop of
rain that got on the INSIDE of my glasses prior to putting the goggles on, I had
no problem with the rain.

There's no question that cross-countries would be iffy without an IFR ticket/IFR
equipment, but for those of us who like cutting holes in the sky (albeit soggy
holes), it ain't that bad....

Ron Wanttaja

[darthpup]

I've been doing this for thirty some years. You have to be
independent, watch the weather patterns and fly when you can. Still,
its an extravagence but some of us have avian genes and thats the way
it is. The Universe is not a perfect place but its great to have one.

[xyzzy]

Mike Spera wrote:
> >>[stuff deleted]
> >
> > Although some of what Bret said is pretty outrageous, I do believe
> > that general aviation would be better off if flight training emphasized
> > the "sport" aspect more and the "travel" aspect less.
>
> I agree completely.
>
> When I started out, I had the impression that light airplanes were much
> more capable than they really are. I think this is an important point.
> The flight schools are trying to stay afloat and emphasize the "utility"
> of flying light airplanes. Their instructors have their sights on flying
> big iron. Both do a disservice to students when they don't stress the
> limitations of these planes. Pilots tempt fate by challenging weather
> that is inappropriate for their skills and these airplanes perhaps in
> part because the school and the instructors don't do enough to stress
> these limits. Neither one wants to scare away students and be put out of
> business. It is a fine line.
>
> Once I attained an instrument rating, it really became obvious on how
> limited these planes really were. Everyone said that an instrument
> rating would INCREASE the airplane's utility. I found that it did
> nothing of the sort. Flying in the clouds in winter often means icing
> and in the summer, thunderstorms. Adding in all sorts of modern gadgets
> may help you stay out of trouble (if you actually use them and heed
> their information), but you still end up on the ground waiting out the
> weather. So, safety can go way up but UTILITY is still not there. Sure,
> you can now see the pretty satellite downloaded image of the weather in
> your path, but you still have to fly around it. Given the high
> possibility of not making the planned flight, many choose not to go. For
> those who like "adventure" and are willing to sit in an airport for
> several hours or days to complete a flight, have a ball.
>
> I have had lively discussions about the above view. Usually it is with
> those who are in denial and want to keep the dream alive of a "personal
> airliner" in their mind's eye. After all, if you cannot really look
> forward to USING these things, what would be the point in the time and
> expense to fly? The answer is: you better love flying for its own sake
> (which some call "sport flying").

I got my instrument rating recently and while I think you have a good
point, I don't agree completely. The instrument rating does add to the
utility of the plane. It doesn't make you able to fly the same
conditions the airliners do, but it does increase the utility to some
extent. You have more flexibility because you don't have to worry
about getting trapped on top of an undercast. You can fly someplace
with less worry that you can't get home in three days' time. In the
summer you can get above the cumulous layer that hangs out at 4000 ft
and makes flight under it miserable (in the southeast). A small area
of instrument conditions you have to fly though won't cancel your whole
flight. If I take a 2.5 hour flight and of that 0.2 hours is IMC, that
flight is relatively easy and does not push the limits but may not have
been doable staying purely VFR.

an example is a recent flight I took from NC to GA. It was about 2.5
hours of severe clear but at the destination there was a thin overcast
layer at 1000 with another one at 4000. It was relatively easy to get
in with 0.5 hours actual logged ending in a GPS approach where I broke
out at 1000 AGL, plenty of margin. Without the instrument ticket
however, that flight would have required landing about 50 miles short
of the destination and guessing when to try to get there because the
destination did not have an AWOS. Or most likely, not taking off at
all.

On the return flight I was in and out of clouds, logging about 0.3
actual but once again a flight that either would have have been
impossible, or would have been a lot less convenient without the
ticket.

Also by being able to file IFR I get much better ATC service than I
would have on a VFR flight, including in severe clear conditions. ATC
can't say no to me, like they can to VFR flight following requests (or
at least they are much less likely to). I sometimes get routed/cleared
through restricted areas that I would have had to avoid as a VFR pilot.
That's important in an area with lots of military bases nearby.

