Let's Get Real Here.

[Bret Ludwig]

Cessna Launches Light Sport Aircraft Program


Wichita, Kan., July 10, 2007 - Cessna Aircraft Company, a Textron Inc.
(NYSE:TXT) company, today announced it will proceed with its Light
Sport Aircraft (LSA) program and will unveil a full scale mock-up and
program details at the Experimental Aircraft Association's Air Venture
in Oshkosh, Wis., later this month.

"After conducting extensive market research, it is clear to us there
is a great need for this aircraft as we strive to drive down the cost
of flying and learning to fly," said Cessna Chairman, President and
CEO Jack J. Pelton. "We believe this aircraft will make a major
contribution to stimulating new pilot starts and will encourage
already-licensed pilots to continue to fly because it will be more
affordable.

"We have developed a business case that makes sense; we have
incorporated several innovative features into the design; and we
believe we can deliver the finest aircraft in the category, combined
with our extensive customer service, flight training and distribution
networks, at an attractive price," Pelton said.

Details of the program will be announced during the EAA show at a
press conference that will be held at the Air Venture Museum, Eagle
Hangar, on Sunday, July 22, at 8:30 a.m.

The company is also planning to conduct a ribbon cutting ceremony at
its aircraft exhibit at the show (Exhibit No. 143-156) on Monday, July
23, at 8:30 a.m., and will also hold a forum on the Cessna LSA program
the same day, from 1:00 to 2:15 p.m., at the Honda Forum, Pavilion 7.
EAA President Tom Poberezny, along with Pelton, will participate in
all three events.

Based on unit sales, Cessna Aircraft Company is the world's largest
manufacturer of general aviation airplanes. In 2006, Cessna delivered
1,239 aircraft, including 307 Citation business jets, and reported
revenues of about $4.2 billion and a backlog of $8.5 billion. Since
the company was originally established in 1927, more than 189,000
Cessna airplanes have been delivered to nearly every country in the
world. The global fleet of almost 5,000 Citations is the largest fleet
of business jets in the world. More information about Cessna Aircraft
Company is available at www.cessna.com."

My questions:

1. How much cheaper is this thing going to be to produce than a
Skyhawk? Look at it from two standpoints: labor and materials, and
from revenue per square foot of plant floor space.

2. Where are they going to make this thing?

3. The average person who can afford an airplane in America now
weighs upwards of 250 lbs and some top 300. Can two 300 pounders fly
this thing? I know CFIs who tell me they are starting Denny the
Dentist in Skylanes now because they are too fat to be comfortable in
the Skyhawk.

That's just a few. Others later.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com...

>
> 1. How much cheaper is this thing going to be to produce than a
> Skyhawk? ...
> 2. Where are they going to make this thing?

I think that we can safely leave #1 and #2 to Cessna management.
>
> 3. The average person who can afford an airplane in America now
> weighs upwards of 250 lbs and some top 300.

To me, this is the real issue. The problem is not just with Cessna. other
2-seat LSAs also can't hold two real-world pilots.

Since the max 1320 pound gross weight maximum of the average LSA is set
more by the rule book than by engineering and physics, one must suspect that
these aircraft are being marketed with a wink. They are actually perfectly
capable of carrying more payload than they are certified for.

> Can two 300 pounders fly this thing?

No, of course not.

Vaughn

> Dentist in Skylanes now because they are too fat to be comfortable in
> the Skyhawk.
>
> That's just a few. Others later.
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote

> 3. The average person who can afford an airplane in America now
> weighs upwards of 250 lbs and some top 300. Can two 300 pounders fly
> this thing? I know CFIs who tell me they are starting Denny the
> Dentist in Skylanes now because they are too fat to be comfortable in
> the Skyhawk.

If they weigh that much, they need to go on an immediate diet, forget sport
planes, or take up mud bog racing instead of flying.

Get real. The person that weighs 250 pounds, is obese, unless they are very
tall. They need to worry about losing weight before they die, instead of
flying airplanes that are too small for them.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

On Aug 25, 6:43 pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
> Can two 300 pounders fly this thing?

A lot of them not for too long. Considering that obesity and heart
attacks.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:52:33 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote:

>
>"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>>
>> 1. How much cheaper is this thing going to be to produce than a
>> Skyhawk? ...
>> 2. Where are they going to make this thing?
>
> I think that we can safely leave #1 and #2 to Cessna management.
>>
>> 3. The average person who can afford an airplane in America now
>> weighs upwards of 250 lbs and some top 300.
>
> To me, this is the real issue. The problem is not just with Cessna. other
>2-seat LSAs also can't hold two real-world pilots.
>
> Since the max 1320 pound gross weight maximum of the average LSA is set
>more by the rule book than by engineering and physics, one must suspect that
>these aircraft are being marketed with a wink. They are actually perfectly
>capable of carrying more payload than they are certified for.
>
>> Can two 300 pounders fly this thing?

