Less Gloom

[Jay Honeck]

Somehow a version of my "Gloom" post (which I also posted on the
Cherokee Pilots Association's "Cherokee Chat") ended up in Phil
Boyer's in-box.

AOPA President Boyer apparently questioned Piper's management about
the status of Piper's support (or reported lack thereof) of our
"ancient" aircraft, prompting the following statement from Mark S.
Miller, Chief Corporate Spokesperson of Piper Aircraft, Inc.:

"Contrary to rumors, inaccurate representations and misinterpretations
in respect to Piper Aircraft's position on parts availability, Piper
has not and will not set a cutoff date for spare parts availability.
Published reports that Piper President & CEO Jim Bass announced such a
cutoff are unfounded and untrue. Piper maintains a total of more than
15,000 active spare parts and manages a total of approximately 25,000
spare parts. Our goal is to try and support all certified models that
we have produced in our 70-year history whenever possible."

Ah, spin control. Some day I want to have a "Chief Corporate
Spokesperson" in my company who will clarify and sanitize all the
stupid things *I* say... :-)

Seriously, however, I think the clamor (especially amongst members of
the Cherokee Pilots Association) over Piper CEO Bass's speech at last
weekend's CPA fly-in is truly an example of a victory for us "little
guys".

In my opinion, Mr. Bass was either floating a trial balloon idea about
cutting off support for old, out-of-production aircraft, or he just
got carried away during his speech and injected his own personal
opinions. Either way, this reaction -- sudden, vociferous, succinct,
loud, and unanimous -- from the pilot community has effectively and
surely shot it down.

Suddenly, there is less to be gloomy about!

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

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:31:59 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote in m>:

>In my opinion, Mr. Bass was either floating a trial balloon idea about
>cutting off support for old, out-of-production aircraft, or he just
>got carried away during his speech and injected his own personal
>opinions. Either way, this reaction -- sudden, vociferous, succinct,
>loud, and unanimous -- from the pilot community has effectively and
>surely shot it down.

From his statement, it seems to me that nothing could be further from
the truth. He is merely saying Piper has no date certain for cutting
off the supply of spare parts. Likely they just won't be
manufactured, and existing stocks of parts will be allowed to run out
as they are shipped to customers over time.

[Bob Noel]

In article m>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Somehow a version of my "Gloom" post (which I also posted on the
> Cherokee Pilots Association's "Cherokee Chat") ended up in Phil
> Boyer's in-box.
>
> AOPA President Boyer apparently questioned Piper's management about
> the status of Piper's support (or reported lack thereof) of our
> "ancient" aircraft, prompting the following statement from Mark S.
> Miller, Chief Corporate Spokesperson of Piper Aircraft, Inc.:
>
> "Contrary to rumors, inaccurate representations and misinterpretations
> in respect to Piper Aircraft's position on parts availability,

So, Bass either lied or didn't know what he was talking about. Hardly
encouraging.

[snip]
> In my opinion, Mr. Bass was either floating a trial balloon idea about
> cutting off support for old, out-of-production aircraft, or he just
> got carried away during his speech and injected his own personal
> opinions.

Neither of those options speak well for Bass or Piper. :-(

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

> Somehow a version of my "Gloom" post (which I also posted on the
> Cherokee Pilots Association's "Cherokee Chat") ended up in Phil
> Boyer's in-box.
>
> AOPA President Boyer apparently questioned Piper's management about
> the status of Piper's support (or reported lack thereof) of our
> "ancient" aircraft, prompting the following statement from Mark S.
> Miller, Chief Corporate Spokesperson of Piper Aircraft, Inc.:
>
> "Contrary to rumors, inaccurate representations and misinterpretations
> in respect to Piper Aircraft's position on parts availability, Piper
> has not and will not set a cutoff date for spare parts availability.
> Published reports that Piper President & CEO Jim Bass announced such a
> cutoff are unfounded and untrue. Piper maintains a total of more than
> 15,000 active spare parts and manages a total of approximately 25,000
> spare parts. Our goal is to try and support all certified models that
> we have produced in our 70-year history whenever possible."
>
In other words, "...we won't do anything to negatively impact the ability
to unload our existing inventory..."

