What GA needs

[Andrew Sarangan]

This is a follow-on to the various discussions on the future of GA.

Why aren't the kids who grew up with cell phones and iPods not
interested in aviation?

One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly. If we could only
drive a1975 Chevy Nova or something similar, with bolted down wooden
panels and foggy instruments, I doubt many teenagers would be earger
to get their drivers license.

The second aspect is the fascination pilots seem to have with war
equipment, and the yearning for the 'good ol days'. Many pilots look
at a WW2 airplane like a B17 as if it were a technological marvel.
That may be true, but it just doesn't connect with the new generation.
Even though I am not from the iPod generation, I too found this
fascination with war equipment rather strange. Perhaps it is because
no one in my anscestry participated in the war.

How many kids do you see hanging around at antique car shows? Airports
are not too far from being an antique museum.

Aviation technology has marched on in great strides in the past 50
years. But almost all of the modernization has occured due to the
advancement in electronics. This is the only aspect that keeps some of
us still interested in aviation. That includes VOR, GPS, satellite
weather, flight planning tools, electronic charts, glass panels etc..
The mechanical aspects have been stagnant. All these modern
electronics are still housed in ancient aluminum panels that are
riveted togother. They creak and vibrate, and the engines consume
leaded fuel and puff out smoke and oil, and have frightening gas
mileage.

In order to appeal to the next generation, this is what I think we
need:
- a small turbine engine suitable for GA aircraft with fewer moving
parts and smoother operation
- gas mileage comparable to an SUV
- a fully composite airframe
- molded aesthetic interiors
- cost about 2-3x the price of a luxury car

The list is very ambitious, but we are on the right path with LSA.
What is still seriously lacking is the powerplant.
I would really like to see is a small turbine engine. I don't mean
salvaged APUs. It has to be something that is designed from the bottom
up as a GA powerplant.

Any comments?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> This is a follow-on to the various discussions on the future of GA.
>
> Why aren't the kids who grew up with cell phones and iPods not
> interested in aviation?
>
> One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly. If we could only
> drive a1975 Chevy Nova or something similar, with bolted down wooden
> panels and foggy instruments, I doubt many teenagers would be earger
> to get their drivers license.
>
> The second aspect is the fascination pilots seem to have with war
> equipment, and the yearning for the 'good ol days'. Many pilots look
> at a WW2 airplane like a B17 as if it were a technological marvel.
> That may be true, but it just doesn't connect with the new generation.
> Even though I am not from the iPod generation, I too found this
> fascination with war equipment rather strange. Perhaps it is because
> no one in my anscestry participated in the war.
>
> How many kids do you see hanging around at antique car shows? Airports
> are not too far from being an antique museum.
>
> Aviation technology has marched on in great strides in the past 50
> years. But almost all of the modernization has occured due to the
> advancement in electronics. This is the only aspect that keeps some of
> us still interested in aviation. That includes VOR, GPS, satellite
> weather, flight planning tools, electronic charts, glass panels etc..
> The mechanical aspects have been stagnant. All these modern
> electronics are still housed in ancient aluminum panels that are
> riveted togother. They creak and vibrate, and the engines consume
> leaded fuel and puff out smoke and oil, and have frightening gas
> mileage.
>
> In order to appeal to the next generation, this is what I think we
> need:
> - a small turbine engine suitable for GA aircraft with fewer moving
> parts and smoother operation
> - gas mileage comparable to an SUV
> - a fully composite airframe
> - molded aesthetic interiors
> - cost about 2-3x the price of a luxury car
>
> The list is very ambitious, but we are on the right path with LSA.
> What is still seriously lacking is the powerplant.
> I would really like to see is a small turbine engine. I don't mean
> salvaged APUs. It has to be something that is designed from the bottom
> up as a GA powerplant.
>
> Any comments?
>

If all that was available for my 16 year old and his friends was a 75 Nova
there would be lots of them in the driveways of homes today. A drivers
license for a 16 year old isn't about the car as much as it is about
freedom. Sure kids are spoiled now and a 75 Nova would be tough to sell but
if there was nothing else and the other kids only had 75 Novas, don't kid
yourself they would be all over them.

While I agree that we need a modern aircraft at a "reasonable price" let's
keep in mind that the vast majority of youngsters that you think are
choosing not to fly because of the technology have never been close enough
to the current airplanes to even see the technology. I have little doubt
that the average 17 year old kid thinks the inside of the average GA plane
looks like the cockpit of a 777.

Point by point...

Small Turbine: I'd love it but the volume just isn't there for a clean sheet
design. Our best bet is an APU that has been reworked. And don't think
turbines are the end all be all of simplicity. I watched a while back hot
start his new Jet Ranger. That was a $80K error on his part.

Gas Mileage: Lots of aircraft approach that. The only problem is once you
get where you are going you still need the SUV.

Composites: All depends on the aircraft you design. If you design it without
complex curves good old aluminum will often be just as light. Add to that
you can let an AL aircraft live outside a hanger.

Interiors: Weight, and weight. It will always be an issue.

Cost: 3 x $50,000= $150K. We're there if you count the LSA planes. and for
$150K you can by a pretty damn nice certified aircraft.

There's something else there and I'm not sure what it is. In WWII how many
pilots were trained by the US? We've been in a war in Iraq since 2003 how
many pilots has the US Military trained in that time?

Let's face it in the post WWII USA airline pilots were considered at the
high end of the cool scale. Now, not so much.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:

> This is a follow-on to the various discussions on the future of GA.
>
> Why aren't the kids who grew up with cell phones and iPods not
> interested in aviation?
>
(rest snipped for brevity)

I think you've hit on a big reason already. iPods, internet computing and
such are passive involvements that require little in the way of
commitment, education, sacrifice, and focus. In short, just the opposite
of what is required to get actively involved in GA.

Beyond that, the barriers to entry have increased significantly in the
last couple of decades due to many factors, including an overly-litigious
society and urban sprawl. One way that interests can grow into active
involvements is through incremental experiences. When I was a kid,
although we lived in large cities, there were plenty of public places to
fly model planes within walking distance of our house. Today, I don't know
of one place within an hour's drive to do that. There isn't even a decent
hobby shop in our city from which to buy materials or kits to build flying
model planes. It makes it tough to maintain interest if you can't have
positive experiences along the way.

Neil

[Ken Finney]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> This is a follow-on to the various discussions on the future of GA.
>
> Why aren't the kids who grew up with cell phones and iPods not
> interested in aviation?
>
> One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly. If we could only
> drive a1975 Chevy Nova or something similar, with bolted down wooden
> panels and foggy instruments, I doubt many teenagers would be earger
> to get their drivers license.
>
> The second aspect is the fascination pilots seem to have with war
> equipment, and the yearning for the 'good ol days'. Many pilots look
> at a WW2 airplane like a B17 as if it were a technological marvel.
> That may be true, but it just doesn't connect with the new generation.
> Even though I am not from the iPod generation, I too found this
> fascination with war equipment rather strange. Perhaps it is because
> no one in my anscestry participated in the war.
>
> How many kids do you see hanging around at antique car shows? Airports
> are not too far from being an antique museum.
>
> Aviation technology has marched on in great strides in the past 50
> years. But almost all of the modernization has occured due to the
> advancement in electronics. This is the only aspect that keeps some of
> us still interested in aviation. That includes VOR, GPS, satellite
> weather, flight planning tools, electronic charts, glass panels etc..
> The mechanical aspects have been stagnant. All these modern
> electronics are still housed in ancient aluminum panels that are
> riveted togother. They creak and vibrate, and the engines consume
> leaded fuel and puff out smoke and oil, and have frightening gas
> mileage.
>
> In order to appeal to the next generation, this is what I think we
> need:
> - a small turbine engine suitable for GA aircraft with fewer moving
> parts and smoother operation
> - gas mileage comparable to an SUV
> - a fully composite airframe
> - molded aesthetic interiors
> - cost about 2-3x the price of a luxury car
>
> The list is very ambitious, but we are on the right path with LSA.
> What is still seriously lacking is the powerplant.
> I would really like to see is a small turbine engine. I don't mean
> salvaged APUs. It has to be something that is designed from the bottom
> up as a GA powerplant.
>
> Any comments?
>

Thanks for jump-starting this discussion again.

Comments, not in any particular order:
1. When I started attending fly-ins, the first impression was the decrepit
state of the airport facilities. Most of the buildings/hangers were built
in the 1930s through 1950s, and many of them look like they haven't been
painted since.

2. Since I've since gotten used to the facilities, the next impression is
the demographics: a bunch of grumpy old men. I have no doubt that when
these same individuals are talking cars, they talk about how the 1958 Chevy
ruined the automobile, or when talking politics, how Kennedy was a traitor
and deserved to be assissinated.

3. I wish LSAs hadn't been prohibited from using turbines, even if a good
one to use isn't available now.

4. I just put up a longwire antenna for my shortwave, I still think being
able to hear news from a long was away is a pretty cool thing; basically,
ZERO kids do. But a subset do find the technical aspects of propogation
interesting. Ham radio and shortware used to be exotic, they aren't
anymore. When long distance phone calls were $5 for 3 minutes, long
distance was exotic, it isn't anymore. Aviation isn't exotic anymore, but
pitching the personal achievement aspect of it will get (some) kids
interested. I'm not sure pitching the "utility" of GA works, anymore the
pitching the utility of a $20,000 bass boat does, while Safeway is having a
seafood sale this week.

5. As for your specific points, I think a small turbine is always going to
cost more that a piston engine, we are there on mileage, composites,
interiors, and pretty close to there on price.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> This is a follow-on to the various discussions on the future of GA.
>
> Why aren't the kids who grew up with cell phones and iPods not
> interested in aviation?
>
> One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly. If we could only
> drive a1975 Chevy Nova or something similar, with bolted down wooden
> panels and foggy instruments, I doubt many teenagers would be earger
> to get their drivers license.
>
> The second aspect is the fascination pilots seem to have with war
> equipment, and the yearning for the 'good ol days'. Many pilots look
> at a WW2 airplane like a B17 as if it were a technological marvel.
> That may be true, but it just doesn't connect with the new generation.
> Even though I am not from the iPod generation, I too found this
> fascination with war equipment rather strange. Perhaps it is because
> no one in my anscestry participated in the war.
>
> How many kids do you see hanging around at antique car shows? Airports
> are not too far from being an antique museum.
>
> Aviation technology has marched on in great strides in the past 50
> years. But almost all of the modernization has occured due to the
> advancement in electronics. This is the only aspect that keeps some of
> us still interested in aviation. That includes VOR, GPS, satellite
> weather, flight planning tools, electronic charts, glass panels etc..
> The mechanical aspects have been stagnant. All these modern
> electronics are still housed in ancient aluminum panels that are
> riveted togother. They creak and vibrate, and the engines consume
> leaded fuel and puff out smoke and oil, and have frightening gas
> mileage.
>
> In order to appeal to the next generation, this is what I think we
> need:
> - a small turbine engine suitable for GA aircraft with fewer moving
> parts and smoother operation
> - gas mileage comparable to an SUV
> - a fully composite airframe
> - molded aesthetic interiors
> - cost about 2-3x the price of a luxury car
>
> The list is very ambitious, but we are on the right path with LSA.
> What is still seriously lacking is the powerplant.
> I would really like to see is a small turbine engine. I don't mean
> salvaged APUs. It has to be something that is designed from the bottom
> up as a GA powerplant.
>
> Any comments?
>

"Small Turbine" and "Gas mileage" - you only get one - the thermodynamics
just don't support both without real exotic materials.

Other than that, though...


--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Dave J]

On Sep 10, 3:07 pm, Andrew Sarangan > wrote:

> Any comments?

First, my "kid" credentials: 34 years old, heavy internet user, geek
extraordinaire. I'm an instrument-rated private pilot. I think it's
also relevant that my pilot training was self-financed starting at the
age of 26 or so. I am not a home owner, not an aircraft owner, not a
business owner, not independently wealthy.

I learned to fly because it was a dream I had since I was a boy, and
during the boom years in Silicon Valley I was making enough (salary,
not equity) to be able to learn to fly. I rent from a local club in
Palo Alto (Sundance) that, like almost all such clubs, has mostly the
so-called grumpy old men members. I have never taken the controls of
an aircraft that did not smell like somebody's grandpa.