You don't have to challenge hard IFR conditions to get utility out of
the instrument ticket. Now, if I didn't enjoy the challenge of the
training, would it have been worth it if I totalled up the cost of the
training versus the practial utility? No. It still requires a love of
flying and challenge to do and may not be justifiable on purely
practical grounds. But really, neither is flying GA aircraft in the
first place.

[Bob Noel]

< in reply to no specific person>

What is the utlity of the extra margin you get from the ability
to handle lower weather conditions that a non-IFR-rated
pilot?

Imagine a VFR pilot (like Jay H.) not changing his weather
minimums (e.g., VMC only). Would he be safer with an
IFR rating?

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

[Ray Andraka]

Bob Noel wrote:
> < in reply to no specific person>
>
> What is the utlity of the extra margin you get from the ability
> to handle lower weather conditions that a non-IFR-rated
> pilot?
>
> Imagine a VFR pilot (like Jay H.) not changing his weather
> minimums (e.g., VMC only). Would he be safer with an
> IFR rating?
>


Safer? Not sure. More confident of being able to complete a weekend
trip? Absolutely. More precise flying? probably.

The at ease feeling when conditions aren't picture perfect, as in
borderline marginal VFR/VFR that would make for a sweaty palms VFR
flight, but is an easy IFR flight....well that is worth every cent of
the admission. If I told you 10% of my total time was in actual IMC,
that would be fudging it on the high side. But, It is now relatively
rare for me to cancel on account of weather, where before a serious
cross country frequently was either scrubbed or was a sweaty palms
flight. IFR is great as long as you leave yourself plenty of 'outs'.
There is plenty of weather that is comfortably flyable IFR that would be
a knucklebiter VFR here in the Northeast, and if you want to use the
plane for travel with a reasonable probability of getting where you want
to within a reasonable bracket around your target time you'll need the
rating and be willing to use it. I'm not talking hard IMC here either.
I can't tell you the number of times my home field has been IFR with a
lingering 700-1200 ft overcast, but it is VFR 50 miles to the west where
I am going. without the rating, I'd be sitting there most of the day
waiting for it to burn off or move out. With the rating I am on top by
4000' and on my way and within a half hour I am past the undercast.

[Jay Beckman]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:1rgwf.715860$xm3.110391@attbi_s21...
>> I beg to differ. I fly a "spam can" (Arrow IV) and find that IFR
>> capability
>> (pilot and aircraft) adds enormously to utility. My use is about 30/70
>> respectively business/personal. There are many, many trips I have been
>> able
>> to safely complete IFR that I would not have even considered VFR. Some
>> of
>> that is regional, no doubt; we get a lot of IFR weather here in the
>> Northwest.
>
> The Weather Channel is reporting today that Seattle has had 20 straight
> days of rain. Portland has had 20 out of 21 days.
>
> Yep, it looks like if you live in the Northwest, it's IFR flight -- or
> nothing. Thankfully, that's the exception rather than the norm.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Here in AZ, in only another 17 days we'll set a new record for duration
*without* any rain.

There has to be a happy medium somewhere!

Jay Beckman
A Thirsty PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[xyzzy]

Bob Noel wrote:
> < in reply to no specific person>
>
> What is the utlity of the extra margin you get from the ability
> to handle lower weather conditions that a non-IFR-rated
> pilot?
>
> Imagine a VFR pilot (like Jay H.) not changing his weather
> minimums (e.g., VMC only). Would he be safer with an
> IFR rating?

Yes.

1. He would get better service from ATC when he files. Watching him
would not be optional, as it is with a pilot on VFR flight following.
yes, he's still responsible for separating himself from VFR traffic in
VMC, but ATC is watching him better than they do VFR traffic.

2. If nothing else, IFR training teaches you to be a much more precise
pilot.

3. Studies show that pilots who get advanced training are safter than
those who do not. Even if the utility is otherwise doubtful, this book
makes that case very strongly and encouraged me to finish my instrument
ticket when I was doubting the value of it:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/007136269X/qid=1136817270/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-9017064-7747051?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

[Maule Driver]

We genuinely use our a/c for travel and unfortunately, don't use it as
much as we should for sheer joy of flight... but it took a long time to
get here and YMMV.