[...]
> In my opinion, Mr. Bass was either floating a trial balloon idea about
> cutting off support for old, out-of-production aircraft, or he just
> got carried away during his speech and injected his own personal
> opinions. Either way, this reaction -- sudden, vociferous, succinct,
> loud, and unanimous -- from the pilot community has effectively and
> surely shot it down.
>
> Suddenly, there is less to be gloomy about!
>
I didn't "hear" anything different from your original post, Jay.

Neil

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:07:12 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote in
>:

>I didn't "hear" anything different from your original post, Jay.

You'll find that Robert Poole, the Reason Foundation's founder who has
been pushing hard for user fees, employs the same corporate
double-speak:

(Click here (http://www.avweb.com/alm?podcast20070618) to listen
to the Reason Foundation's Robert Poole on why aviation user fees
would be good for airspace users.)

[Tom Guess]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1182317519.821816.6690
@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

> Ah, spin control. Some day I want to have a "Chief Corporate
> Spokesperson" in my company who will clarify and sanitize all the
> stupid things *I* say... :-)

There aren't enough hours in the day or enough skilled communicators in the
trade to handle that assignment.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Tom Guess" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1182317519.821816.6690
> @q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Ah, spin control. Some day I want to have a "Chief Corporate
>> Spokesperson" in my company who will clarify and sanitize all the
>> stupid things *I* say... :-)
>
> There aren't enough hours in the day or enough skilled communicators in
> the
> trade to handle that assignment.

Better put a " :~) " after that.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article m>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
> In my opinion, Mr. Bass was either floating a trial balloon idea about
> cutting off support for old, out-of-production aircraft, or he just
> got carried away during his speech and injected his own personal
> opinions. Either way, this reaction -- sudden, vociferous, succinct,
> loud, and unanimous -- from the pilot community has effectively and
> surely shot it down.


Quite frankly, I don't see anything in Piper's statement that retracts
anything. All the statement appears to say is that Piper hasn't set a
piston-engine "date for death" right now. Noticeably absent from the
statement is any long-term commitment to the piston business, probably
because there isn't any.



JKG

[Jay Honeck]

> Quite frankly, I don't see anything in Piper's statement that retracts
> anything. All the statement appears to say is that Piper hasn't set a
> piston-engine "date for death" right now. Noticeably absent from the
> statement is any long-term commitment to the piston business, probably
> because there isn't any.

Wow -- just when I thought that *I* was the most cynical, hard-headed
******* out there, you guys go and prove me wrong. Thanks!

:-)

Seriously, I think you're being too hard on them. Piper has been
forced to respond to what we heard Bass say in that speech last
weekend. They are publicly denying that there are any plans to cut
off support for older planes -- which, unless they are REALLY being
diabolical, can only be good news for those of us who are flying
around in "antique" planes. (What *is* the defininition of "antique"
now, anyway? My plane is now 33 years old -- where's the cut-off?)

(And, hell, while we're at it, why is "publicly" also properly spelled
"publically"? Inquiring minds on a sunny June day.... ;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose]

> They are publicly denying that there are any plans to cut
> off support for older planes...

But that talk is cheap. The expensive talk is what we don't hear.
"Piper =will= =continue= to supply parts for =all= the airplanes it has
=ever= manufactured, for as long as we are in business." (and even that
doesn't say that they won't charge $700 for a $2 microswitch.)

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article m>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Wow -- just when I thought that *I* was the most cynical, hard-headed
> ******* out there, you guys go and prove me wrong. Thanks!
>
> :-)
>
> Seriously, I think you're being too hard on them. Piper has been
> forced to respond to what we heard Bass say in that speech last
> weekend. They are publicly denying that there are any plans to cut
> off support for older planes -- which, unless they are REALLY being
> diabolical, can only be good news for those of us who are flying
> around in "antique" planes. (What *is* the defininition of "antique"
> now, anyway? My plane is now 33 years old -- where's the cut-off?)