Even as someone who is *into* aviation, it is simply not affordable,
and its also not all that useful. I live in California, and there are
airports galore (I've been to a *lot* of them!) but when I get to the
airport I am usually stuck. Renting a car is a necessity, and often
enough not even a possibility. Cost and utility are interrelated, of
course. I've got the instrument rating, and I keep it up -- legally --
but seriously, it would cost a lot of money to keep it up to a level
of proficiency to make it truly useful. And the equipment that I can
rent for $100/hr isn't exactly hard-IFR faith inspiring, either. I
have never flown behind a panel mount GPS. I dutifully pop all those
new RNAV approaches into my book every two weeks, and wonder who the
hell is able to use these? Nobody in my club!

Of course, it's easier to come up with problems than solutions. I will
tell you one thing that is not a solution: Cirrus aircraft and their
like. GA is in a CLASSIC death-spiral: companies are moving to their
high-end customers to maintain adequate margins. Cirrus's and others'
$450k+ aircraft are not doing a damned bit to save GA. This trend to
make new, high tech, high-end toys will only speed the erasure of GA.
On the other hand, Garmin *is* doing something to help GA. The fact
is, the new glass cockpits are much more capable than the old steam
gauges (or so I've read :) ) but cost about the same -- or less. That
is real progress -- getting aircraft back onto a technology curve.

If Ly/Co could somehow get back on a real product improvement curve,
that would be something to hope for, too. I don't know if turbine is
the solution. I'd say something more akin to Jabiru/Rotax is.

The LSAs, well, since they're all hovering around six figures and
above, I'm not sure who they're supposed to appeal to, either.

There is another thing that could help GA. Imagine this (admittedly
not particularly well thought-out) scenario:
-- wealthy boomers eventually die out
-- without stream of wealthy customers, GA airframe manufacturers
also die out
-- industry goes into a coma for a decade or so
-- investors re-discover aviation, buy assets of said manufacturers
for pennies on the dollar
-- new, more modest A/C designs emerge that more people can
participate in
-- GA, reborn as something that the reasonably affluent (not just
rich) can participate in

This only works if in the meantime airport closures, user fees,
insurance requirements, etc, don't make a revival impossible.

My $0.0n,
-- dave j

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> This is a follow-on to the various discussions on the future of GA.
>
> Why aren't the kids who grew up with cell phones and iPods not
> interested in aviation?

Maybe because they are overwhelmed with things to keep them entertained,
24x7, and we live in a socity in which challenging yourself is not
encouraged.

>
> One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly. If we could only
> drive a1975 Chevy Nova or something similar, with bolted down wooden
> panels and foggy instruments, I doubt many teenagers would be earger
> to get their drivers license.

That might be part of it, but I'd say it was pretty much insignificant. The
newer 172s and 182s are a good foundation, and even their costs are minor
for a generation that thinks nothing of $150 sneakers, a $20000 Honda Civic
with fart mufflers, $300 a wheel rims and other trim "features".

Possibly our own Mxmaniac is more representative of the current generation
than we realize.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Sep 10, 6:28 pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way
d0t com> wrote:
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is a follow-on to the various discussions on the future of GA.
>
> > Why aren't the kids who grew up with cell phones and iPods not
> > interested in aviation?
>
> > One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly. If we could only
> > drive a1975 Chevy Nova or something similar, with bolted down wooden
> > panels and foggy instruments, I doubt many teenagers would be earger
> > to get their drivers license.
>
> > The second aspect is the fascination pilots seem to have with war
> > equipment, and the yearning for the 'good ol days'. Many pilots look
> > at a WW2 airplane like a B17 as if it were a technological marvel.
> > That may be true, but it just doesn't connect with the new generation.
> > Even though I am not from the iPod generation, I too found this
> > fascination with war equipment rather strange. Perhaps it is because
> > no one in my anscestry participated in the war.
>
> > How many kids do you see hanging around at antique car shows? Airports
> > are not too far from being an antique museum.
>
> > Aviation technology has marched on in great strides in the past 50
> > years. But almost all of the modernization has occured due to the
> > advancement in electronics. This is the only aspect that keeps some of
> > us still interested in aviation. That includes VOR, GPS, satellite
> > weather, flight planning tools, electronic charts, glass panels etc..
> > The mechanical aspects have been stagnant. All these modern
> > electronics are still housed in ancient aluminum panels that are
> > riveted togother. They creak and vibrate, and the engines consume
> > leaded fuel and puff out smoke and oil, and have frightening gas
> > mileage.
>
> > In order to appeal to the next generation, this is what I think we
> > need:
> > - a small turbine engine suitable for GA aircraft with fewer moving
> > parts and smoother operation
> > - gas mileage comparable to an SUV
> > - a fully composite airframe
> > - molded aesthetic interiors
> > - cost about 2-3x the price of a luxury car
>
> > The list is very ambitious, but we are on the right path with LSA.
> > What is still seriously lacking is the powerplant.
> > I would really like to see is a small turbine engine. I don't mean
> > salvaged APUs. It has to be something that is designed from the bottom
> > up as a GA powerplant.
>
> > Any comments?
>
> "Small Turbine" and "Gas mileage" - you only get one - the thermodynamics
> just don't support both without real exotic materials.
>
> Other than that, though...
>
> --

I have heard that argument many times, but I have never seen that
thermodynamic argument presented. I just borrowed the book on Aircraft
Gas Turbine Engines from the library and plan to read it to find out
what the real story is. My suspicion is that the limitation is in the
materials, not thermodynamics. It may take a significant investment,
but if the military is also interested in similar things it won't be
that hard to find the R&D suppport. I've heard that small turbines are
of interest to the Air Force for potential use in UAVs. A UAV and a
small GA airplane are not that far apart. In fact, the predator is
using the Rotax 914 engine which is a very popular GA engine. A small
turbine may sound far fetched now, but I am sure GPS also sounded far
fetched 20 years ago, but became commonplace after heavy military
investment.

Having said that, I know of at least two companies working on small
turbines. One is Innodyn, and the other one is M-dot. The latter one I
believe has some DoD contracts to be build turbines for UAVs. I doubt
these companies would even exist if the basic physics is flawed.

[Dave J]

> Maybe because they are overwhelmed with things to keep them entertained,
> 24x7, and we live in a socity in which challenging yourself is not
> encouraged.

I think the armies of kids cramming for the SATs, busting their butts
to get precious scholarships to get them through college without a
debt, etc, are challenging themselves just fine. I don't know how old
you are, but I hazard to guess that kids today are growing up in a
more competitive environment than any time in modern history.

It's not challenge. If anything, it's risk/reward.

Oh, and by the way, you can kill yourself in an airplane, which, to my
knowledge, has not happened with an iPod. Could be wrong on that. :)

> > One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly.
>
> That might be part of it, but I'd say it was pretty much insignificant. The
> newer 172s and 182s are a good foundation, and even their costs are minor
> for a generation that thinks nothing of $150 sneakers, a $20000 Honda Civic
> with fart mufflers, $300 a wheel rims and other trim "features".

Wha? that $150 pair of sneakers is going to get you what, 3/4 of an
hour in a new 172? How many sneakers do you think kids today are
buying? My flying habit, at its max has been about 100 hours a year in
30-year-old 172's and Cherokees. That's been roughly $10,000/yr all
told. That's the same cost as the Honda, *gone* in two years. At least
with the Honda, you've got a car at the end of two years.

Look, I *love* aviation. I suspect you do, too. But I don't think we
can build aviation's future on people who just love airplanes. You
need to get people who, well, just "kinda like" airplanes and might
even find them useful sometimes.

> Possibly our own Mxmaniac is more representative of the current generation
> than we realize.

He is somewhat, and I believe I am somewhat. I don't know mxmanic's
background. I suspect he works in the computer business. I am a
computer engineer (I don't program computers, I design their chips).
I've worked hard to be skilled at my craft. In fact, I like becoming
skilled at crafts. That's a lot of the fun for me -- hence aviation!

But I struggle to find time and cash to keep this hobby up. Lately, I
have rediscovered digital photography. I can't help but notice that it
also is a skill and craft, with plenty of technical stuff to nail
down, and even at its most expensive, it's a lot cheaper than
aviation. And my wife does not worry about me getting killed taking
photos. There's an appeal to that.

-- dave j

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Barrow" wrote

> The newer 172s and 182s are a good foundation, and even their costs are
> minor for a generation that thinks nothing of $150 sneakers, a $20000
> Honda Civic with fart mufflers, $300 a wheel rims and other trim
> "features".

I think you are way off base, with that.

$150 shoes are not a large part of monthly income. $20000 cars are getting
towards a large part, but a car is a necessity. The tastes direct them
towards fart mufflers, but a newer car is going to cost that much.

How much income is going to be left over, for an average person. Could they
take a hit for another $20000 airplane? Doubtful, but possible.

How about one twice as much. Doubtful to slim, to none.

The real rub is that there are few (what people consider a real airplane)
airplanes out there at $40000. That is plain out of reach, for most kids,
or young people starting a family. It just can't be done.

Airplanes are out of reach. Until that primary fact changes, (I don't think
it is going to) GA has little chance.
--
Jim in NC

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Sep 10, 6:28 pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way
> d0t com> wrote:
<...>>
>> "Small Turbine" and "Gas mileage" - you only get one - the thermodynamics
>> just don't support both without real exotic materials.
>>
>> Other than that, though...
>>
>> --
>
> I have heard that argument many times, but I have never seen that
> thermodynamic argument presented. I just borrowed the book on Aircraft
> Gas Turbine Engines from the library and plan to read it to find out
> what the real story is. My suspicion is that the limitation is in the
> materials, not thermodynamics. It may take a significant investment,

That's why I said "without real exotic materials"

The materials limit the maximum termperatures. The maximum temperatures
limit the maximum efficiency. Also "small" (and I assume "reasonable cost")
rule out regenerators to capture some of the waste heat (common on
stationary applications)

> but if the military is also interested in similar things it won't be
> that hard to find the R&D suppport. I've heard that small turbines are
> of interest to the Air Force for potential use in UAVs. A UAV and a
> small GA airplane are not that far apart. In fact, the predator is

True, but the military tends to care less about fuel cost and more about
being able to use the same fuel in everything so if you have fuel, you have
fuel.

There were a number of programs in the 60's for turbines and direct
injection piston engines that would run on "any fuel' that was available...

<...>
> Having said that, I know of at least two companies working on small
> turbines. One is Innodyn, and the other one is M-dot. The latter one I
> believe has some DoD contracts to be build turbines for UAVs. I doubt
> these companies would even exist if the basic physics is flawed.
>

Nothing wrong with the physics. Small turbines work. And for some
applications they have big adavantages. Fuel quantity per horsepower-hour,
however, isn't one of them.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Dave J]

On Sep 10, 7:43 pm, "Matt Barrow" >
wrote:

> Possibly our own Mxmaniac is more representative of the current generation
> than we realize.

By the way, cheap intergenerational shots don't help to bring in new
customers, either!

-- dave j

[[email protected]]

As I look at a high-school parking lot, there's so many cars I and
friends in "my day" would not be seen dead in. If this translates to
airplanes, yoots today may not be interested in this kind of
machinery. It's even true for older people, where so many SUVs have
zero styling, and few convertibles or sport models available and sold
in high numbers.

F--

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:42:16 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>While I agree that we need a modern aircraft at a "reasonable price" let's
>keep in mind that the vast majority of youngsters that you think are
>choosing not to fly because of the technology have never been close enough
>to the current airplanes to even see the technology.


So the next time the local municipal airport holds an open house for
the public, they should be sure ample leaflets are available at the
local K-12 student campuses. Even better would be a brief
presentation personally inviting everyone to take a reasonably priced
introductory flight.

And there need to be large 'Public Welcome' banners flying around the
airport to attract motorists. Too often these sorts of inexpensive,
but effective marketing are overlooked.