Lordy, two 300 pounders in the front seats of a Cherokee would be too
much. What 4 passenger production GA plane could take two 300 pounder
in the front seats and not be out of CG?

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:52:33 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>
>>
>>>1. How much cheaper is this thing going to be to produce than a
>>>Skyhawk? ...
>>>2. Where are they going to make this thing?
>>
>> I think that we can safely leave #1 and #2 to Cessna management.
>>
>>>3. The average person who can afford an airplane in America now
>>>weighs upwards of 250 lbs and some top 300.
>>
>> To me, this is the real issue. The problem is not just with Cessna. other
>>2-seat LSAs also can't hold two real-world pilots.
>>
>> Since the max 1320 pound gross weight maximum of the average LSA is set
>>more by the rule book than by engineering and physics, one must suspect that
>>these aircraft are being marketed with a wink. They are actually perfectly
>>capable of carrying more payload than they are certified for.
>>
>>
>>>Can two 300 pounders fly this thing?
>
>
> Lordy, two 300 pounders in the front seats of a Cherokee would be too
> much. What 4 passenger production GA plane could take two 300 pounder
> in the front seats and not be out of CG?
>
>

I'm guessing MAYBE a Navion.
But I'd want to check the POH carefully before trying it!

[Bret Ludwig]

On Aug 25, 11:36 pm, wrote:
> On Aug 25, 6:43 pm, Bret Ludwig > wrote:
>
> > Can two 300 pounders fly this thing?
>
> A lot of them not for too long. Considering that obesity and heart
> attacks.

Many fat people-really fat-live surprisingly long lives. Marlon
Brando was morbidly obese for 35 of his 80 years at least-the last
ones-and Al Goldstein is not dead yet. Yes, it shortens lifespan, but
moderately fat people can live sometimes what would be pretty much the
normal lifespan. And since when they go, they generally drop over
clean and die rather than lingering like Ronald reagan, which costs
millions of dollars in health care sometimes. That's why prison
systems feed cons all they want and give them their own cell if they
are over a certain weight. What better way to keep them immobile and
reduce overall costs?

[Bret Ludwig]

On Aug 25, 10:16 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote
>
> > 3. The average person who can afford an airplane in America now
> > weighs upwards of 250 lbs and some top 300. Can two 300 pounders fly
> > this thing? I know CFIs who tell me they are starting Denny the
> > Dentist in Skylanes now because they are too fat to be comfortable in
> > the Skyhawk.
>
> If they weigh that much, they need to go on an immediate diet, forget sport
> planes, or take up mud bog racing instead of flying.
>
> Get real. The person that weighs 250 pounds, is obese, unless they are very
> tall. They need to worry about losing weight before they die, instead of
> flying airplanes that are too small for them.
> --

Some people this heavy are not obese as muscular and huge, such as
football players. With exceptions such as "Refrigerator" Perry,
football players are not fat. Yet they weigh a lot. There are 6'4" 300
lb body builders who are considered "Greek Adonis" and not "fat".
Airplanes should be designed to comfortably accomodate NFL offensive
linesmen.

[Bret Ludwig]

> >>>Can two 300 pounders fly this thing?
>
> > Lordy, two 300 pounders in the front seats of a Cherokee would be too
> > much. What 4 passenger production GA plane could take two 300 pounder
> > in the front seats and not be out of CG?
>
> I'm guessing MAYBE a Navion.
> But I'd want to check the POH carefully before trying it!



T-6,or any mil trainer besides maybe a old Ryan. Even a T-34 will
accomodate as heavy a pilot as will fit.

[Montblack]

("john smith" wrote)
> Look at Jay Honeck. The poor guy had to resort to eating fruit to afford
> to pay for all that flying he was doing and upkeep on Atlas.
>
> Have you seen the Allison brothers? They're skinny as rails. Poor Steve is
> so thin from spending money to build his RV, and Jack bought into that
> Arrow.
>
> Then there is Ron Natalie. Three years ago, Ron was pretty big. They they
> started on the Navion restoration project. Have you seen the poor guy? If
> he turned sideways, all you would see is his hat.


....and then there's Montblack


Paul-Mont
(It was preemptive. <g>)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bret Ludwig" <> wrote
>
> Some people this heavy are not obese as muscular and huge, such as
> football players. With exceptions such as "Refrigerator" Perry,
> football players are not fat. Yet they weigh a lot. There are 6'4" 300
> lb body builders who are considered "Greek Adonis" and not "fat".
> Airplanes should be designed to comfortably accomodate NFL offensive
> linesmen.