I'm not being cynical, I'm just trying to be a realist. Though I'm not
intimately familiar with the aircraft industry, I doubt that Piper can
sustain themselves as a new airplane manufacturer on a piston-engine
parts business. They were late to the game with modern avionics in
their airplanes, all of which are 30+ year old designs. They could
innovate in the piston market and compete with Cirrus and Cessna, but is
there really that much room? My guess is that Piper is staking the
future of the company on moving away from pistons (and ditching the high
liability, low return associated with them) to focus on the young VLJ
market. Honestly, I can't say that I wouldn't consider the same if I
were running the company.



JKG

[Jay Honeck]

> I'm not being cynical, I'm just trying to be a realist. Though I'm not
> intimately familiar with the aircraft industry, I doubt that Piper can
> sustain themselves as a new airplane manufacturer on a piston-engine
> parts business. They were late to the game with modern avionics in
> their airplanes, all of which are 30+ year old designs. They could
> innovate in the piston market and compete with Cirrus and Cessna, but is
> there really that much room? My guess is that Piper is staking the
> future of the company on moving away from pistons (and ditching the high
> liability, low return associated with them) to focus on the young VLJ
> market. Honestly, I can't say that I wouldn't consider the same if I
> were running the company.

I agree 100% with you. In fact, I fully understand why Bass and
Piper would want to cut ties with the piston market, and only pursue
jets. Hell, it's Economics 101, if their only goal is to make more
money.

But then, don't come to a fly-in for CHEROKEE OWNERS, for
chrissakes. Just say you're "unavailable", and leave it at that.
The guy is an idiot for giving that speech in that venue.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article om>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
> But then, don't come to a fly-in for CHEROKEE OWNERS, for
> chrissakes. Just say you're "unavailable", and leave it at that.
> The guy is an idiot for giving that speech in that venue.

Hey, if he doesn't show up, he's blowing you off. If he shows up and
doesn't reveal anything "exciting," then you're ripping him to shreds.
So he shows up and tells you what's going on at Piper, and you're still
not happy? Geez, you guys are like a bunch of women! Can't please you!

From what you've described, I agree that it sounds like his message was
not well-matched to his audience, but then again, I'm not sure that he
really had any other good news. You guys probably wanted to hear about
PIper's plans for a "Cirrus killer," which is obviously something that's
not in the cards.

In the end, I'm not too worried about the parts issue, even if PIper
were to stop selling parts tomorrow. Where there's a will (and money to
be made), there's a way. I honestly don't think Piper has much to gain
by trying to ground the existing piston fleet, nor do I think that they
would be successful in doing so.


JKG

[Jay Honeck]

> Hey, if he doesn't show up, he's blowing you off. If he shows up and
> doesn't reveal anything "exciting," then you're ripping him to shreds.
> So he shows up and tells you what's going on at Piper, and you're still
> not happy? Geez, you guys are like a bunch of women! Can't please you!

Let me try that again. Bass shouldn't have "not shown up" -- he simply
should never have made himself available for speechifying to a bunch
of piston-single owners in the first place. The CPA would have been
better off with a Rod Machado-type entertainer doing the talking --
and so would Piper.

But who knew?

> From what you've described, I agree that it sounds like his message was
> not well-matched to his audience, but then again, I'm not sure that he
> really had any other good news. You guys probably wanted to hear about
> PIper's plans for a "Cirrus killer," which is obviously something that's
> not in the cards.

Piper's "solutions" in the piston market have been so bloody obvious
to long-term Piper owners that we ALL wonder what their problem is.
They needed to do two things ten years ago:

- Add a pilot's-side door to the Cherokee line.
- Build an O-540-powered Arrow

They have done neither, and have thus been getting their asses waxed
by Cirrus and Cessna. It's been like watching Chevy try to turn the
Impala into a Camry-killer. Painful to watch.

Additionally, they could have made simple changes (like flush-rivets
and wing filets) to the airframe that would have at least given the
appearance of keeping up. Again, they have done precisely nothing,
beyond adding glass panels and upgrading interiors.