It was clear to me early in my flying life that spam can utility was
limited and expensive. I chose to soar and that was an enormously
satisfying experience. But time passed and we changed. We finally
stopped soaring all together.

We now live an airplane-travel-centric lifestyle. No $100 hamburgers
but plenty of $200 trips. Always the 2 of us, almost always overnight,
our playpen bounded by Key West, upstate NY, and Atlanta.

It's a slow plane but adequately equipped, and parked in the backyard.
The latter being the key to travel utility. IFR is mandatory but as
much for comfort as for dispatch flexibility. Getting above the
convection (or at least above cloud base where you can dodge it, is a
key to SE US flight. We put many more miles on the plane than in any
car. Until recently, we simply didn't travel 50+miles anywhere by car.

It's been the most rewarding time of our lives so far but time is
passing.... those kits sure are looking interesting.


wrote:
> I beg to differ. I fly a "spam can" (Arrow IV) and find that IFR capability
> (pilot and aircraft) adds enormously to utility. My use is about 30/70
> respectively business/personal. There are many, many trips I have been able
> to safely complete IFR that I would not have even considered VFR. Some of
> that is regional, no doubt; we get a lot of IFR weather here in the
> Northwest. Icing is a factor that sometimes keeps me on the ground (or
> requires route adjustment) even with IFR capability. Nevertheless, travel
> in a light airplane cannot even come close to being reliable without IFR
> capability, with the possible exception of regions such as the American
> Southwest where IFR weather is rare.
>
> Most of my trips in the Arrow would be impossible by airline and impractical
> by car. Often it's a matter of going IFR or not going at all (or possibly
> taking the huge risk of VFR in marginal weather).

[Eduardo K.]

In article <ulowf.8497$jR.4277@fed1read01>,
Jay Beckman > wrote:
>
>Here in AZ, in only another 17 days we'll set a new record for duration
>*without* any rain.
>
>There has to be a happy medium somewhere!
>

california?

--
Eduardo K. | To put a pipe in byte mode,
http://www.carfun.cl | type PIPE_TYPE_BYTE.
http://e.nn.cl | (from the Visual C++ help file.)

[Maule Driver]

Bob Noel wrote:
> < in reply to no specific person>
>
> What is the utlity of the extra margin you get from the ability
> to handle lower weather conditions that a non-IFR-rated
> pilot?
Lower weather... some utility. Utility from being able to punch clouds
and decks without worry, enormous.
>
> Imagine a VFR pilot (like Jay H.) not changing his weather
> minimums (e.g., VMC only). Would he be safer with an
> IFR rating?
>
Yes. But only with the qualifier that he maintain proficiency. That's
the hard part. Without it, it can be argued that you are less safe -
VMC or whatever.

Flying VMC with IFR capability is different than VMC without it.
THere's plenty of VMC where 2 mins of IFR flight thru IMC makes the
flight pleasuable, faster, and safer. That's where the sweet spot of
utility is.

[George Patterson]

Eduardo K. wrote:
> In article <ulowf.8497$jR.4277@fed1read01>,
> Jay Beckman > wrote:
>
>>Here in AZ, in only another 17 days we'll set a new record for duration
>>*without* any rain.
>>
>>There has to be a happy medium somewhere!
>>
> california?

Don't they have enough rain at times every year to cause expensive portions of
the State to wash away?

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Dave Butler]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Remember, personal flying *is* an adventure. Trying to make your airplane
> into a "personal airliner" is, IMHO, a huge mistake, as it is not only
> doomed to fail, but simply not any fun.

I beg to differ: using a personal airplane for transportation is not doomed to
fail, and it's a huge amount of fun. So is instrument flying. There is more than
one way to enjoy aviation.

You say tom-ay-to, and I say tom-ah-to.