At what expense? Make all trainers capable of hauling weight as a T-34? I
thought you wanted to see less expensive planes?

I don't want to pay to haul around offensive linemen. Even then, your
argument is weak. You and I both know damn well that you are talking mainly
about the obese average height lard ass.

A NFL player can afford to go rent (or buy) a fleet of warbirds, or other
4-6 passenger planes. Let them. I can not.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> On Aug 25, 10:16 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote
>>
>>> 3. The average person who can afford an airplane in America now
>>> weighs upwards of 250 lbs and some top 300. Can two 300 pounders fly
>>> this thing? I know CFIs who tell me they are starting Denny the
>>> Dentist in Skylanes now because they are too fat to be comfortable in
>>> the Skyhawk.
>> If they weigh that much, they need to go on an immediate diet, forget sport
>> planes, or take up mud bog racing instead of flying.
>>
>> Get real. The person that weighs 250 pounds, is obese, unless they are very
>> tall. They need to worry about losing weight before they die, instead of
>> flying airplanes that are too small for them.
>> --
>
> Some people this heavy are not obese as muscular and huge, such as
> football players. With exceptions such as "Refrigerator" Perry,
> football players are not fat. Yet they weigh a lot. There are 6'4" 300
> lb body builders who are considered "Greek Adonis" and not "fat".
> Airplanes should be designed to comfortably accomodate NFL offensive
> linesmen.

Not. Designing for less than 0.1% of the passenger population would be
incredibly stupid. That would be almost as stupid as suggesting that
this should be the case.

Matt

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" < wrote

> Not. Designing for less than 0.1% of the passenger population would be
> incredibly stupid. That would be almost as stupid as suggesting that this
> should be the case.

But this is Bret making the suggestion, after all! ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Dan[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote
>
>> 3. The average person who can afford an airplane in America now
>> weighs upwards of 250 lbs and some top 300. Can two 300 pounders fly
>> this thing? I know CFIs who tell me they are starting Denny the
>> Dentist in Skylanes now because they are too fat to be comfortable in
>> the Skyhawk.
>
> If they weigh that much, they need to go on an immediate diet, forget sport
> planes, or take up mud bog racing instead of flying.
>
> Get real. The person that weighs 250 pounds, is obese, unless they are very
> tall. They need to worry about losing weight before they die, instead of
> flying airplanes that are too small for them.

Thank you Dr. Morgan for ignoring muscular types. I knew a C-130
pilot that was quite heavy, but was solid muscle. Didn't they teach you
in medical school that muscle weighs more than fat?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Bret Ludwig" <> wrote
>> Some people this heavy are not obese as muscular and huge, such as
>> football players. With exceptions such as "Refrigerator" Perry,
>> football players are not fat. Yet they weigh a lot. There are 6'4" 300
>> lb body builders who are considered "Greek Adonis" and not "fat".
>> Airplanes should be designed to comfortably accomodate NFL offensive
>> linesmen.
>
> At what expense? Make all trainers capable of hauling weight as a T-34? I
> thought you wanted to see less expensive planes?
>
> I don't want to pay to haul around offensive linemen. Even then, your
> argument is weak. You and I both know damn well that you are talking mainly
> about the obese average height lard ass.
>
> A NFL player can afford to go rent (or buy) a fleet of warbirds, or other
> 4-6 passenger planes. Let them. I can not.

Don't let anyone accuse you have a sensitive side.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Rich Ahrens]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:52:33 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>
>>> 1. How much cheaper is this thing going to be to produce than a
>>> Skyhawk? ...
>>> 2. Where are they going to make this thing?
>> I think that we can safely leave #1 and #2 to Cessna management.
>>> 3. The average person who can afford an airplane in America now
>>> weighs upwards of 250 lbs and some top 300.
>> To me, this is the real issue. The problem is not just with Cessna. other
>> 2-seat LSAs also can't hold two real-world pilots.
>>
>> Since the max 1320 pound gross weight maximum of the average LSA is set
>> more by the rule book than by engineering and physics, one must suspect that
>> these aircraft are being marketed with a wink. They are actually perfectly
>> capable of carrying more payload than they are certified for.
>>
>>> Can two 300 pounders fly this thing?
>
> Lordy, two 300 pounders in the front seats of a Cherokee would be too
> much. What 4 passenger production GA plane could take two 300 pounder
> in the front seats and not be out of CG?