From what I've seen, usually the attendance at these events is largely
made up of aviators and others associated with the airport, not new
blood.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:29:13 GMT, "Ken Finney"
> wrote in >:

>Aviation isn't exotic anymore,

Perhaps not, but seed sown the magical moment when a kid experiences
leaving the pavement during his first introductory flight in a Cessna
152 will blossom in the future when his situation is ready for it.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:42:21 -0000, Dave J
> wrote in
om>:

>I will
>tell you one thing that is not a solution: Cirrus aircraft and their
>like. GA is in a CLASSIC death-spiral: companies are moving to their
>high-end customers to maintain adequate margins. Cirrus's and others'
>$450k+ aircraft are not doing a damned bit to save GA.

That sort of depends on how you define the future of GA. The FAA sees
GA as a source of air-taxi passenger movers, so that airlines can
utilize more airports. That is Cirrus' future market: air-taxi
operators.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:06:34 -0700, Andrew Sarangan
> wrote in
. com>:

>A small turbine may sound far fetched now, but ...

There seem to be lots of small turbine engines available now, and
they're getting bigger:


http://www.gasturbine.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/page2.htm

Cobra Facts and Figures
Thrust............................................ ....... ...163N
Weight............................................ .........3.1 Kg
Pressure ratio at max rpm.........................3.0
Max rpm..............................................1 05,000 rpm
Idle speed............................................3 0,000 rpm
Max exhaust gas temp..............................640 degrees C
Mass flow.............................................. ..0.31 kg/s
Specific Fuel Consumption (Propane).......0.8 Kg/N/Hr
Lubrication.......Total loss system, Aeroshell 390 pressurised
from compressor bleed.
length including jet pipe............................444 mm
Maximum width.......................................197 mm

The Worlds Smallest Jet Aircraft Powered by two Cobra Engines


--------------------------------------------------
http://www.gtba.co.uk/
THE GAS TURBINE BUILDERS ASSOCIATION

http://www.gtba.co.uk/engine_designs/index.htm?PHPSESSID=e3fd7126e6476edffee88e9bec894a 04
Homebuilt engine designs


-------------------------------------
http://www.wrenturbines.co.uk/
http://www.wrenturbines.co.uk/product.php?pid=6
XL200 - AutostartStatistics Thrust 15kg
(33lbs)
Size 274mm x 120mm
(11in x 4.8in)
Weight 1800g
(4lbs)
Fuel Consumption 494ml/min
Advanced Statistics Click Here
Buy This Package Now for £2300
------------------

http://www.swbturbines.com/
http://www.swbturbines.com/products/products.htm
SWB-100SWB Proudly Announces the birth of our newest turbine the
SWB-100. Actually producing 107 lb/ft thrust, this is one of the
largest and most powerful turbines produced by SWB. This turbine
is designed for professional large scale UAV applications. The
engine has been extensively tested in our test cell using industry
standard turbine testing procedures. The testing and qualification
stages of this turbine engine are done. The engine is available
for delivery, call today for more details.

-----------------------------------------

http://www.heward-microjets.co.uk/engines_wasp1h20.shtml
WASP 1 H20 SPECIFICATIONS

When correctly constructed:
Max Thrust:
18-20 lb
8.1-9.07 kg

Engine weight:
2 lb
950 gr

Engine weight with starter:
2.4 lb
1090 gr

Max RPM:
148,000 RPM

Fuel consumption @ max RPM:
260 ml/min
200 gr/min

Diameter:
3.74 in
95 mm

Length:
6.69 in
175 mm

Length with starter:
9.64 in
245 mm


The Wasp 1 H20 is specially designed as a homebuild engine. The
complete kit comes with a comprehensive and detailed Drawings and
Instruction Manual which gives full instructions for the
construction of each and every part of the engine. The
construction manual can be purchased seperately and delivered by
post or emailed as a PDF.

If you do not wish to make the parts yourself, you may purchase
them either individually or as a set. All parts are fully machined
and ready for assembly. The price list of parts are as follows:
...

The complete kit package comprising all parts required to build a
Wasp 1 engine is priced at ONLY £899. This introductory offer is
for a limited time only. Place your orders early to avoid
disappointment.

------------------------------

http://www.amtjets.com/mk2hpes/mk2-hp.html

Specifications Olympus HP E-start:

Engine diameter:
Engine length:
Engine weight:
Electronic Control Unit:
Fuel pump:
Gas bottle:
Flight Battery:
2 solenoid valves:
System airborne weight:

130 mm / 5.1 inches
375 mm / 14.7 inches
2850 Gram / 100 oz
110 Gram / 3.9 oz
170 Gram / 6.0 oz
95 Gram / 3.3 oz
350 Gram / 12.4 oz
80 Gram / 2.8 oz
---------------------------------
3685 Gram / 128.4 oz
Thrust @ max. rpm@ STP (15 Deg.C/1013 Mbar):
Maximum RPM:
Idle RPM:
Mass flow @ max. rpm:
Normal EGT :
Maximum EGT:
Fuel consumption @ max. rpm:
Fuel type:
Throttle response from Idle RPM to Max RPM:
Throttle response from 30% throttle to Max RPM:
Throttle response from 50% throttle to Max RPM:

E-start time:
23,5 Kilogram force / 51.7 Lbf
108,500
36,000
450 gr/sec. / 0.99 Lb/sec.
700 °C / 1290 °F
775 °C / 1380 °F
640 gr/min. / 22.5 oz/min.
JP-4/paraffin/Jet A1, mixed with 4,5% Oil
3.5 Seconds.
1.5 Seconds.
0.5 Second.

10-15 seconds*

* Fuel system primed from last engine run.
Time measured from ignition to reaching idle RPM.
Fully charged Nicad battery.
Propane as starting gas.
€ 4.705,00

---------------------------------

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article om>,
> Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>
>> - a small turbine engine suitable for GA aircraft with fewer moving
>> parts and smoother operation
>
> I had a very good discussion at AirVenture 2007 with one of the people
> in the Williams tent. My question to him was what was Williams' side of
> the story with regards to the decision by Eclipse to drop their engine.
> The jist of his response was that Eclipse refused to accept that just
> because a jet engine is small doesn't mean it cost less than one a
> little bigger.

That it could not develop the power/weight ration that the P&W did, in
accordance with Eclipse's first request. That the Williams effort ran into
numerous (?) problems pertaining to reliability, might have also been a
factor.

Sounds like Williams, great a company as they are, are making childish
excuses for NOT PERFORMING.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dave J" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
>> Maybe because they are overwhelmed with things to keep them entertained,
>> 24x7, and we live in a socity in which challenging yourself is not
>> encouraged.
>
> I think the armies of kids cramming for the SATs, busting their butts
> to get precious scholarships to get them through college without a
> debt, etc, are challenging themselves just fine.

Really? How many is that? How many cramming for a test that's been dumbed
down annually for thirty years?

> I don't know how old
> you are

52...been there.

>, but I hazard to guess that kids today are growing up in a
> more competitive environment than any time in modern history.

A couple generations ago, half of kids went to college. Now everyone has to
go, even though few are really qualfiied for a college curriculum. Note,
too, how many college seniors can't pass a test that junior high kids did
not too long ago.

As for "competitive", that's the last things are faced with - every one gets
a brass ring regardless of capability or effort.

>
> It's not challenge. If anything, it's risk/reward.

And the challenge is applying and dealing with those risk factors.

>
> Oh, and by the way, you can kill yourself in an airplane, which, to my
> knowledge, has not happened with an iPod. Could be wrong on that. :)

Well, you can certainly cook your brain matter.

>
>> > One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly.
>>
>> That might be part of it, but I'd say it was pretty much insignificant.
>> The
>> newer 172s and 182s are a good foundation, and even their costs are minor
>> for a generation that thinks nothing of $150 sneakers, a $20000 Honda
>> Civic
>> with fart mufflers, $300 a wheel rims and other trim "features".
>
> Wha? that $150 pair of sneakers is going to get you what, 3/4 of an
> hour in a new 172?

Around here, a two year old 172 goes for $105, wet.

> How many sneakers do you think kids today are
> buying?

A lot more than they did when a pair of sneakers cost $15 and a 172 went
$19/hr.

> My flying habit, at its max has been about 100 hours a year in
> 30-year-old 172's and Cherokees. That's been roughly $10,000/yr all
> told. That's the same cost as the Honda, *gone* in two years. At least
> with the Honda, you've got a car at the end of two years.

You know, I _think_ you just showed the attitude that may be behind the
dearth of new students.

>
> Look, I *love* aviation. I suspect you do, too. But I don't think we
> can build aviation's future on people who just love airplanes.

Practical allpication helps. I've average 350 hours/year the past nine
years. That's because I operate my business not as a local endeavor, but
across about half a million suare miles. Couldn't do that by car, by
airline, or even by the regionals. In sum, it's gives me a hell of an
advantage over my competitors (there's that competition thing again) who
want to still in their backwater towns and wait for business to knock on
their doors. Only way it could be done is by GA airplne, but that vehilcle
has to be very capable, reliable/dependable, and FAST.

> You
> need to get people who, well, just "kinda like" airplanes and might
> even find them useful sometimes.

As above, the USEFUL is the key; there are , as I pointed out, so many other
"hobbies" to participate in that are cheaper and, to someone NOT an airplane
lover, jsut as rewarding.

Yet, how rewarding is playing X-BOX?


>> Possibly our own Mxmaniac is more representative of the current
>> generation
>> than we realize.
>
> He is somewhat, and I believe I am somewhat. I don't know mxmanic's
> background. I suspect he works in the computer business. I am a
> computer engineer (I don't program computers, I design their chips).
> I've worked hard to be skilled at my craft. In fact, I like becoming
> skilled at crafts. That's a lot of the fun for me -- hence aviation!
>
> But I struggle to find time and cash to keep this hobby up.

You just hit on the major facet: COST. The other key word is: HOBBY.


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dave J" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Sep 10, 7:43 pm, "Matt Barrow" >
> wrote:
>
>> Possibly our own Mxmaniac is more representative of the current
>> generation
>> than we realize.
>
> By the way, cheap intergenerational shots don't help to bring in new
> customers, either!

With MX, there is no such thing as a Cheap Shot, intergenerational or
otherwise. Even his peers in terms of age disdain and ridicule him.

I think many, if not most, here don't want such a mentally defective lout in
the REAL air with us.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> As I look at a high-school parking lot, there's so many cars I and
> friends in "my day" would not be seen dead in. If this translates to
> airplanes, yoots today may not be interested in this kind of
> machinery. It's even true for older people, where so many SUVs have
> zero styling, and few convertibles or sport models available and sold
> in high numbers.
>
I notice quite a few built-up and re-built cars such as Honda Civic,
Mitsubishi Eclipse's and the like, rather akin to my day of tricked out
Mustangs and Camero's.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Sep 10, 6:28 pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way
> d0t com> wrote:
>>
>> "Small Turbine" and "Gas mileage" - you only get one - the thermodynamics
>> just don't support both without real exotic materials.
>>
>> Other than that, though...
>>
>> --
>
> I have heard that argument many times, but I have never seen that
> thermodynamic argument presented. I just borrowed the book on Aircraft
> Gas Turbine Engines from the library and plan to read it to find out
> what the real story is. My suspicion is that the limitation is in the
> materials, not thermodynamics.

Umm...that's what he said: "...real exotic materials".


> It may take a significant investment,
> but if the military is also interested in similar things it won't be
> that hard to find the R&D suppport. I've heard that small turbines are
> of interest to the Air Force for potential use in UAVs. A UAV and a
> small GA airplane are not that far apart. In fact, the predator is
> using the Rotax 914 engine which is a very popular GA engine. A small
> turbine may sound far fetched now, but I am sure GPS also sounded far
> fetched 20 years ago, but became commonplace after heavy military
> investment.
>
> Having said that, I know of at least two companies working on small
> turbines. One is Innodyn, and the other one is M-dot. The latter one I
> believe has some DoD contracts to be build turbines for UAVs. I doubt
> these companies would even exist if the basic physics is flawed.

It's not the physics, it's the COST of those PHYSICS.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in message
news:BuCdncDCBfMie3jbnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
> oups.com...

>
> Nothing wrong with the physics. Small turbines work. And for some
> applications they have big adavantages. Fuel quantity per horsepower-hour,
> however, isn't one of them.

The "New Wave" is much more likely to be diesel, especially given the 100LL
"crisis".

[Dave J]

On Sep 10, 6:52 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> That sort of depends on how you define the future of GA. The FAA sees
> GA as a source of air-taxi passenger movers, so that airlines can
> utilize more airports. That is Cirrus' future market: air-taxi
> operators.