> In the end, I'm not too worried about the parts issue, even if PIper
> were to stop selling parts tomorrow. Where there's a will (and money to
> be made), there's a way. I honestly don't think Piper has much to gain
> by trying to ground the existing piston fleet, nor do I think that they
> would be successful in doing so.

All one has to do is look at the plethora of plastic part
manufacturers to see what would happen if Piper stopped making parts
for old planes. There will always be small companies willing to jump
into the breach.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 07:48:22 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

> They
> are publicly denying that there are any plans to cut off support for older
> planes

I missed that. All I saw was a claim that there was no set date. That
would be consistent with "until our inventory is gone".

- Andrew

[Tom Guess]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in news:e5aei.148673
:

> "Tom Guess" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1182317519.821816.6690
>> @q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Ah, spin control. Some day I want to have a "Chief Corporate
>>> Spokesperson" in my company who will clarify and sanitize all the
>>> stupid things *I* say... :-)
>>
>> There aren't enough hours in the day or enough skilled communicators in
>> the
>> trade to handle that assignment.
>
> Better put a " :~) " after that.

No.

[Jay Honeck]

> >>> Ah, spin control. Some day I want to have a "Chief Corporate
> >>> Spokesperson" in my company who will clarify and sanitize all the
> >>> stupid things *I* say... :-)
>
> >> There aren't enough hours in the day or enough skilled communicators in
> >> the
> >> trade to handle that assignment.
>
> > Better put a " :~) " after that.
>
> No.

Hey -- you'll get no where with me imitating my wife!

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

[flynrider via AviationKB.com]

Andrew Gideon wrote:
>> They
>> are publicly denying that there are any plans to cut off support for older
>> planes
>
>I missed that. All I saw was a claim that there was no set date. That
>would be consistent with "until our inventory is gone".
>

You can read into it what you want, but IMHO, until Piper actually starts
making money selling jets, they need to keep making parts. They're not
really making much selling a new piston airplane here and there. Parts for
the existing fleet are currently a large part of their overall revenue.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200706/1

[Ken Finney]

"Jonathan Goodish" > wrote in message
...
> In article om>,
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> But then, don't come to a fly-in for CHEROKEE OWNERS, for
>> chrissakes. Just say you're "unavailable", and leave it at that.
>> The guy is an idiot for giving that speech in that venue.
>
> Hey, if he doesn't show up, he's blowing you off. If he shows up and
> doesn't reveal anything "exciting," then you're ripping him to shreds.
> So he shows up and tells you what's going on at Piper, and you're still
> not happy? Geez, you guys are like a bunch of women! Can't please you!
>
> From what you've described, I agree that it sounds like his message was
> not well-matched to his audience, but then again, I'm not sure that he
> really had any other good news. You guys probably wanted to hear about
> PIper's plans for a "Cirrus killer," which is obviously something that's
> not in the cards.
>
> In the end, I'm not too worried about the parts issue, even if PIper
> were to stop selling parts tomorrow. Where there's a will (and money to
> be made), there's a way. I honestly don't think Piper has much to gain
> by trying to ground the existing piston fleet, nor do I think that they
> would be successful in doing so.
>

It's not that Piper shouldn't have sent anyone, but they should have sent
the right person; you have to know your audience. It's like most of the
successful automobile dealerships around Seattle have a dedicated saleperson
to deal with Boeing engineers (and other technical people). Most technical
people are so turned-off by the normal car salesperson (and I suppose, visa
versa) that they lose sales otherwise. I expect that Piper has a logisitics
support manager that would have been a much better fit.

[Jay Masino]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Piper's "solutions" in the piston market have been so bloody obvious
> to long-term Piper owners that we ALL wonder what their problem is.
> They needed to do two things ten years ago:
>
> - Add a pilot's-side door to the Cherokee line.

Since the current design is integral to the structural integrity of the
cockpit, adding a door would not be a trivial change. In fact, it
might not be possible at all, and retain the current type certificate.
Personally, I've never found myself wanting a door on that side.