A 182, for one. For that matter, our old 177RG, if you threw some weight
in back for balance.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dan" > wrote

> Thank you Dr. Morgan for ignoring muscular types. I knew a C-130 pilot
> that was quite heavy, but was solid muscle. Didn't they teach you in
> medical school that muscle weighs more than fat?

No need to get sarcastic; I know that. I'm only responding to the post. He
was not talking about muscular pilots, in his original post. Next thing you
will tell me is that NFL players are not fat. BS, to that, too. They are
also muscular, but very few are not carrying around some pretty substantial
body fat, too. Very few.

How tall was this C-130 pilot, Dan? Well over 6 foot, I'll bet. We know
that Bret was not talking about muscular types in his original post, don't
we?

In case you forgot the original offensive post, I'll quote it for you.

Quote: "The average person who can afford an airplane in America now
weighs upwards of 250 lbs and some top 300. Can two 300 pounders fly
this thing? I know CFIs who tell me they are starting Denny the
Dentist in Skylanes now because they are too fat to be comfortable in
the Skyhawk."
Unquote.

Did you notice the wording he used? Too fat to be comfortable.

I would be uncomfortable with a 300 pounder in 42 inch wide airplane, too.
They are going to be way over on my side of the airplane, and on my seat.

You want to be ****ed at someone, be ****ed at Bret for starting this
ridiculous thread, and for us for falling for his troll bait. That is what
it is; no more, no less.

A 6 foot tall person, in well above average physical shape, with low body
fat will go about 225, tops. They won't have most of their weight spilling
over the sides of their seats, either.

It would be nice to have airplanes that would lift any weight pilots with
ease. It isn't reality, plain and simple. Sport planes in specific have to
be a certain weight to be able to be safe.

Sorry if this all does not fit with your picture of reality, but life sucks,
too.

If you fall in the category of being well above the maximum healthy height
to weight chart, you should do something about it. You will be more
comfortable, more healthy and have more energy. It isn't impossible to do.
--
Jim in NC

[Dan[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> "Dan" > wrote
>
>> Thank you Dr. Morgan for ignoring muscular types. I knew a C-130 pilot
>> that was quite heavy, but was solid muscle. Didn't they teach you in
>> medical school that muscle weighs more than fat?
>
> No need to get sarcastic; I know that. I'm only responding to the post. He
> was not talking about muscular pilots, in his original post. Next thing you
> will tell me is that NFL players are not fat. BS, to that, too. They are
> also muscular, but very few are not carrying around some pretty substantial
> body fat, too. Very few.
>
> How tall was this C-130 pilot, Dan? Well over 6 foot, I'll bet.

No, I'm 6' 2" and he was shorter than me. To give you an idea what he
was like he'd trim the yoke all the way forward or aft and hold it in
neutral while flying. I pity anyone who took over from him in the other
seat.

We know
> that Bret was not talking about muscular types in his original post, don't
> we?

I ignore luwdig. What you said was no better than what he said.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 17:21:57 -0700, Bret Ludwig >
wrote:

>
>> >>>Can two 300 pounders fly this thing?
>>
>> > Lordy, two 300 pounders in the front seats of a Cherokee would be too
>> > much. What 4 passenger production GA plane could take two 300 pounder
>> > in the front seats and not be out of CG?
>>
>> I'm guessing MAYBE a Navion.
>> But I'd want to check the POH carefully before trying it!
>
>
>
> T-6,or any mil trainer besides maybe a old Ryan. Even a T-34 will
>accomodate as heavy a pilot as will fit.

Two 300 pounders? These are neither light sport, or 4 passenger
aircraft though.

[RST Engineering]

Bzzzzt. A 1958 182, normally equipped and with full fuel is 4" forward of
the cg limit with 2 300# in the front seats. Even if you max out the
baggage aft limit, it doesn't come back into the envelope until almost all
of the fuel is burned.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford


"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
...


>
> A 182, for one. For that matter, our old 177RG, if you threw some weight
> in back for balance.

[pittss1c]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 17:21:57 -0700, Bret Ludwig >
> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Can two 300 pounders fly this thing?
>>>> Lordy, two 300 pounders in the front seats of a Cherokee would be too
>>>> much. What 4 passenger production GA plane could take two 300 pounder
>>>> in the front seats and not be out of CG?
>>> I'm guessing MAYBE a Navion.
>>> But I'd want to check the POH carefully before trying it!
>>
>>
>> T-6,or any mil trainer besides maybe a old Ryan. Even a T-34 will
>> accomodate as heavy a pilot as will fit.
>
> Two 300 pounders? These are neither light sport, or 4 passenger
> aircraft though.
More like heavy transport

[Bob Kuykendall]

> ...3. The average person who can afford an airplane
> in America now weighs upwards of 250 lbs...