I had not thought about that much, but you are right. It could be the
birth of a new industry. Still, I don't know why the editors at AOPA
Pilot and Flying, etc, get so excited over Columbias and Cirri. These
are nice aircraft, but are not in the reach of most flyers now, and
definitely not in the reach of the flyers necessary to revive GA, get
the volumes up, and get a "reverse death spiral" cooking.

-- dave j

[Dave J]

Matt,

I think you make some good points about education, and it is true that
more kids go to college than ever before. But there have always been
mediocre students and good students, people with varying talent,
energy, and skill. The mediocre today are perhaps going to school and
"passing" when in the past they would have done something else, and
"failed.

BUT, among all the good and bad students, there are also many more
good students, and the number of slots at good schools is not much
greater than in the past. Competition to get into elite universities
is more intense than ever.

The reason I think that's remotely relevant is simply because the
people who are going to learn to fly are, well, the above averages,
and they really do have more pressure on their time than in the past.


> > My flying habit, at its max has been about 100 hours a year in
> > 30-year-old 172's and Cherokees. That's been roughly $10,000/yr all
> > told. That's the same cost as the Honda, *gone* in two years. At least
> > with the Honda, you've got a car at the end of two years.
>
> You know, I _think_ you just showed the attitude that may be behind the
> dearth of new students.

I am not sure I follow what you mean. That people are more acquisitive
than they used to be? More into "stuff" and less into "experiences?"


> You just hit on the major facet: COST. The other key word is: HOBBY.

We're in violent agreement.

-- dave j

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Sep 10, 5:29 pm, "Ken Finney" > wrote:
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is a follow-on to the various discussions on the future of GA.
>
> > Why aren't the kids who grew up with cell phones and iPods not
> > interested in aviation?
>
> > One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly. If we could only
> > drive a1975 Chevy Nova or something similar, with bolted down wooden
> > panels and foggy instruments, I doubt many teenagers would be earger
> > to get their drivers license.
>
> > The second aspect is the fascination pilots seem to have with war
> > equipment, and the yearning for the 'good ol days'. Many pilots look
> > at a WW2 airplane like a B17 as if it were a technological marvel.
> > That may be true, but it just doesn't connect with the new generation.
> > Even though I am not from the iPod generation, I too found this
> > fascination with war equipment rather strange. Perhaps it is because
> > no one in my anscestry participated in the war.
>
> > How many kids do you see hanging around at antique car shows? Airports
> > are not too far from being an antique museum.
>
> > Aviation technology has marched on in great strides in the past 50
> > years. But almost all of the modernization has occured due to the
> > advancement in electronics. This is the only aspect that keeps some of
> > us still interested in aviation. That includes VOR, GPS, satellite
> > weather, flight planning tools, electronic charts, glass panels etc..
> > The mechanical aspects have been stagnant. All these modern
> > electronics are still housed in ancient aluminum panels that are
> > riveted togother. They creak and vibrate, and the engines consume
> > leaded fuel and puff out smoke and oil, and have frightening gas
> > mileage.
>
> > In order to appeal to the next generation, this is what I think we
> > need:
> > - a small turbine engine suitable for GA aircraft with fewer moving
> > parts and smoother operation
> > - gas mileage comparable to an SUV
> > - a fully composite airframe
> > - molded aesthetic interiors
> > - cost about 2-3x the price of a luxury car
>
> > The list is very ambitious, but we are on the right path with LSA.
> > What is still seriously lacking is the powerplant.
> > I would really like to see is a small turbine engine. I don't mean
> > salvaged APUs. It has to be something that is designed from the bottom
> > up as a GA powerplant.
>
> > Any comments?
>
> Thanks for jump-starting this discussion again.
>
> Comments, not in any particular order:
> 1. When I started attending fly-ins, the first impression was the decrepit
> state of the airport facilities. Most of the buildings/hangers were built
> in the 1930s through 1950s, and many of them look like they haven't been
> painted since.
>
> 2. Since I've since gotten used to the facilities, the next impression is
> the demographics: a bunch of grumpy old men. I have no doubt that when
> these same individuals are talking cars, they talk about how the 1958 Chevy
> ruined the automobile, or when talking politics, how Kennedy was a traitor
> and deserved to be assissinated.
>
> 3. I wish LSAs hadn't been prohibited from using turbines, even if a good
> one to use isn't available now.
>
> 4. I just put up a longwire antenna for my shortwave, I still think being
> able to hear news from a long was away is a pretty cool thing; basically,
> ZERO kids do. But a subset do find the technical aspects of propogation
> interesting. Ham radio and shortware used to be exotic, they aren't
> anymore. When long distance phone calls were $5 for 3 minutes, long
> distance was exotic, it isn't anymore. Aviation isn't exotic anymore, but
> pitching the personal achievement aspect of it will get (some) kids
> interested. I'm not sure pitching the "utility" of GA works, anymore the
> pitching the utility of a $20,000 bass boat does, while Safeway is having a
> seafood sale this week.
>
> 5. As for your specific points, I think a small turbine is always going to
> cost more that a piston engine, we are there on mileage, composites,
> interiors, and pretty close to there on price.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

My experience was the same when I took my intro flight. I've been a
huge fan of flight sim for many years before I decided to take an
intro ride. It was a huge let down. A rickety old 152 and a cranky
instructor that cost me a good chunk of money (I was a poor grad
student). My ride never went past the intro ride stage. A few months
later I took another intro ride in a Diamond Aircraft Katana. This was
a whole different beast. Comfy, great view, nice panel. Even though it
cost more than the 152, there was no question about my decision. 12
years later I still haven't stopped flying. I can totally relate to
people not getting 'turned on' by our current fleet.

I do not buy that today's kids are not up to the challenge. They are
better informed and more capable than we were at their age. Most of us
grew up at a time when digital watches were cool, and we were awed by
the performance of the Timex Sinclair computer.

However, I am pleased to see the developments in LSA and all the new
airplanes coming into the market with newer technologies. I am also
pleased to see the efforts being put into developing newer powerplants
and turbines. Although cost is a big factor, I don't think that will
be a show stopper if the developments are truly attractive. People
will find a way to pay for what they find appealing. Very few people
really "need" an SUV, yet people buy them at ten times the price of a
used Geo Metro which would serve them just fine. Very few people
"need" the five bedroom 3 bathroom triple garage homes, but people
line up to buy these things and are willing to go into lifelong debt
for it. The coolness factor can easily overpower the expense factors.
But it is very difficult to convince someone to come up with $100k
plus a few grand a year for a rusty airplane that looks, feels and
really is 20 years old even if it travels at three times the driving
speed.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dave J" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Matt,
>
> I think you make some good points about education, and it is true that
> more kids go to college than ever before. But there have always been
> mediocre students and good students, people with varying talent,
> energy, and skill. The mediocre today are perhaps going to school and
> "passing" when in the past they would have done something else, and
> "failed.
>
> BUT, among all the good and bad students, there are also many more
> good students, and the number of slots at good schools is not much
> greater than in the past.

I don't how to qualify "good students", but I notice man college people,
even at Ivy League schools, are woefully lacking on any number of subjects.

> Competition to get into elite universities
> is more intense than ever.

Yet they keep lowering their standards. The VERY elite schools have not
caved in, but we're talking about no more than the top couple percent.

Read some of the tests and surveys and it's shocking and embarrassing how
dumbed down our schools have become over the past 20-30 years. I'm talking
colleges and universities; the elementary and high schools are even worse.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Dave J" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Sep 10, 6:52 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>> That sort of depends on how you define the future of GA. The FAA sees
>> GA as a source of air-taxi passenger movers, so that airlines can
>> utilize more airports. That is Cirrus' future market: air-taxi
>> operators.
>
> I had not thought about that much, but you are right. It could be the
> birth of a new industry. Still, I don't know why the editors at AOPA
> Pilot and Flying, etc, get so excited over Columbias and Cirri. These
> are nice aircraft, but are not in the reach of most flyers now, and
> definitely not in the reach of the flyers necessary to revive GA, get
> the volumes up, and get a "reverse death spiral" cooking.

Air taxi is going (IMO) in the dorection of VLJs. The Cirrus and Columbia's
are not aimed at the entry level market, but they, too, will be within reach
of many pilots once they get a few years depreciation on them.

[John Jones]

On Sep 10, 5:58 pm, Dave J > wrote:

> By the way, cheap intergenerational shots don't help to bring in new
> customers, either!

Exactly.

I think the way everyone treats him is by far the most visible
indicator as to why younger people get turned off to aviation.

The way you treat him (and others here I've seen), it makes me think
you all *want* aviation to be a super exclusive club. I guess you're
getting what you wanted...

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"John Jones" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Sep 10, 5:58 pm, Dave J > wrote:
>
>> By the way, cheap intergenerational shots don't help to bring in new
>> customers, either!
>
> Exactly.
>
> I think the way everyone treats him is by far the most visible
> indicator as to why younger people get turned off to aviation.

Notice, if you will (can?) that those who ask questions and seek to learn
from those with vast years and hours of ACTUAL flying experience get very
nice treatment.

MX, on the other hand, is a character with severe mental issues, who has
been laughed off numerous other newsgroups. He's nothing more than a vandal
with a keyboard, rather than a can of spray paint.

>
> The way you treat him (and others here I've seen), it makes me think
> you all *want* aviation to be a super exclusive club. I guess you're
> getting what you wanted...

I'd venture to guess it's advantageous that we don't have such a mental
misfit dashing around in the same skies as the rest of us.

I'd guess that you're just as FOS as he is.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> This is a follow-on to the various discussions on the future of GA.
>
> Why aren't the kids who grew up with cell phones and iPods not
> interested in aviation?
>
> One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly. If we could only
> drive a1975 Chevy Nova or something similar, with bolted down wooden
> panels and foggy instruments, I doubt many teenagers would be earger
> to get their drivers license.

But if we "sell it" as a '75 Lola, Aston Martin, or 'Vette... <G>

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 04:59:28 -0000, Dave J
> wrote in
om>:

>Still, I don't know why the editors at AOPA
>Pilot and Flying, etc, get so excited over Columbias and Cirri. These
>are nice aircraft, but are not in the reach of most flyers now, and
>definitely not in the reach of the flyers necessary to revive GA, get
>the volumes up, and get a "reverse death spiral" cooking.

Fractional ownership might change that.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 04:59:28 -0000, Dave J
> > wrote in
> om>:
>
>> Still, I don't know why the editors at AOPA
>> Pilot and Flying, etc, get so excited over Columbias and Cirri. These
>> are nice aircraft, but are not in the reach of most flyers now, and
>> definitely not in the reach of the flyers necessary to revive GA, get
>> the volumes up, and get a "reverse death spiral" cooking.
>
> Fractional ownership might change that.

You say that like Fractional ownership is a new thing. It has been around
for years. We just called it partnerships and flying clubs in the past.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

John Jones wrote:
> On Sep 10, 5:58 pm, Dave J > wrote:
>
>> By the way, cheap intergenerational shots don't help to bring in new
>> customers, either!
>
> Exactly.
>
> I think the way everyone treats him is by far the most visible
> indicator as to why younger people get turned off to aviation.
>

You do realize MX is in his 40's don't you?

[Paul kgyy]

I'm not enough in touch with kids these days to know what motivates
them, though I'm sure that basic human motivations do not change over
time.

So I agree that the equipment should not be ancient. The noise level
is much too high. The cost is too high. The turbine approach would
likely help with the noise problem, but turbines are pretty
inefficient compared with piston technology. The turbo-diesel design,
to me, represents the future of GA power in a world of expensive fuel.

Certification and liability costs together appear to be the major
obstacles to getting costs under control. Yet the aircraft must be
"forgiving", and people should be able to sue against serious design
flaws.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> You say that like Fractional ownership is a new thing. It has been around
> for years. We just called it partnerships and flying clubs in the past.
>


And now, it's for hot rods, too!

<http://www.velocity-club.com/index.cfm>

I got handed a brochure for this while checking out the new Lotus models
and a GT-40 at Lime Rock two weeks ago.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:22:51 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>
>You say that like Fractional ownership is a new thing. It has been around
>for years. We just called it partnerships and flying clubs in the past.