Davd

[Jay Beckman]

"Eduardo K." > wrote in message
...
> In article <ulowf.8497$jR.4277@fed1read01>,
> Jay Beckman > wrote:
>>
>>Here in AZ, in only another 17 days we'll set a new record for duration
>>*without* any rain.
>>
>>There has to be a happy medium somewhere!
>>
>
> california?
>
> --
> Eduardo K. | To put a pipe in byte mode,
> http://www.carfun.cl | type PIPE_TYPE_BYTE.
> http://e.nn.cl | (from the Visual C++ help file.)

No, I wouldn't consider Kalifornia to be a happy medium for anything...

Jay B

[John Clonts]

>I beg to differ: using a personal airplane for transportation is not doomed to
>fail, and it's a huge amount of fun. So is instrument flying. There is more than
>one way to enjoy aviation.
>
>You say tom-ay-to, and I say tom-ah-to.

I agree completely, our airplane has become MUCH more useful to us
since I got the IR....
--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Montblack]

("Maule Driver" wrote)
> It's been the most rewarding time of our lives so far but time is
> passing.... those kits sure are looking interesting.


Which kits do you have your eye on?


Montblack

[Maule Driver]

RV10. It's more than an eye.... the workshop is under construction.

My goal is enjoying the building process but I figure I may have to live
with and fly whatever I build.

After having a 4 place (2 people plus any desired luggage) it's
difficult to imagine having less.

Montblack wrote:
> ("Maule Driver" wrote)
>
>> It's been the most rewarding time of our lives so far but time is
>> passing.... those kits sure are looking interesting.
>
>
>
> Which kits do you have your eye on?
>
>
> Montblack
>

[John Clear]

In article <kFwwf.2074$Xo5.1038@trnddc02>,
George Patterson > wrote:
>>>
>>>There has to be a happy medium somewhere!
>>>
>> california?
>
>Don't they have enough rain at times every year to cause expensive portions of
>the State to wash away?


Yup, the 2006 Unlimited Downhill House Racing season just opened up...


But we do get some great flying weather.

Pics from yesterday: http://www.clear-prop.org/fly-01-08-06/

I'm surprised Norcal Approach didnt make any comments. I circled the
Golden Gate for about 45minutes waiting for solar noon so I could get
the last few shots of the bridge in the link above.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Jay Beckman]

"John Clear" > wrote in message
...
> In article <kFwwf.2074$Xo5.1038@trnddc02>,
> George Patterson > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>There has to be a happy medium somewhere!
>>>>
>>> california?
>>
>>Don't they have enough rain at times every year to cause expensive
>>portions of
>>the State to wash away?
>
>
> Yup, the 2006 Unlimited Downhill House Racing season just opened up...
>
>
> But we do get some great flying weather.
>
> Pics from yesterday: http://www.clear-prop.org/fly-01-08-06/
>
> I'm surprised Norcal Approach didnt make any comments. I circled the
> Golden Gate for about 45minutes waiting for solar noon so I could get
> the last few shots of the bridge in the link above.
>
> John
> --
> John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

Fabulous shots of the bridge and the Presidio...

Jay B

[[email protected]]

On 9-Jan-2006, Maule Driver > wrote:

> THere's plenty of VMC where 2 mins of IFR flight thru IMC makes the
> flight pleasuable, faster, and safer. That's where the sweet spot of
> utility is.


You've got that right! I remember a flight last spring from Helena, MT to
the Fargo, ND area. There was a low stratus deck over the entire route with
widespread rain showers. 10 minutes of IMC at the beginning and end of the
flight meant I could cruise in smooth air at 11,000 ft with a 20+ kt
tailwind for the 4 hr flight. VFR would have taken an hour longer, scud
running in the bumps below the stratus deck while dodging rain showers (and
antenna towers!).

--
-Elliott Drucker

[Jay Honeck]

> Pics from yesterday: http://www.clear-prop.org/fly-01-08-06/

Beautiful, John!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

John Clear wrote:

> Pics from yesterday: http://www.clear-prop.org/fly-01-08-06/

Great photos!