Cite?

Bob K.

[Jim Logajan]

Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
>> ...3. The average person who can afford an airplane
>> in America now weighs upwards of 250 lbs...
>
> Cite?

Maybe he includes the weight of their wallet just prior to them buying an
airplane? Or maybe he means average of the 95th percentile? Otherwise it is
easier to find cites that contradict that claim:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/bodymeas.htm
http://www.halls.md/chart/height-weight.htm

[Stuart & Kathryn Fields]

As a vendor at more than a few shows, I cringe when I see the 275# guy walk
up and want to talk about building and flying an ultralight helicopter that
weighs just slightly more than he does. I try to sell him on my
power/weight improvement program that is guaranteed to work on all sorts of
aircraft. It is a hockey goalies mask with the mouth holes taped up.
--
Stuart & Kathryn Fields, Publishers
Experimental Helo magazine
P. O. Box 1585
Inyokern, CA 93527
(760) 377-4478 ph
(760) 408-9747 publication cell
(760) 608-1299 technical cell
www.experimentalhelo.com
www.vkss.com


"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
>>> ...3. The average person who can afford an airplane
>>> in America now weighs upwards of 250 lbs...
>>
>> Cite?
>
> Maybe he includes the weight of their wallet just prior to them buying an
> airplane? Or maybe he means average of the 95th percentile? Otherwise it
> is
> easier to find cites that contradict that claim:
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/bodymeas.htm
> http://www.halls.md/chart/height-weight.htm
>

[Peter Dohm]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans wrote:
> > "Bret Ludwig" <> wrote
> >> Some people this heavy are not obese as muscular and huge, such as
> >> football players. With exceptions such as "Refrigerator" Perry,
> >> football players are not fat. Yet they weigh a lot. There are 6'4" 300
> >> lb body builders who are considered "Greek Adonis" and not "fat".
> >> Airplanes should be designed to comfortably accomodate NFL offensive
> >> linesmen.
> >
> > At what expense? Make all trainers capable of hauling weight as a T-34?
I
> > thought you wanted to see less expensive planes?
> >
> > I don't want to pay to haul around offensive linemen. Even then, your
> > argument is weak. You and I both know damn well that you are talking
mainly
> > about the obese average height lard ass.
> >
> > A NFL player can afford to go rent (or buy) a fleet of warbirds, or
other
> > 4-6 passenger planes. Let them. I can not.
>
> Don't let anyone accuse you have a sensitive side.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

IMHO, the weight limits on Light Sport are the totally unreasonable
determination of a bunch of desk jockeys. At the very least, they should
have accomodated the weights of two seat basic trainers commonly made and
used in the United States. The cost to build and maintain an aircraft of
750KG gross weigth would not be substantially more than for a 600KG
aircraft--and would very likely be less. In attition, it would have put
more companies and craftsmen back to work here in the USA.

Peter
Grrrrr.....

[Bret Ludwig]

On Aug 26, 10:00 pm, Rich Ahrens > wrote:
> Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:52:33 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> > > wrote:
>
> >> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
> >>> 1. How much cheaper is this thing going to be to produce than a
> >>> Skyhawk? ...
> >>> 2. Where are they going to make this thing?
> >> I think that we can safely leave #1 and #2 to Cessna management.
> >>> 3. The average person who can afford an airplane in America now
> >>> weighs upwards of 250 lbs and some top 300.
> >> To me, this is the real issue. The problem is not just with Cessna. other
> >> 2-seat LSAs also can't hold two real-world pilots.
>
> >> Since the max 1320 pound gross weight maximum of the average LSA is set
> >> more by the rule book than by engineering and physics, one must suspect that
> >> these aircraft are being marketed with a wink. They are actually perfectly
> >> capable of carrying more payload than they are certified for.
>
> >>> Can two 300 pounders fly this thing?
>
> > Lordy, two 300 pounders in the front seats of a Cherokee would be too
> > much. What 4 passenger production GA plane could take two 300 pounder
> > in the front seats and not be out of CG?
>
> A 182, for one. For that matter, our old 177RG, if you threw some weight
> in back for balance.

Thanks to the Miracle of Moment we can use a small weight at the very
tail to put forward CG in balance with low amounts of total mass. Most
airplanes are way longer from the CG back than from the CG front.

[Bret Ludwig]

On Aug 26, 7:36 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Bret Ludwig" <> wrote
>
>
>
> > Some people this heavy are not obese as muscular and huge, such as
> > football players. With exceptions such as "Refrigerator" Perry,
> > football players are not fat. Yet they weigh a lot. There are 6'4" 300
> > lb body builders who are considered "Greek Adonis" and not "fat".
> > Airplanes should be designed to comfortably accomodate NFL offensive
> > linesmen.
>
> At what expense? Make all trainers capable of hauling weight as a T-34? I
> thought you wanted to see less expensive planes?