You are obviously unaware of the recent regulation changes concerning
fractional ownership. You can start your research here:

http://web.nbaa.org/public/ops/fractional/
Fractional Aircraft Ownership Regulation Background & Rulemaking

Fractional ownership operations began in 1986 with the creation of a
program that offered aircraft owners increased flexibility in the
ownership and operation of aircraft. This program used current
aircraft acquisition concepts, including shared or joint aircraft
ownership, and provided for the management of the aircraft by an
aircraft management company.

The aircraft owners participating in the program agreed not only to
share their own aircraft with others having a shared interest in that
aircraft, but also to lease their aircraft to other owners in the
program (dry lease exchange program). The aircraft owners used the
common management company to provide aviation management services
including maintenance of the aircraft, pilot training and assignment,
and administration of the leasing of the aircraft among the owners.

During the 1990's the growth of fractional ownership programs was
substantial and this growth is expected to continue. As these programs
grew in size, complexity and number, there was considerable
controversy within the aviation community as to their appropriate
regulatory structure. Additionally, the FAA had evolving concerns
regarding issues of accountability and responsibility for compliance
(operational control).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA Amends Regulatory Compliance Date for Fractional Operations
On December 14, 2004 the FAA issued a notice that corrects the date by
which all fractional operations must be in compliance with FAR Part
91, Subpart K. NBAA was expecting the correction that changes an
incorrect December 17, 2004, compliance date to February 17, 2005. All
fractional operations will be in compliance with the new rule by the
February 2005 deadline.

Download the notice as it appeared in the Federal Register (52 KB,
PDF)
Federal Register Publishes Fractional Ownership Final Rule
September 17, 2003
On September 17, the FAA's final rule "Regulation of Fractional
Aircraft Ownership Programs and On-Demand Operations" was published.
The rule sets regulatory standards for fractional ownership operations
(Part 91, Subpart K) and updates requirements for on-demand charter
operations (Part 135).

Download the rule as it appeared in the Federal Register (404 KB, PDF)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

B A R R Y wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>> You say that like Fractional ownership is a new thing. It has been
>> around for years. We just called it partnerships and flying clubs in
>> the past.
>
>
> And now, it's for hot rods, too!
>
> <http://www.velocity-club.com/index.cfm>
>
> I got handed a brochure for this while checking out the new Lotus
> models and a GT-40 at Lime Rock two weeks ago.

You have just hit on the instant gratification problem which might be the
real root cause of the downfall of aviation.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> You have just hit on the instant gratification problem which might be the
> real root cause of the downfall of aviation.

You have just mentioned the problem that's probably responsible for the
downfall of lots of activities that involve learning any sort of skill.

--Whiny voice on--

"It's too complicated!"
"Awww... Do I HAVE to do it again?"
"Who has time for THAT?"

--Whiny voice off--

I see it in woodworking, craft hobbies, even bicycling.

In recent years, the radio control flying hobby has been flooded with
models built in Chinese factories, so participants don't have to "waste"
time building (and therefore learning to repair) a model. Lots of
people who didn't "waste" even more time learning how to fly, fly them
once and crash, then give up the hobby.

No matter how money much we spend on a bicycle, riding it probably won't
be all that enjoyable if we don't ride on a regular basis.

I've read that the #1 leisure time activity in the USA is shopping. 8^(

On the other hand, I don't necessarily put the exotic car club in the
same category, due to the ability for a true enthusiast to drive a
diverse set of vehicles. I'd put it more toward a good flying club that
has aircraft available for a variety of different missions.

I would definitely extend the need for instant gratification to the
sub-prime mortgage debacle. Nothing down? Ridiculously low payment?
Why read the paperwork or pay an attorney to explain it to me in plain
English? I also see it with people who are willing to hand their entire
life's savings to some investment advisor without putting any effort
into learning about the products the money gets invested in.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:22:51 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>> You say that like Fractional ownership is a new thing. It has been
>> around for years. We just called it partnerships and flying clubs in
>> the past.
>
> You are obviously unaware of the recent regulation changes concerning
> fractional ownership. You can start your research here:
>


I'm well aware of it. That doesn't really change the fact that fractional
ownership is an evolution of partnerships and clubs as opposed to a
revolutionary change in ownership. In fact what you posted pretty much
explained how one came from the other.

The reasons regulations had to be propagated was because you basically had
one partnership leasing planes to members of other partnerships. This
basically made fractional ownership a sort of hybrid of clubs and
partnerships.

[Dave J]

On Sep 11, 8:02 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:

> You have just hit on the instant gratification problem which might be the
> real root cause of the downfall of aviation.

Okay, this is also interesting, but let me take the devil's advocate
positions for a little while.

*Should* it require so much training and time to learn to fly safely?
Exactly what should the "gratification curve" look like? I'll give
you, there's something depressing about people who want to get all the
fun and utility out of something the moment they take it out of the
box. But, learning to fly is a pretty serious investment of time and
effort. Is it reasonable of us to expect the average joe/jane with 101
other priorities to follow this undertaking?

Maybe at least part of the "fault" here is simply that planes have not
gotten better enough? They don't (practically) fly themselves, there
are too many rules to know, the aircraft will "let you" crash it, etc.

I mean, admit it, you sort of like knowing all the FARs (especially
controversial or commonly misinterpreted ones). You dig the tricks
that aerodynamics play on pilots. It's actually cool information!

I bet you that every certificated pilot on this board has at least a
shelf full of aviation books. I've noticed that a good fraction of my
plane books are really all about decision-making. Is that "normal?"
Most drivers don't have a shelf of car books. They don't think too
hard about whether they should drive today.

I dunno. We may have to face facts. Aviation may just be different.
More of an affliction than a sport/hobby. ;)

-- dave j

[Dave J]

On Sep 11, 8:54 am, B A R R Y > wrote:

> I see it in woodworking, craft hobbies, even bicycling.

I can tell you that among photographers, the people who really get
into it get into it with a mad passion, debating each and every little
minute detail. The other day I read a thread on another group that
went on for days and got into the elementary physics of how digital
imaging sensors work. This is a hard-core group. (These are dSLR
people, not point-and-shooters, for the record.)

Similarly, here in Silicon Valley, I know lots of people who bicycle
with an odd ferocity. A century ride every weekend, a few hundred
miles during the week, constant tinkering and upgrading, all dinner
party conversation about the next race or triathlon. As a recreational
rider who has not gotten bitten by this particular bug, I can tell
you, it can be pretty boring to hang out with these guys!

My wife, also a youngster by aviation standards is really into dance.
She did ballet since forever, and now, even though she has a career
that has nothing to do with dance, she still goes to take classes a
several times a week. Easily enough time to become and remain
proficient in an aircraft. So here's a counterexample showing that
commitment still does exist!

Interestingly, the first two of these hobbies can easily cost a
serious amateur $5000/yr. That is very close to, if not well into
flying territory.

> I would definitely extend the need for instant gratification to the
> sub-prime mortgage debacle. Nothing down? Ridiculously low payment?

Don't get me started on that! I agree with you. That we are starting
to bail these people out makes me wretch. Everyone who knew their
limits and did not participate is punished, and the people who
overstretched get free help from Uncle Sam. This is not going to
encourage healthy behavior.

-- dave j

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:56:01 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:22:51 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>>
>>> You say that like Fractional ownership is a new thing. It has been
>>> around for years. We just called it partnerships and flying clubs in
>>> the past.
>>
>> You are obviously unaware of the recent regulation changes concerning
>> fractional ownership. You can start your research here:
>>
>
>
>I'm well aware of it.

Well then you've probably noticed that, unlike in the past decades, in
the last few years there are many commercial enterprises and aircraft
manufacturers offering fractional GA aircraft ownership and management
programs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_ownership
Aviation
The term fractional ownership originally became popular for
business jets. Richard Santulli of NetJets pioneered the concept
of allowing businesses to purchase shares in a jet to reduce costs
— other companies such as Citation Shares, Flight Options and
Flexjet soon followed. With a fractional jet plan, members will
typically fly in any jet available, not necessarily the one in
which they own shares. The management company will reposition jets
as necessary and provide flight crews. Companies with greater
needs purchase larger shares to get access to more time.

The fractional-ownership concept has since been extended to
smaller aircraft and has now become common for single-engine
piston aircraft like the Cirrus SR22, which are beyond the
financial means of many private pilots. The same concepts apply,
except that the management company may not provide flight crews
nor reposition the aircraft.

Fractional ownership has played a significant role in revitalizing
the general aviation manufacturing industry since the late 1990s,
and most manufacturers actively support fractional ownership
programs.

http://www.netjets.com/
http://www.aircraftinvestmentgroup.com/article_01.htm
http://www.tsbureau.com/fractionalaircraftownership.htm

>That doesn't really change the fact that fractional
>ownership is an evolution of partnerships and clubs as opposed to a
>revolutionary change in ownership. In fact what you posted pretty much
>explained how one came from the other.
>
>The reasons regulations had to be propagated was because you basically had
>one partnership leasing planes to members of other partnerships. This
>basically made fractional ownership a sort of hybrid of clubs and
>partnerships.
>

[Ross]

Dave J wrote:

Snip

>
> But I struggle to find time and cash to keep this hobby up. Lately, I
> have rediscovered digital photography. I can't help but notice that it
> also is a skill and craft, with plenty of technical stuff to nail
> down, and even at its most expensive, it's a lot cheaper than
> aviation. And my wife does not worry about me getting killed taking
> photos. There's an appeal to that.
>
> -- dave j
>
>
>

Just be careful of what you take pictures of....
--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Ross]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:42:16 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>
>>While I agree that we need a modern aircraft at a "reasonable price" let's
>>keep in mind that the vast majority of youngsters that you think are
>>choosing not to fly because of the technology have never been close enough
>>to the current airplanes to even see the technology.
>
>
>
> So the next time the local municipal airport holds an open house for
> the public, they should be sure ample leaflets are available at the
> local K-12 student campuses. Even better would be a brief
> presentation personally inviting everyone to take a reasonably priced
> introductory flight.
>
> And there need to be large 'Public Welcome' banners flying around the
> airport to attract motorists. Too often these sorts of inexpensive,
> but effective marketing are overlooked.
>
> From what I've seen, usually the attendance at these events is largely
> made up of aviators and others associated with the airport, not new
> blood.

This is why the EAA has been promoting the Young Eagles for the last 10
years, to get the young exposed to aviation. Not all kids that fly will
be pilots, but maybe a few will get the bug and continue on.

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Dave J wrote:
> On Sep 11, 8:02 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>> You have just hit on the instant gratification problem which might
>> be the real root cause of the downfall of aviation.
>
> Okay, this is also interesting, but let me take the devil's advocate
> positions for a little while.
>
> *Should* it require so much training and time to learn to fly safely?
> Exactly what should the "gratification curve" look like? I'll give
> you, there's something depressing about people who want to get all the
> fun and utility out of something the moment they take it out of the
> box. But, learning to fly is a pretty serious investment of time and
> effort. Is it reasonable of us to expect the average joe/jane with 101
> other priorities to follow this undertaking?
>
> Maybe at least part of the "fault" here is simply that planes have not
> gotten better enough? They don't (practically) fly themselves, there
> are too many rules to know, the aircraft will "let you" crash it, etc.
>
> I mean, admit it, you sort of like knowing all the FARs (especially
> controversial or commonly misinterpreted ones). You dig the tricks
> that aerodynamics play on pilots. It's actually cool information!
>
> I bet you that every certificated pilot on this board has at least a
> shelf full of aviation books. I've noticed that a good fraction of my
> plane books are really all about decision-making. Is that "normal?"
> Most drivers don't have a shelf of car books. They don't think too
> hard about whether they should drive today.
>
> I dunno. We may have to face facts. Aviation may just be different.
> More of an affliction than a sport/hobby. ;)
>
> -- dave j


They have shortened the time it takes to get a certificate that will let you
do what 90% of the private pilots do by about half. So that is a start.

As far as planes not flying themselves neither do cars. I'll bet you can
take the average driver from today and put him in a car from the 30's and
they won't have to much trouble. Except maybe with the manual transmission.

But the rest of your statement basically boils down to not wanting to learn
something complex. And that can be further reduced to instant gratification.

[Dave J]

On Sep 11, 9:49 am, Ross > wrote:

> Just be careful of what you take pictures of....