> - Build an O-540-powered Arrow
>
> They have done neither, and have thus been getting their asses waxed
> by Cirrus and Cessna.

Ah, but note that Cirrus uses a fixed gear design. Maybe there just
wasn't enough of a demand for a big engined Arrow.


> Additionally, they could have made simple changes (like flush-rivets
> and wing filets) to the airframe that would have at least given the
> appearance of keeping up. Again, they have done precisely nothing,
> beyond adding glass panels and upgrading interiors.

Again, I don't think switching to flush-rivets would be a "simple
change". There's definitely a difference in strength. Note that even
companies like Laminar Flow utilize fairings and... basically... Bondo
for their wing smoothing. If it was trivial to switch to flush rivets,
I suspect some enterprising company would already hold the STC for it.

Unfortunately, there are FAA imposed limitations to what you can change
and still comply with the existing type certificate. Or else you're
opening yourself up to certifying an entirely new airframe, and all the
associated engineering costs.

I agree that many little complanies will probably pop up to support our
Cherokees if Piper does stop producing parts.

--- Jay


--

Jay Masino "Home is where My critters are"
http://www.JayMasino.com
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

[Peter Dohm]

"Jay Masino" > wrote in message
. ..
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > Piper's "solutions" in the piston market have been so bloody obvious
> > to long-term Piper owners that we ALL wonder what their problem is.
> > They needed to do two things ten years ago:
> >
> > - Add a pilot's-side door to the Cherokee line.
>
> Since the current design is integral to the structural integrity of the
> cockpit, adding a door would not be a trivial change. In fact, it
> might not be possible at all, and retain the current type certificate.
> Personally, I've never found myself wanting a door on that side.
>
> > - Build an O-540-powered Arrow
> >
> > They have done neither, and have thus been getting their asses waxed
> > by Cirrus and Cessna.
>
> Ah, but note that Cirrus uses a fixed gear design. Maybe there just
> wasn't enough of a demand for a big engined Arrow.
>
>
> > Additionally, they could have made simple changes (like flush-rivets
> > and wing filets) to the airframe that would have at least given the
> > appearance of keeping up. Again, they have done precisely nothing,
> > beyond adding glass panels and upgrading interiors.
>
> Again, I don't think switching to flush-rivets would be a "simple
> change". There's definitely a difference in strength. Note that even
> companies like Laminar Flow utilize fairings and... basically... Bondo
> for their wing smoothing. If it was trivial to switch to flush rivets,
> I suspect some enterprising company would already hold the STC for it.
>
> Unfortunately, there are FAA imposed limitations to what you can change
> and still comply with the existing type certificate. Or else you're
> opening yourself up to certifying an entirely new airframe, and all the
> associated engineering costs.
>
> I agree that many little complanies will probably pop up to support our
> Cherokees if Piper does stop producing parts.
>
> --- Jay
>
>
I, for one, an not so sure about either the door or the flush rivets--which
I have been tole are actually stronger, although they are also more labor
intensive.

However, I believe that Jay Honeck's original gloom was correct, as was the
subsequent contributor who suggested that Piper might cease to manufacture
slow selling parts and simply sell the existing stocks as orders come in.
Automobile manufacturers do that all the time and the parts involved are
technically not safety related, although the case could be argued for some
parts like seat back positioning locks; but some really mundane things like
air conditioning thermostats and interior door handles can make it
difficult, or even impossible, to maintain a classic car in original
condition. OTOH, the automobile manufacturers continue to offer new
products which (sort of) fit the old market system.

Therefore, despite my preference for an American company, I am currently
betting on one of the foreign companies, such as Diamond, who include
trainers and entry level aircraft in their product mix, to take over Piper's
old place opposite Cessna.

Peter

[john smith[_2_]]

> > - Add a pilot's-side door to the Cherokee line.
>
> Since the current design is integral to the structural integrity of the
> cockpit, adding a door would not be a trivial change. In fact, it
> might not be possible at all, and retain the current type certificate.
> Personally, I've never found myself wanting a door on that side.