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

[Maule Driver]

I have similar experiences except they were before I was rated and I
ended up in the bumpy slow part of the sky.

It's ironic that while you train for approaches to 200feet and partial
panel misses, you end up using the rating to penetrate cloud decks at
thousands of feet and spend most of the flight regretting the fact that
you forgot your sunglasses.

The benefits aren't entirely obvious until you exercise them.

wrote:
>>THere's plenty of VMC where 2 mins of IFR flight thru IMC makes the
>>flight pleasuable, faster, and safer. That's where the sweet spot of
>>utility is.
>
> You've got that right! I remember a flight last spring from Helena, MT to
> the Fargo, ND area. There was a low stratus deck over the entire route with
> widespread rain showers. 10 minutes of IMC at the beginning and end of the
> flight meant I could cruise in smooth air at 11,000 ft with a 20+ kt
> tailwind for the 4 hr flight. VFR would have taken an hour longer, scud
> running in the bumps below the stratus deck while dodging rain showers (and
> antenna towers!).
>

[Maule Driver]

That is some very clear photography (no pun intended). Did you shoot
thru the plexi or was something open? Nice shots.

Went thru you site and re-read Al Haynes talk about the DC10 in Souix
City. Wow! I forgot just how amazing it was. In particular, none of
the crew actually flew the plan - an onboard instructor did. Just
fantastic. Recommended re-read for any and all.

John Clear wrote:
> But we do get some great flying weather.
>
> Pics from yesterday: http://www.clear-prop.org/fly-01-08-06/
>
> I'm surprised Norcal Approach didnt make any comments. I circled the
> Golden Gate for about 45minutes waiting for solar noon so I could get
> the last few shots of the bridge in the link above.
>
> John

[John Clear]

In article >,
Maule Driver > wrote:
>That is some very clear photography (no pun intended). Did you shoot
>thru the plexi or was something open? Nice shots.

Most are through the vent window on a Cherokee. In the batch from
Sunday, you can see the edge of the window in a few of the shots.
The shots of SFO and downtown from the south were through the
plexiglass.

I really want to get a higher end camera. Those pics were shot
with a point and shoot Canon 3MP camera (A75). A coworker I take
flying sometimes has a 8MP DSLR (Canon 20D, iirc), and gets mad
because I usually get better pictures. I guess I just have a better
eye for picking shots.

This is one of my favorite shots (and my desktop background):
http://www.clear-prop.org/images/sunset.jpg
(Details: April 13, 2005, 6:00pm PST, 3000ft, just north of Santa
Cruz, only picture I took on that flight)

>Went thru you site and re-read Al Haynes talk about the DC10 in Souix
>City. Wow! I forgot just how amazing it was. In particular, none of
>the crew actually flew the plan - an onboard instructor did. Just
>fantastic. Recommended re-read for any and all.

I re-read that about once a year or so. It is an amazing story of
not giving up and keep flying the plane, or what is left of it.
Al Haynes kind of did fly the plane. Instead of cables/hydraulics,
his movements of the yoke were acted on by the instructor pilot.
The fact that all the crew that tried what they did in the simulator
all ended up crashing shows just how lucky they were.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Jon Woellhaf]

John Clear posted some great photos (see
http://www.clear-prop.org/fly-01-08-06/
) of a recent flight over San Francisco.

John,

I was amazed at the variation in the water color under the Golden Gate
Bridge. Were they taken within minutes of each other?

Jon

[John Clear]

In article >,
Jon Woellhaf > wrote:
>John Clear posted some great photos (see
>http://www.clear-prop.org/fly-01-08-06/
>) of a recent flight over San Francisco.
>
>
>I was amazed at the variation in the water color under the Golden Gate
>Bridge. Were they taken within minutes of each other?

Yes, the shots were all taken over about 45 minutes. The angle of
the sun makes a big difference in the apparent color, but part of
it is that I filtered the haze out (Picasa's "I'm feeling lucky"
filter), which makes the colors jump out more.