Ah, yes, there's always the possibility of getting killed as a
consequence of having taken certain pictures.

-- dave j

[Dave J]

On Sep 11, 9:59 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:

> They have shortened the time it takes to get a certificate that will let you
> do what 90% of the private pilots do by about half. So that is a start.

Agreed.

> As far as planes not flying themselves neither do cars. I'll bet you can
> take the average driver from today and put him in a car from the 30's and
> they won't have to much trouble. Except maybe with the manual transmission.

Yeah, but cars are easy to drive. Actually, as far as basic
transportation, I think airplanes are pretty easy to fly, too. What
makes airplanes different are the squirrely corners of their
envelopes, and the fundamentally fail-unsafe failure mode that comes
from being in the sky, in vehicle that cannot be "pulled over."

> But the rest of your statement basically boils down to not wanting to learn
> something complex. And that can be further reduced to instant gratification.

Right! But why must aviation be so complex? It requires a level of
training commensurate with, say, some trades and para-professional
degrees. Should that level of training be the necessary cost of entry?

There is a spectrum between instant gratification, and a long, hard
slog uphill. It's not so black and white. People do *learn* to drive.
It doesn't happen instantly, and in fact, if you've watched teenagers
drive recently, I'm sure you realize that it actually takes years to
get really good at it. So people do put in some level of effort.

I just am tired of hearing about how lazy "kids today" are. People
have been muttering about "kids today" forever. Either man has been on
a constant descent to laziness or stupidity, or much more likely, the
notion is absurd. As tempting as it is to go for the first option, the
second is much more likely.

-- dave j

[Mxsmanic]

Andrew Sarangan writes:

> Why aren't the kids who grew up with cell phones and iPods not
> interested in aviation?
>
> One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly. If we could only
> drive a1975 Chevy Nova or something similar, with bolted down wooden
> panels and foggy instruments, I doubt many teenagers would be earger
> to get their drivers license.

I seriously doubt that any teen is discouraged from aviation by the age of the
design of the airplanes used. Most teens have no idea how old the designs
are, and in fact could not draw any kind of airplane with any significant
accuracy if requested to do so. This being so, they cannot reject aviation on
the basis of information they don't have. Besides, fancy vehicles appeal
mostly to young males, not to the population in general.

Things like cell phones and iPods didn't exist fifty years ago. Today there
are a great many things competing for our attention that simply were not there
a few decades ago. It's only natural that our attention is more thinly spread
than before. People who might have turned to aviation in the days when
options were fewer have a much greater choice today, and therefore a much
greater chance of picking something else.

> The second aspect is the fascination pilots seem to have with war
> equipment, and the yearning for the 'good ol days'. Many pilots look
> at a WW2 airplane like a B17 as if it were a technological marvel.
> That may be true, but it just doesn't connect with the new generation.
> Even though I am not from the iPod generation, I too found this
> fascination with war equipment rather strange. Perhaps it is because
> no one in my anscestry participated in the war.

I don't know if this fascination is that widespread.

> How many kids do you see hanging around at antique car shows?

How many kids do you see hanging around at car shows, period?

> Aviation technology has marched on in great strides in the past 50
> years. But almost all of the modernization has occured due to the
> advancement in electronics. This is the only aspect that keeps some of
> us still interested in aviation. That includes VOR, GPS, satellite
> weather, flight planning tools, electronic charts, glass panels etc..
> The mechanical aspects have been stagnant. All these modern
> electronics are still housed in ancient aluminum panels that are
> riveted togother. They creak and vibrate, and the engines consume
> leaded fuel and puff out smoke and oil, and have frightening gas
> mileage.
>
> In order to appeal to the next generation, this is what I think we
> need:
> - a small turbine engine suitable for GA aircraft with fewer moving
> parts and smoother operation
> - gas mileage comparable to an SUV
> - a fully composite airframe
> - molded aesthetic interiors
> - cost about 2-3x the price of a luxury car
>
> The list is very ambitious, but we are on the right path with LSA.

It's more than ambitious; it is straddling the jagged edge of impossible.

> What is still seriously lacking is the powerplant.

I will grant that powerplants are archaic. I think that the overhead of
certification is a major obstacle to seeing newer developments. And the cost
of having certified powerplants makes even the archaic 50-year-old designs
expensive, to say nothing of anything more modern.

Even a modern-style piston engine would be an improvement. But it would be
hugely expensive.

[Mxsmanic]

Ken Finney writes:

> 2. Since I've since gotten used to the facilities, the next impression is
> the demographics: a bunch of grumpy old men. I have no doubt that when
> these same individuals are talking cars, they talk about how the 1958 Chevy
> ruined the automobile, or when talking politics, how Kennedy was a traitor
> and deserved to be assissinated.

There are lots of them right here on this newsgroup.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> Perhaps not, but seed sown the magical moment when a kid experiences
> leaving the pavement during his first introductory flight in a Cessna
> 152 will blossom in the future when his situation is ready for it.

That assumes that he finds it a magical moment. Not everyone does. About 16%
of the population is afraid of flying--and that's in large, stable aircraft,
not tin cans.

[Mxsmanic]

Andrew Sarangan writes:

> I have heard that argument many times, but I have never seen that
> thermodynamic argument presented. I just borrowed the book on Aircraft
> Gas Turbine Engines from the library and plan to read it to find out
> what the real story is. My suspicion is that the limitation is in the
> materials, not thermodynamics.

Measure the heat of a gas turbine exhaust; the difference between that and
ambient inlet temperature is wasted energy. An ideal turbine would extract so
much energy from the heat of combustion that the exhaust would barely be warm,
but we're a long way from a turbine like that.

> A small
> turbine may sound far fetched now, but I am sure GPS also sounded far
> fetched 20 years ago, but became commonplace after heavy military
> investment.

Actually, the principles behind GPS were known and accepted half a century
ago. It just took a long time to get a working system perfected--just as
improvements in jet engines tend to be gradual.

> Having said that, I know of at least two companies working on small
> turbines. One is Innodyn, and the other one is M-dot. The latter one I
> believe has some DoD contracts to be build turbines for UAVs. I doubt
> these companies would even exist if the basic physics is flawed.

Low efficiency can be compensated by other advantages.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> But the rest of your statement basically boils down to not wanting to learn
> something complex. And that can be further reduced to instant gratification.

Not instant gratification, but gratification commensurate with the investment
required. Becoming a pilot is a huge investment for anyone who isn't fairly
obsessed with aviation. There are other endeavors that provide much greater
gratification as compared to the investment of time, money, and effort
required to obtain that gratification.

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Barrow writes:

> Around here, a two year old 172 goes for $105, wet.

So that's still only 1.5 hours for the cost of a pair of expensive sneakers.
The sneakers will last for months or years; once that 1.5 hours of flying time
is gone, there's nothing.

> You know, I _think_ you just showed the attitude that may be behind the
> dearth of new students.

It's a pretty reasonable attitude. It's not rational to throw money out the
window. Everyone wants value for his dollar.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave J writes:

> The reason I think that's remotely relevant is simply because the
> people who are going to learn to fly are, well, the above averages,
> and they really do have more pressure on their time than in the past.

No, the people who are going to learn to fly are those with a very intense
interest in flying. They may or may not be above average. Usually they will
be average.

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Barrow writes:

> I'd venture to guess it's advantageous that we don't have such a mental
> misfit dashing around in the same skies as the rest of us.

The fewer you become, the less infrastructure you'll have. Eventually there
won't be enough to support your exclusie hobby. So be careful what you wish
for.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:56:01 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:22:51 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>>> >:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You say that like Fractional ownership is a new thing. It has been
>>>> around for years. We just called it partnerships and flying clubs
>>>> in the past.
>>>
>>> You are obviously unaware of the recent regulation changes
>>> concerning fractional ownership. You can start your research here:
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'm well aware of it.
>
> Well then you've probably noticed that, unlike in the past decades, in
> the last few years there are many commercial enterprises and aircraft
> manufacturers offering fractional GA aircraft ownership and management
> programs:
>


Are you being dense Larry or just your standard asshole self? YOu can quote
all the Wki sites you like. That doesn't change the fact that fractional
ownership is just an evolution of partnerships and flying clubs.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Dave J wrote:
> On Sep 11, 9:59 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>> They have shortened the time it takes to get a certificate that will
>> let you do what 90% of the private pilots do by about half. So that
>> is a start.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> As far as planes not flying themselves neither do cars. I'll bet you
>> can take the average driver from today and put him in a car from the
>> 30's and they won't have to much trouble. Except maybe with the
>> manual transmission.
>
> Yeah, but cars are easy to drive. Actually, as far as basic
> transportation, I think airplanes are pretty easy to fly, too. What
> makes airplanes different are the squirrely corners of their
> envelopes, and the fundamentally fail-unsafe failure mode that comes
> from being in the sky, in vehicle that cannot be "pulled over."

And flying will never be the same as driving. It's that third deminsion that
is the issue. And don't think for a second that cars don't have those
squirrely corners of their envelopes. It's just that flying has more hence
the additional training.

>
>> But the rest of your statement basically boils down to not wanting
>> to learn something complex. And that can be further reduced to
>> instant gratification.
>
> Right! But why must aviation be so complex? It requires a level of
> training commensurate with, say, some trades and para-professional
> degrees. Should that level of training be the necessary cost of entry?
>

Some things can only be simplified down so much. Basic flying has been
simplified from 40 required hours to 20. That's pretty damn good and I
really don't see how you could get it any shorter without taking everything
away that makes it worth while to do.



> There is a spectrum between instant gratification, and a long, hard
> slog uphill. It's not so black and white. People do *learn* to drive.
> It doesn't happen instantly, and in fact, if you've watched teenagers
> drive recently, I'm sure you realize that it actually takes years to
> get really good at it. So people do put in some level of effort.
>
> I just am tired of hearing about how lazy "kids today" are. People
> have been muttering about "kids today" forever. Either man has been on
> a constant descent to laziness or stupidity, or much more likely, the
> notion is absurd. As tempting as it is to go for the first option, the
> second is much more likely.
>
> -- dave j

My instant gratification comment isn't aimed only at the kids.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> But the rest of your statement basically boils down to not wanting
>> to learn something complex. And that can be further reduced to
>> instant gratification.
>
> Not instant gratification, but gratification commensurate with the
> investment required. Becoming a pilot is a huge investment for
> anyone who isn't fairly obsessed with aviation. There are other
> endeavors that provide much greater gratification as compared to the
> investment of time, money, and effort required to obtain that
> gratification.

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not obsessed with
aviation. If I were I would have finished the plane I've been building for 5
years a lot sooner.

But it is a good thing you have no desire for gratification at all because
of your mental problems because you have nothing to invest.

[Jim Stewart]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> But the rest of your statement basically boils down to not wanting to learn
>> something complex. And that can be further reduced to instant gratification.
>
> Not instant gratification, but gratification commensurate with the investment
> required. Becoming a pilot is a huge investment for anyone who isn't fairly
> obsessed with aviation. There are other endeavors that provide much greater
> gratification as compared to the investment of time, money, and effort
> required to obtain that gratification.

Are you back again, spouting from your tiny
little point of reference?

How can you claim to have a clue as to what
gratifies others? You never soloed and you
never will so you'll never know. You just
sit at your little screen and figure that
everyone else leads the same pathetic life
with the same pathetic gratification as you.

[David Horne, _the_ chancellor]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

[]
> No, the people who are going to learn to fly are those with a very intense
> interest in flying. They may or may not be above average. Usually they will
> be average.

Are you learning to fly, Mixi?

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably
is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush"

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> "john smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article om>,
>> > Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
>> >
>> >> - a small turbine engine suitable for GA aircraft with fewer moving
>> >> parts and smoother operation
>> >
>> > I had a very good discussion at AirVenture 2007 with one of the people
>> > in the Williams tent. My question to him was what was Williams' side of
>> > the story with regards to the decision by Eclipse to drop their engine.
>> > The jist of his response was that Eclipse refused to accept that just
>> > because a jet engine is small doesn't mean it cost less than one a
>> > little bigger.
>>
>> That it could not develop the power/weight ration that the P&W did, in
>> accordance with Eclipse's first request. That the Williams effort ran
>> into
>> numerous (?) problems pertaining to reliability, might have also been a
>> factor.
>
> Matt, go back and look at the original Eclipse weight specs and the
> final weight specs. Eclipse wanted more from the engine than they
> originally called for. Williams designed the engine Eclipse told them
> to, then Eclipse failed to honor their own spec.