Key to cost reduction is volume.

The T-34 is the airplane people WANT. Study Trade-A-Plane.

And it isn't even a particularly good airplane.

Study too why MOTORCYCLING is very successful with huge market growth
in the last 50 years and GA is not. Despite being even more
dangerous. Let me know what you think it is. Hint: The Usual Reason
is horse**** and I can prove it.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote
>
> Thanks to the Miracle of Moment we can use a small weight at the very
> tail to put forward CG in balance with low amounts of total mass. Most
> airplanes are way longer from the CG back than from the CG front.

Except for the little fact that the plane is not certified to carry around a
counterweight in the tailcone.
--
Jim in NC

[Denny]

Owned a 57 Lane... Yup, you developed real upper body strength after a
few hundred landings, pulling that yoke all the way to your chin...
Never thought it was a problem, though...

denny

[OldPhart]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Bret Ludwig" > wrote
| >
| > Thanks to the Miracle of Moment we can use a small weight at the
very
| > tail to put forward CG in balance with low amounts of total mass.
Most
| > airplanes are way longer from the CG back than from the CG front.
|
| Except for the little fact that the plane is not certified to carry
around a
| counterweight in the tailcone.
| --
| Jim in NC
|
|

Didn't the Piper Pawnee carry the battery back there? I think there was
an issue of corrosion.
--
OldPhart

[Peter Dohm]

>
> The T-34 is the airplane people WANT. Study Trade-A-Plane.
>
> And it isn't even a particularly good airplane.
>
> Study too why MOTORCYCLING is very successful with huge market growth
> in the last 50 years and GA is not. Despite being even more
> dangerous. Let me know what you think it is. Hint: The Usual Reason
> is horse**** and I can prove it.
>
>
I'm too damned lazy to study it, but just assumed it was ecause you can can
drive your motorcycle to the nearest bar, blip the throttle a cople of
times, and strut inside...

Peter

[Bret Ludwig]

On Aug 28, 9:47 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > The T-34 is the airplane people WANT. Study Trade-A-Plane.
>
> > And it isn't even a particularly good airplane.
>
> > Study too why MOTORCYCLING is very successful with huge market growth
> > in the last 50 years and GA is not. Despite being even more
> > dangerous. Let me know what you think it is. Hint: The Usual Reason
> > is horse**** and I can prove it.
>
> I'm too damned lazy to study it, but just assumed it was ecause you can can
> drive your motorcycle to the nearest bar, blip the throttle a cople of
> times, and strut inside...
>

Well, that's one point, but you don't have freedom of movement in
three axes like an aerobatic aircraft. Thinkl about this question
seriously because in it you will find why personal aviation is nearly
dead.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"OldPhart" <> wrote

> Didn't the Piper Pawnee carry the battery back there? I think there was
> an issue of corrosion.

For those planes that do, it is legal to carry a battery back there, but not
added counterweight. To do so would void it's certification, and leave you
holding the bag if you had a problem and the insurance company didn't want
to pay. (which is nearly always)
--
Jim in NC

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

>
> Well, that's one point, but you don't have freedom of movement in
> three axes like an aerobatic aircraft. Thinkl about this question
> seriously because in it you will find why personal aviation is nearly
> dead.

Well Bret if you know the reason you ought to tell us so we can maybe do
something about it.

[Ron Natalie]

OldPhart wrote:

> Didn't the Piper Pawnee carry the battery back there? I think there was
> an issue of corrosion.

The Navion battery is in the baggage compartment (and that coupled with
the baggage door on mine and a 12V electrical system sure makes it easy
to jump start). I'm not sure why the corrosion issues are any worse
there than in the usuall cessna cowl. If the acid were to leak out of
the box it would still fall on mental. I've got a battery box with
rubber hose dropping straight down.

The Navion with the big engine tends to be nose heavy as well. Owners
move the battery even further back (along with avionics racks) frequently.

[Ron Natalie]

Morgans wrote:
> "OldPhart" <> wrote
>
>> Didn't the Piper Pawnee carry the battery back there? I think there was
>> an issue of corrosion.
>
> For those planes that do, it is legal to carry a battery back there, but not
> added counterweight. To do so would void it's certification, and leave you
> holding the bag if you had a problem and the insurance company didn't want
> to pay. (which is nearly always)

Not if it was done legally. If you couldn't move weight around in a
plane you'd never be allowed to change avionics or anything else.