Piper knows how to build them (ie-Tomahawk).
It will add weight, as the framing required will require more AL.
Structurally, I don't see that there would be much difference. The
structure sits atop the wing. Will not the load be carried by monocoque
structure?

> > - Build an O-540-powered Arrow
> >
> > They have done neither, and have thus been getting their asses waxed
> > by Cirrus and Cessna.
>
> Ah, but note that Cirrus uses a fixed gear design. Maybe there just
> wasn't enough of a demand for a big engined Arrow.

TIO-360C - 210 hp - 379 lbs
TIO-540W1A5 - 235 hp - 400 lbs

The Arrow is heavy enough without adding more weight to the nose.

> > Additionally, they could have made simple changes (like flush-rivets
> > and wing filets) to the airframe that would have at least given the
> > appearance of keeping up. Again, they have done precisely nothing,
> > beyond adding glass panels and upgrading interiors.

Look at how/where the fillets join the wing and fuselage.
While a fillet at the leading edge might pose a problem with removing
the cowl, the trailing edge fillet would interfere with the flap
operation.
The last redesign of the Cherokee series wing was 30-years ago when they
changed from the Hershey bar to the taper wing.

[Jay Honeck]

> TIO-360C - 210 hp - 379 lbs
> TIO-540W1A5 - 235 hp - 400 lbs
>
> The Arrow is heavy enough without adding more weight to the nose.

Interestingly, I found out today that Piper built several O-540
powered Arrow prototypes, back in 1980 -- with 300 horsepower! (It
was supposed to be a trainer for some Banana Republic's air force.)

One is still in the registry -- registered to Piper under the
Experimental category.

Damn, I'll bet that thing moves right along!

> Look at how/where the fillets join the wing and fuselage.
> While a fillet at the leading edge might pose a problem with removing
> the cowl, the trailing edge fillet would interfere with the flap
> operation.

I've got the wing fillet mod on Atlas. It poses no problems with
either the cowling or the flaps.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> Therefore, despite my preference for an American company, I am currently
> betting on one of the foreign companies, such as Diamond, who include
> trainers and entry level aircraft in their product mix, to take over Piper's
> old place opposite Cessna.
>

They have, if you count sales of new airplanes. By that measure, Piper is dead
- and has been for quite a while.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:39:18 -0500, Jay Masino wrote:

> Personally, I've never found myself wanting a door on that side.

I've never flown a Piper, but this is one of the issues that turns me off
of the line. Under normal circumstances, this means more work.
Following an emergency landing, that could be significant. I don't like
thinking about getting a kid out of the back seat away from the door.

But as I wrote, I've never tried it.

- Andrew

[xyzzy]

On Jun 21, 10:40 am, Andrew Gideon > wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:39:18 -0500, Jay Masino wrote:
> > Personally, I've never found myself wanting a door on that side.
>
> I've never flown a Piper, but this is one of the issues that turns me off
> of the line. Under normal circumstances, this means more work.
> Following an emergency landing, that could be significant.

Or before an emergency landing, if "open the door so it doesn't get
jammed shut in the crash" is part of your pre-emergency landing
checklist. Not the time to need to reach across the cockpit to undo
two latches...

[john smith]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Look at how/where the fillets join the wing and fuselage.
>> While a fillet at the leading edge might pose a problem with removing
>> the cowl, the trailing edge fillet would interfere with the flap
>> operation.
>
> I've got the wing fillet mod on Atlas. It poses no problems with
> either the cowling or the flaps.

I see a Knots 2U wing root fairing kit, but cannot a trailing edge
fairing kit.
To effectively do the job, you need both.
Peter Garrison had an excellent article on wing fairings in one of his
FLYING columns last year or the year before.

[Gatt]

"Tom Guess" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1182317519.821816.6690
> @q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Ah, spin control. Some day I want to have a "Chief Corporate
>> Spokesperson" in my company who will clarify and sanitize all the
>> stupid things *I* say... :-)
>
> There aren't enough hours in the day or enough skilled communicators in
> the
> trade to handle that assignment.


*plonk*