Do you have a reference for that?

IIRC, the original Eclipse weight spec (5600 +/-) was changed AFTER they
switched to the P&W.

The problem with the Williams engine was service related, not spec related.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
t...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

>
> I've read that the #1 leisure time activity in the USA is shopping. 8^(

Not TV?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>
> But the rest of your statement basically boils down to not wanting to
> learn something complex. And that can be further reduced to instant
> gratification.

It can also be related to "mental capacity". Our current learning by rote
does not prepare one for learning complexity, nor for expanding on what we
do learn.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Dave J wrote:
>> I just am tired of hearing about how lazy "kids today" are. People
>> have been muttering about "kids today" forever. Either man has been on
>> a constant descent to laziness or stupidity, or much more likely, the
>> notion is absurd. As tempting as it is to go for the first option, the
>> second is much more likely.
>>
>> -- dave j
>
> My instant gratification comment isn't aimed only at the kids.
It's not a new phenomenon, just more prevalent.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jim Stewart" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>>
>>> But the rest of your statement basically boils down to not wanting to
>>> learn something complex. And that can be further reduced to instant
>>> gratification.
>>
>> Not instant gratification, but gratification commensurate with the
>> investment
>> required. Becoming a pilot is a huge investment for anyone who isn't
>> fairly
>> obsessed with aviation. There are other endeavors that provide much
>> greater
>> gratification as compared to the investment of time, money, and effort
>> required to obtain that gratification.
>
> Are you back again, spouting from your tiny
> little point of reference?
>
Hey, you're "driving away the potential younger pilots"! :~)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> John Jones wrote:
>> On Sep 10, 5:58 pm, Dave J > wrote:
>>
>>> By the way, cheap intergenerational shots don't help to bring in new
>>> customers, either!
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> I think the way everyone treats him is by far the most visible
>> indicator as to why younger people get turned off to aviation.
>>
>
> You do realize MX is in his 40's don't you?
I don't think this Jones guy realizes anything more than MX does.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> But the rest of your statement basically boils down to not wanting to
>> learn something complex. And that can be further reduced to instant
>> gratification.
>
> It can also be related to "mental capacity". Our current learning by
> rote does not prepare one for learning complexity, nor for expanding
> on what we do learn.

How old are you Matt? I had you pegged at around my age, 45, maybe a little
older.

When I was in school we learned lots of things by rote memorization and I'd
be willing you did to. Multiplication, spelling and the worst of all history
in which they seemed to only care that you remembered the dates things
happened not really why they happened.

I know it's easy to blame all our ills on the current education system but
it is really a lazy approach to the problem. I know to many recent high
school grads that got perfectly good educations despite the problems in the
schools. So maybe we ought to blame the parents of those that don't to at
least some extent.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Sep 11, 1:28 pm, Dave J > wrote:

>
> I just am tired of hearing about how lazy "kids today" are. People
> have been muttering about "kids today" forever. Either man has been on
> a constant descent to laziness or stupidity, or much more likely, the
> notion is absurd. As tempting as it is to go for the first option, the
> second is much more likely.
>

Every generation has complained about the next generation as being
lazy. I think it has been programmed into our genes.

[[email protected]]

Andrew Sarangan > wrote:
> On Sep 11, 1:28 pm, Dave J > wrote:

> >
> > I just am tired of hearing about how lazy "kids today" are. People
> > have been muttering about "kids today" forever. Either man has been on
> > a constant descent to laziness or stupidity, or much more likely, the
> > notion is absurd. As tempting as it is to go for the first option, the
> > second is much more likely.
> >

> Every generation has complained about the next generation as being
> lazy. I think it has been programmed into our genes.

When I took Latin in high school, one of the things we had to read was
a piece by Cicero complaining about the kids of the day.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:08:31 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>Are you being dense Larry or just your standard asshole self?

Neither. And I don't resort to profanity when I'm at a loss for
cognitive argument either. Indulging in that sort of uncivil behavior
only servers to reveal your inability to express yourself effectively,
and it reflects on you about as well as it did on Cheney:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3699-2004Jun24.html
Cheney Dismisses Critic With Obscenity
Clash With Leahy About Halliburton

"**** yourself," said the man who is a heartbeat from the
presidency.

>YOu can quote all the Wki sites you like. That doesn't change the fact that fractional
>ownership is just an evolution of partnerships and flying clubs.

So if Ford's Model T evolved into a high-performance sports car, would
you characterize them both the same?

It is your failure to acknowledge the RECENT surge in businesses
offering fractional aircraft ownership and the RECENT changes in FAA
fractional ownership regulations that prompts me to keep providing
evidence of it for you.

So while fractional ownership may not be new, it is newly emphasized.
Why do you suppose that is?

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> But the rest of your statement basically boils down to not wanting to
>>> learn something complex. And that can be further reduced to instant
>>> gratification.
>>
>> It can also be related to "mental capacity". Our current learning by
>> rote does not prepare one for learning complexity, nor for expanding
>> on what we do learn.
>
> How old are you Matt? I had you pegged at around my age, 45, maybe a
> little older.

52

>
> When I was in school we learned lots of things by rote memorization and
> I'd be willing you did to.

Yup.

> Multiplication, spelling and the worst of all history in which they seemed
> to only care that you remembered the dates things happened not really why
> they happened.

Multipliciation tables (the 9's) is a method to make the basics automatic.
Before that, though, one must get a fundemental grasp of numbers. For
spelling, one learns the rules of how words are formed. For reading, it's
phonetics (26 basic rules), and a dictionary for new words (ostensibly to
garner an appreciation for pretentious *******s like Bill Buckley...and me).

>
> I know it's easy to blame all our ills on the current education system but
> it is really a lazy approach to the problem.

I don't blame all the ills on modern education, just the ones pertaining to
thinking and comprehension.

>I know to many recent high school grads that got perfectly good educations
>despite the problems in the schools.

The why are SOOOO many HS and even college grads so half-literate at best,
and so many that can't think their way out of a paper bag? Possible because
rote only works for concretized learning, not the abstractions that lets you
build off those basics.

In history, we learned names, dates, places...but we never learned how or
why, or what made something unique, or how it carried into modern times.
That's because even history was rote learning for the past couple
generations.

> So maybe we ought to blame the parents of those that don't to at least
> some extent.

That's certainly a problem in that many parents know how to breed 'em, and
even if they can feed them, don't feed that critical part between the ears.
This, though, is fairly recent, within the past generation on a national
scale, though certain parts of the country were never too big on education
(i.e., the Deep South up until the recent past).

So, is education the fault of all our ills? Only from a standpoint of
methodology. Join that with parental apathy and add a strong dose of
post-modernism and the situation becomes much clearer.

We are humans, and humans have no particular strengths, such as eye sight,
or speed, or physical strength, compared to other animals -- all we have is
what's between our ears. When we forfeit that, we're at a distinct
DISadvantage from a survivability standpoint. That includes survivability as
a culture, or as a species.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Sep 11, 1:28 pm, Dave J > wrote:
>
>>
>> I just am tired of hearing about how lazy "kids today" are. People
>> have been muttering about "kids today" forever. Either man has been on
>> a constant descent to laziness or stupidity, or much more likely, the
>> notion is absurd. As tempting as it is to go for the first option, the
>> second is much more likely.
>>
>
> Every generation has complained about the next generation as being
> lazy. I think it has been programmed into our genes.

I have read such thoughts emanating from peoples as far back as the ancient
Greeks and Romans. Indeed, you are correct.

Thing is, today it's institutionalized, subsidized and glorified.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> But the rest of your statement basically boils down to not wanting to
>>>> learn something complex. And that can be further reduced to instant
>>>> gratification.
>>>
>>> It can also be related to "mental capacity". Our current learning by
>>> rote does not prepare one for learning complexity, nor for expanding
>>> on what we do learn.
>>
>> How old are you Matt? I had you pegged at around my age, 45, maybe a
>> little older.
>
> 52
>
>>
>> When I was in school we learned lots of things by rote memorization and
>> I'd be willing you did to.
>
> Yup.
>
>> Multiplication, spelling and the worst of all history in which they
>> seemed to only care that you remembered the dates things happened not
>> really why they happened.
>
> Multipliciation tables (the 9's) is a method to make the basics automatic.
> Before that, though, one must get a fundemental grasp of numbers. For
> spelling, one learns the rules of how words are formed. For reading, it's
> phonetics (26 basic rules), and a dictionary for new words (ostensibly to
> garner an appreciation for pretentious *******s like Bill Buckley...and
> me).

I might add that history, geography and most other classes were NOT taught
by rote, at least my elementary (parochial) school. When I transitioned to
public high school, it was much different.

[randall g]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:04:09 +0200, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>Matt Barrow writes:
>
>> Around here, a two year old 172 goes for $105, wet.
>
>So that's still only 1.5 hours for the cost of a pair of expensive sneakers.
>The sneakers will last for months or years; once that 1.5 hours of flying time
>is gone, there's nothing.


Might as well kill yourself now, then, because the rest of your life is
just going to cost more money.




randall g =%^)> PPASEL+Night 1974 Cardinal RG
http://www.telemark.net/randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/randallg/photos.htm
Vancouver's famous Kat Kam: http://www.katkam.ca

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote

> I might add that history, geography and most other classes were NOT taught
> by rote, at least my elementary (parochial) school. When I transitioned to
> public high school, it was much different.

I wondered how long it would take to get that dig in. Not all that long.

If nothing else, you are consistent; a real one stance man. Gads.

For those of you that don't realize it, criticizing the public schools is
Matt's only claim to fame, and a frequent reoccurring theme in his posts.

My recommendation is to agree with him, and then he won't have
anything/anyone to argue about/with.
--
Jim in NC

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:

>
>Nothing wrong with the physics. Small turbines work. And for some
>applications they have big adavantages. Fuel quantity per horsepower-hour,
>however, isn't one of them.
>

Agreed. Turbines are most efficient well above normal GA altitudes. At
common GA altitudes they suck large quantities of fuel. A turbine powered
Luscombe project used to be based at my field. The speed and climb were
slightly better than a piston powered Luscombe, but the range was
dramatically shorter.

While you can burn almost anything in them, you should plan on burning a
lot of it. That was also one of the downfalls of the early turbine powered
cars (besides the initial expense).

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200709/1

[Jeff Dougherty]

As a member of the younger generation (I'm 24), I can only speak from
personal experience. I'm under no illusions that I can speak for my
entire generation. :-)

Some background: I was That Kid At The Airport Fence. When I was
young, I used to beg my dad to take me to the local private airport so
I could watch the planes take off and land. I memorized
configurations so that I could tell a Cessna from a Piper from a
Mooney, and I still remember jumping out of bed one morning (*not* a
common thing when I was a youngin, as my parents would attest) and
dashing around the house excited at the news that Piper was going to
restart production of GA aircraft. Did the EAA Young Eagles,
discovery flights, the whole bit.

Despite that, my stay in flight school after I got out of college was
short and abortive. I took about 10 hours worth of lessons before I
stopped. Some of the reasons for why I stopped had to do with timing-
it was fall and I was starting a premedical program that didn't leave
me enough time to devote to aviation. The one that's perhaps of more
general interest, though, was cost. I've been gainfully employed ever
since leaving college and making what I would consider a decent salary
for a recent grad, but what I realized after about six weeks of flying
lessons was that finishing my private and keeping up a decent level of
proficiency was probably going to be more than I could afford.
Getting the PPL would be pretty expensive, but if I was going to feel
comfortable in the air I knew I would also have to rent and fly on a
pretty regular basis- I had done enough reading to know that getting
rusty, especially in a new pilot, could be deadly.

Now, yes, people of my generation do manage to pay for $150 sneakers
and multi-thousand home stereos. I suppose I could as well if I were
so inclined. But flying seemed to almost be on another order of
magnitude- the FBO where I trained rented Cessna 152s for $90 an hour
wet. At this stage in my life, that doesn't work out to a whole lot
of proficiency flights. I ended up calculating the cost of finishing
my PPL to be around $5000-6000, which is roughly twice what I spent on
my current car.