[Rich S.[_1_]]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Not if it was done legally. If you couldn't move weight around in a
> plane you'd never be allowed to change avionics or anything else.

If I remember correctly, the Ryan PT-22 had a 13# lead weight that was
installed in the tail during single-pilot operation. A friend of mine loads
a 25# bag of lead shot in the baggage compartment of his RV-4 when he's
solo.

Rich S.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Rich S." > wrote in message
. ..
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
>>
>> Not if it was done legally. If you couldn't move weight around in a
>> plane you'd never be allowed to change avionics or anything else.
>
> If I remember correctly, the Ryan PT-22 had a 13# lead weight that was
> installed in the tail during single-pilot operation. A friend of mine
> loads a 25# bag of lead shot in the baggage compartment of his RV-4 when
> he's solo.

The PT-22 was stressed to allow that weight, and the structure designed for
it. The baggage compartment is designed to handle weight, and in most, a
maximum weight for the baggage compartment is specified.

I would still maintain that you can not go throwing weight into areas of a
certified aircraft that it was not designed, and certified for. To do so
would go against every tenant of certified plane repair and modification.
--
Jim in NC

[Peter Dohm]

> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
> >
> > Well, that's one point, but you don't have freedom of movement in
> > three axes like an aerobatic aircraft. Thinkl about this question
> > seriously because in it you will find why personal aviation is nearly
> > dead.
>
> Well Bret if you know the reason you ought to tell us so we can maybe do
> something about it.
>
>
A decent amount of time having elapsed, it is now abundantly clear that Bret
knows no more than the rest of us.

We were so hopefull and, now, our hopes are dashed!

Peter :-(

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 04:37:09 -0700, Denny > wrote:

>Owned a 57 Lane... Yup, you developed real upper body strength after a
>few hundred landings, pulling that yoke all the way to your chin...
>Never thought it was a problem, though...
>
And a "Balked Landing" is just like doing pushups! <:-))

Roger
>denny

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:37:20 -0700, Bret Ludwig >
wrote:

>On Aug 28, 9:47 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>> > The T-34 is the airplane people WANT. Study Trade-A-Plane.
>>
>> > And it isn't even a particularly good airplane.
>>
>> > Study too why MOTORCYCLING is very successful with huge market growth
>> > in the last 50 years and GA is not. Despite being even more
>> > dangerous. Let me know what you think it is. Hint: The Usual Reason
>> > is horse**** and I can prove it.
>>
>> I'm too damned lazy to study it, but just assumed it was ecause you can can
>> drive your motorcycle to the nearest bar, blip the throttle a cople of
>> times, and strut inside...
>>
>
> Well, that's one point, but you don't have freedom of movement in
>three axes like an aerobatic aircraft. Thinkl about this question
>seriously because in it you will find why personal aviation is nearly

You have to learn how to fly. On a bike you only need to learn where
the gear positions, brakes, and starter are located.


>dead.

[Bret Ludwig]

>
> IMHO, the weight limits on Light Sport are the totally unreasonable
> determination of a bunch of desk jockeys. At the very least, they should
> have accomodated the weights of two seat basic trainers commonly made and
> used in the United States. The cost to build and maintain an aircraft of
> 750KG gross weigth would not be substantially more than for a 600KG
> aircraft--and would very likely be less. In attition, it would have put
> more companies and craftsmen back to work here in the USA.


Someone else said the utterly obvious ten years ago-if a light
airplane is arbitrarily defined at 12,500 lbs, an ultralight ought to
be 1250 lbs.

[Bret Ludwig]

On Aug 30, 9:59 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
> > > Well, that's one point, but you don't have freedom of movement in
> > > three axes like an aerobatic aircraft. Thinkl about this question
> > > seriously because in it you will find why personal aviation is nearly
> > > dead.
>
> > Well Bret if you know the reason you ought to tell us so we can maybe do
> > something about it.
>
> A decent amount of time having elapsed, it is now abundantly clear that Bret
> knows no more than the rest of us.
>
> We were so hopefull and, now, our hopes are dashed!


Oh, sorry. Got busy with other things. Well, I'm not sure it accounts
for all of it, but motorcycles were subject to severe social
opprobrium in the 50s and 60s. Outlaw motorcycle outfits that
terrorized the populace and the cultural treatment of same allowed
the Japanese companies to market their "safe, inoffensive, and
economical" products as a counterpoint. The yuppie fascination with
Harleys would not exist today if they didn't conjure up images of the
forbidden, in doctors and accountants whose fathers would have whipped
their ass if they had bought one in high school.