The tide lines and currents are very visible though. In many of
the shots of the bridge, you can see a wave parallel to the bridge
that divides two different colors of water. It is really visible
in this shot of Alcatraz: http://www.clear-prop.org/fly-01-08-06/target44.html

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

[Mike H]

For 'high end cameras".....
I recently got Canon 20D (I've been a camera nut and Canon user for MANY years)
and am very happy with it. I do definitely recommend the new breed of "Image
Stabilized" lenses or cameras. For example, I have a 17 - 85 mm stabilized lens on
my 20D and the few aerials I've taken so far have been impressive. (I don't have
any on a web site yet.. will work on that). The stabilization greatly reduces the
effect of the typical airplane vibration. (doesn't help with the dirty Plexiglas or
reflections though...)

Mike Happy 20D and Archer II owner.



John Clear wrote:
> In article >,
> Maule Driver > wrote:
>
>>That is some very clear photography (no pun intended). Did you shoot
>>thru the plexi or was something open? Nice shots.
>
>
> Most are through the vent window on a Cherokee. In the batch from
> Sunday, you can see the edge of the window in a few of the shots.
> The shots of SFO and downtown from the south were through the
> plexiglass.
>
> I really want to get a higher end camera. Those pics were shot
> with a point and shoot Canon 3MP camera (A75). A coworker I take
> flying sometimes has a 8MP DSLR (Canon 20D, iirc), and gets mad
> because I usually get better pictures. I guess I just have a better
> eye for picking shots.
>
> This is one of my favorite shots (and my desktop background):
> http://www.clear-prop.org/images/sunset.jpg
> (Details: April 13, 2005, 6:00pm PST, 3000ft, just north of Santa
> Cruz, only picture I took on that flight)
>
>
>>Went thru you site and re-read Al Haynes talk about the DC10 in Souix
>>City. Wow! I forgot just how amazing it was. In particular, none of
>>the crew actually flew the plan - an onboard instructor did. Just
>>fantastic. Recommended re-read for any and all.
>
>
> I re-read that about once a year or so. It is an amazing story of
> not giving up and keep flying the plane, or what is left of it.
> Al Haynes kind of did fly the plane. Instead of cables/hydraulics,
> his movements of the yoke were acted on by the instructor pilot.
> The fact that all the crew that tried what they did in the simulator
> all ended up crashing shows just how lucky they were.
>
> John

[Jay Beckman]

"Mike H" > wrote in message
. ..
> For 'high end cameras".....
> I recently got Canon 20D (I've been a camera nut and Canon user for MANY
> years) and am very happy with it. I do definitely recommend the new breed
> of "Image Stabilized" lenses or cameras. For example, I have a 17 - 85 mm
> stabilized lens on my 20D and the few aerials I've taken so far have been
> impressive. (I don't have any on a web site yet.. will work on that).
> The stabilization greatly reduces the effect of the typical airplane
> vibration. (doesn't help with the dirty Plexiglas or reflections
> though...)
>
> Mike Happy 20D and Archer II owner.

I'll second Mike's comments on the 20D. It was the camera that finally got
me to "retire" my Canon T-90s and FD lenses and more or less give up film.

Since I never owned any auto focus gear, I've sort of had to "start over"
and it's been fun getting to know both the digital world and the Canon EF
(auto focus) equipment.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
AZ Cloudbusters
Chandler, AZ

[[email protected]]

: I'll second Mike's comments on the 20D. It was the camera that finally got
: me to "retire" my Canon T-90s and FD lenses and more or less give up film.

: Since I never owned any auto focus gear, I've sort of had to "start over"
: and it's been fun getting to know both the digital world and the Canon EF
: (auto focus) equipment.

I went the Pentax DSLR route (*ist-DS) so I didn't have to give up my 35mm
film lenses. I have exactly one auto focus lens.... the cheapie kit 18-55mm that came
with it. My other 12 or so lenses are all manual focus glass between 0-40 years old.
They were bought for 1-10% of what autofocus equivalent replacement lenses would cost.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************