Cessna and Piper and Beech put out all that horse**** about the light
airplane as a business tool. People don't want them as a business
tool, they want to play fighter pilot. Light aircraft are generally
speaking worthless for business use. That's the purview of crew
operated miniature airliners and turbine helicopters. When the rich
started getting richer faster under Senileman and Bush I the market
for toys and collectibles of all kinds exploded, but Wichita went
into a recession. The reason was that Wichita, a town in which I have
spent way too much time, is loaded with fundamentalist morons and
idiot kids who prefer driving lowriders up and down Kellogg at 3" AGL
to learning to fly.

http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_082307.htm

[Peter Dohm]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Aug 30, 9:59 am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > > Bret Ludwig wrote:
> >
> > > > Well, that's one point, but you don't have freedom of movement in
> > > > three axes like an aerobatic aircraft. Thinkl about this question
> > > > seriously because in it you will find why personal aviation is
nearly
> > > > dead.
> >
> > > Well Bret if you know the reason you ought to tell us so we can maybe
do
> > > something about it.
> >
> > A decent amount of time having elapsed, it is now abundantly clear that
Bret
> > knows no more than the rest of us.
> >
> > We were so hopefull and, now, our hopes are dashed!
>
>
> Oh, sorry. Got busy with other things. Well, I'm not sure it accounts
> for all of it, but motorcycles were subject to severe social
> opprobrium in the 50s and 60s. Outlaw motorcycle outfits that
> terrorized the populace and the cultural treatment of same allowed
> the Japanese companies to market their "safe, inoffensive, and
> economical" products as a counterpoint. The yuppie fascination with
> Harleys would not exist today if they didn't conjure up images of the
> forbidden, in doctors and accountants whose fathers would have whipped
> their ass if they had bought one in high school.
>
> Cessna and Piper and Beech put out all that horse**** about the light
> airplane as a business tool. People don't want them as a business
> tool, they want to play fighter pilot. Light aircraft are generally
> speaking worthless for business use. That's the purview of crew
> operated miniature airliners and turbine helicopters. When the rich
> started getting richer faster under Senileman and Bush I the market
> for toys and collectibles of all kinds exploded, but Wichita went
> into a recession. The reason was that Wichita, a town in which I have
> spent way too much time, is loaded with fundamentalist morons and
> idiot kids who prefer driving lowriders up and down Kellogg at 3" AGL
> to learning to fly.
>
> http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_082307.htm
>
>
>
Wow!

There is a lot there with which to dissagree and much of it is a diatribe of
party politics, way off topic, and extremely bigotted as well.

However, it does also illustrate a current marketing adage: "People decide
on emotion and then they justify their decisions with logic."

"You meet the nicest people on a Honda" was certainly a successful marketing
campaign. However, much of the social stigma attached to motorcycles may
have resulted from their use as props in action/adventure movies of the
1950's. The war was over, and new villains and new props may have been
easier to obtain than new and untested plots. IMHO, motorcycles may have
simply resumed their earlier place in the transportation and recreation mix.
Of course, the Harley Davidson policy of restricting production to support
the resale value of thier recent production did help to support the logic
with which the customers justified their purchase.

Piper and Beech are exactly correct about the use of light planes as
business tools, and it would be even better if they cost half as much; but
the cost part is only relevant to the trade-in and move-up market. The real
problem is that the cost justification is only the SECOND half of the
decision process--which leaves the basic emotional marketing issue
unresolved.

Peter

[Bret Ludwig]

> Piper and Beech are exactly correct about the use of light planes as
> business tools, and it would be even better if they cost half as much; but
> the cost part is only relevant to the trade-in and move-up market. The real
> problem is that the cost justification is only the SECOND half of the
> decision process--which leaves the basic emotional marketing issue
> unresolved.

There are legitimate utility and commercial uses of light recip
aircraft as we all know, Alaskan bush flying, pipeline patrol, a great
number of things but all niche and fairly limited markets. The kind of
"business flying" the lightplane people were pushing for decades-
flying for sales and meeting purposes, etc, is patent horse****. LIGHT
AIRCRAFT ARE TOYS. When a single pilot Cat II or IIIA approved known
icing approved light twin with single lever power control meeting
transport category single engine takeoff minimums can be had for less
than ten times the annualized cost of first class airline
tickets....we may reappraise this statement.

A motorcycle and a light aircraft have EXACTLY the same justification
and EXACTLY the same business utilization. An airplane is probably
properly more expensive but not twenty or even ten times. You ought to
be able to buy a two seat day VFR airplane for less than a Corvette,
very certainly. But it should be fully aerobatic and climb out at a
smart angle at an impressive rate of climb and make a lot of noise.