(And yes, a smarter move would have been to calculate this all out
beforehand. I thought I might squeeze through in the minimum
time...and in the end, I really really wanted to believe this was
something I was going to be able to afford, and I ignored questions
like "What if I take more than the minimum?" or "How am I going to
keep current?".)

Now, part of this is just where I am in my life, and where a lot of my
generation is as well- we're just out of college, and since the world
doesn't come delivered to your door we're not making the big bucks
just yet. At the same time, though, I can't help thinking that if
aviation were a bit more affordable it might be easier to draw in
younger folks who are in relatively lower-paying ($35-40K/year) jobs.
I can only speak from my own personal experience here, but the math
would have been very different for me if there had been an aircraft
available for, say, $60-75/hour wet rate. It would have made the PPL
less expensive, and it would also have made it easier for me to afford
currency. In my individual case it might or might not have made a
difference, but it would have lowered the barrier.

(Reducing the hours of instruction needed to gain the PPL would also
lower the barrier, but I'm not convinced that's the best way to
proceed. I had just enough training to realize how hard flying really
is, and I know that I would have needed at least 40 hours to be
comfortable with all of the PPL tasks. Lowering entry barriers is
nice and all, but I don't think that compromising standards is the way
to do it. And I say that as an unsuccessful flight student.)

Obviously, the pilot community can't just wave magic wands and make
cheaper aircraft appear. I had high hopes when the LSA category was
announced that cheaper aircraft might be in the offing, even if their
operating regime was more restrictred, but so far I've been
disappointed in the results. Most of the LSA I've seen announced have
been in the same $100-150K range as new-build GA aircraft, without any
real price reductions over what was available pre-LSA.

So what's the point of my ramblings? I'd say that based on my
personal experience a cheaper airplane is more likely to pull younger
people to GA than a pretty one. Composite bodies are pretty and I
like a nice interior as well as the next man, but I'd gladly perch on
a bicycle seat and fly the ugliest plane in the sky if it was cheaper
to rent than the next one over. If the community could successfully
lobby for a cheap, VFR plane that could lower the cost of renting and
serve as a "gateway" into flying, I believe that would do a great deal
towards attracting new pilots.

(And yes, I will be back in flight school. Have to get that pesky
medical school and residency out of the way first, but no matter how
long it takes, I will be back.)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"randall g" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:04:09 +0200, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>>Matt Barrow writes:
>>
>>> Around here, a two year old 172 goes for $105, wet.
>>
>>So that's still only 1.5 hours for the cost of a pair of expensive
>>sneakers.
>>The sneakers will last for months or years; once that 1.5 hours of flying
>>time
>>is gone, there's nothing.
>
>
> Might as well kill yourself now, then, because the rest of your life is
> just going to cost more money.

Your grasp is astonishing.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Jeff Dougherty" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> Now, yes, people of my generation do manage to pay for $150 sneakers
> and multi-thousand home stereos. I suppose I could as well if I were
> so inclined.

Exactly. Your inclinations run (no pun about sneakers intended) in a
different direction.

Hmm...

> (And yes, I will be back in flight school. Have to get that pesky
> medical school and residency out of the way first, but no matter how
> long it takes, I will be back.)

I'd say that your goals are rather more challenging than most of your peers.
That MAY be a factor. Costs may also be a factor, but I'd wager it was a
strong combination of both in your case.

When you're back, we'll be here waiting to hear from you.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:7814f2bf2e916@uwe...
> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
>
>>
>>Nothing wrong with the physics. Small turbines work. And for some
>>applications they have big adavantages. Fuel quantity per horsepower-hour,
>>however, isn't one of them.
>>
>
> Agreed. Turbines are most efficient well above normal GA altitudes. At
> common GA altitudes they suck large quantities of fuel. A turbine
> powered
> Luscombe project used to be based at my field. The speed and climb were
> slightly better than a piston powered Luscombe, but the range was
> dramatically shorter.

A Luscombe needs a turbine engine like a carp needs an outboard motor.

[James Sleeman]

On Sep 12, 1:17 pm, Jeff Dougherty >
wrote:
>
> to rent than the next one over. If the community could successfully
> lobby for a cheap, VFR plane that could lower the cost of renting and
> serve as a "gateway" into flying, I believe that would do a great deal
> towards attracting new pilots.

It's called a US-Legal ultralight. Or LSA like an X-Air H or RANS S6
for a little more $ and comfort.

You sound like the kind of person who would really get a kick out of
flying even first generation ultralghts, it really is getting right
back to basics, stick, rudder, and not a whole lot else to get between
you and the art of flying.

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Sep 12, 12:07 am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> I went the same route as you are now taking. It is a long hall, and the
> difficult part is that once finishing residency it takes a lot of time to
> start a practice, pay back student loans, take call, and find family time.

Yeah, but if it was easy anyone would do it. :-) Seriously, I
understand what you're saying, and I don't think I'm under any
illusions about the profession. you're right, it's a long road ahead.

Can I assume from your name that you joined the Air Force at some
point? I've heard that it can compare favorably to private practice
since they take care of your overhead and malpractice premiums.

> However, if you still have the fire, at least the financial aspect of it is
> less of a challenge, while the hardest thing is finding the time to fly
> consistently and safely.

That is one problem with generalizing my case: while the money was
definitely a factor in my decision to stop flight school, the major
one was my realization that I had four years of med school and at
least three of residency in front of me. And to be perfectly frank, I
anticipate that I'll be so busy during that time that I wouldn't be
able to keep current with flying even if someone handed me an airplane
for free, let alone actually afford rentals on a resident's salary.

But I do think that the cost of learning to fly and keeping in the air
is something that the GA community should keep an eye on. As I
alluded to above, I should be a perfect candidate for the next
generation of private pilots, in some ways: airport fence kid, airshow
junkie, Young Eagle, the works. And even absent my decision to go to
medical school, I have grave doubts as to whether I could have really
afforded aviation.

I suppose the reason I'm harping on this is that, in my admittedly
somewhat uninformed opinion as a former student pilot, rec.aviation
lurker, and AOPA website cruiser, this is a potentially missed
opportunity for the aviation community. Most of the proposals I've
seen for making it easier to fly seem to center on cutting down the
number of hours needed to get a PPL, which might not be the right way
to go for two reasons. First, it doesn't do anything to address the
cost of keeping in the air once you're a pilot, and second there are
good arguments that the PPL course really shouldn't be cut any further
than it already is.

Meanwhile, as I think another poster alluded to upthread, AOPA's focus
seems to be on high-end aircraft like Cirruses (Cirri?) and Columbias
that cost as much as a house in a high-end suburb. New build Cessnas
seem to be better, but not by a lot. The Cessna 152s are soldiering
on, but they're not getting any younger and nothing seems to be coming
along to replace them in the "cheap" ($30K) manufactured aircraft
range. There are experimentals that can come assembled in that range
such as the Kitfox, but I have a hard time imagining FBOs and aircraft
clubs taking on experimental aircraft as rentals. The high cost of
new airplanes and lack of new "cheap" designs for purchase or rent
seem to present a significant entry barrier into aviation, one that's
probably as if not more important than the number of hours required to
earn a ticket.

What's particularly disappointing to me is that it seemed the new LSA
rules were a golden opportunity to introduce a new generation of cheap
airplanes onto the market, even if they didn't have all the
capabilities of a larger private airplane. I couldn't believe it when
I saw that most new LSAs are still six-figure. It seems like there's
a real need being ignored by the manufacturers here, and that if the
piloting community could bring their attention to it and make a case
for a new generation of cheaper aircraft it would probably do much to
make flying more accessible and increase the number of private pilots.

Allright. I've said my piece twice now and probably exposed a lot of
ignorance along the way, so I promise to stop beating the dead horse.
I just wish someone would come out with a new build non-experimental
for less than $100K. :-)

-JTD

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Some things can only be simplified down so much. Basic flying has been
> simplified from 40 required hours to 20. That's pretty damn good and I
> really don't see how you could get it any shorter without taking everything
> away that makes it worth while to do.

There's a huge amount of red tape that has little to do with actually flying
that gets in the way for all but the most dedicated.

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Barrow writes:

> I have read such thoughts emanating from peoples as far back as the ancient
> Greeks and Romans. Indeed, you are correct.
>
> Thing is, today it's institutionalized, subsidized and glorified.

It was back then, too.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not obsessed with
> aviation. If I were I would have finished the plane I've been building for 5
> years a lot sooner.

Since I wasn't talking about you, this is irrelevant. Odd that you thought
otherwise. Hmm.

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Barrow writes:

> I might add that history, geography and most other classes were NOT taught
> by rote, at least my elementary (parochial) school.

History and geography cannot be taught any other way, since they are mainly
just memorization of facts.

Some subjects, such as math, can be taught theoretically. However, teaching
theory rather than simple rote memorization considerably raises the bar for
students, since the former requires more intelligence than the latter. For
this reason, most learning of most things is by rote rather than by theory.
Students are taught, for (figurative) example, that everything that goes up
must come down, but they are not taught the theory of gravity.

[Mxsmanic]

David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) writes:

> Are you learning to fly, Mixi?

Yes, but not in a way that would satisfy government regulators, nor in a way
that involves an actual airplane.

[Mxsmanic]

randall g writes:

> Might as well kill yourself now, then, because the rest of your life is
> just going to cost more money.

I'm not sure how you arrived at this conclusion.

[David Horne, _the_ chancellor]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) writes:
>
> > Are you learning to fly, Mixi?
>
> Yes, but not in a way that would satisfy government regulators, nor in a way
> that involves an actual airplane.

:)

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably
is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush"

[john]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) writes:
>
>> Are you learning to fly, Mixi?
>
> Yes, but not in a way that would satisfy government regulators, nor in a way
> that involves an actual airplane.
BZZZ wrong answer, your not learning to fly, your learning to play a game

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> > Some things can only be simplified down so much. Basic flying has been
> > simplified from 40 required hours to 20. That's pretty damn good and I
> > really don't see how you could get it any shorter without taking everything
> > away that makes it worth while to do.

> There's a huge amount of red tape that has little to do with actually flying
> that gets in the way for all but the most dedicated.

Such as?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:08:31 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>> YOu can quote all the Wki sites you like. That doesn't change the
>> fact that fractional ownership is just an evolution of partnerships
>> and flying clubs.
>
> So if Ford's Model T evolved into a high-performance sports car, would
> you characterize them both the same?
>
> It is your failure to acknowledge the RECENT surge in businesses
> offering fractional aircraft ownership and the RECENT changes in FAA
> fractional ownership regulations that prompts me to keep providing
> evidence of it for you.
>
> So while fractional ownership may not be new, it is newly emphasized.
> Why do you suppose that is?

Larry I never once said or even implied that fractional ownership wasn't
subject to a recent surge. You jusr keep acting like partial ownership among
many is a new thing and it isn't. The way it is marketed and managed has
changed.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Some things can only be simplified down so much. Basic flying has
>> been simplified from 40 required hours to 20. That's pretty damn
>> good and I really don't see how you could get it any shorter without
>> taking everything away that makes it worth while to do.
>
> There's a huge amount of red tape that has little to do with actually
> flying that gets in the way for all but the most dedicated.

How the hell would you know that? You have never taken a lesson in your
life. I have PP-ASEL and R-H ratings and can not think of one single thing
during that training that I would consider useless or red tape.

If you aren't talking about red tape and the training process please feel
free to give me an example.

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Sep 12, 12:40 am, James Sleeman > wrote:
> On Sep 12, 1:17 pm, Jeff Dougherty >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > to rent than the next one over. If the community could successfully
> > lobby for a cheap, VFR plane that could lower the cost of renting and
> > serve as a "gateway" into flying, I believe that would do a great deal
> > towards attracting new pilots.
>
> It's called a US-Legal ultralight. Or LSA like an X-Air H or RANS S6
> for a little more $ and comfort.
>
> You sound like the kind of person who would really get a kick out of
> flying even first generation ultralghts, it really is getting right
> back to basics, stick, rudder, and not a whole lot else to get between
> you and the art of flying.

I think I would, actually. When I fly, it will likely be under light-
sport rules since all I anticipate really wanting to do is drill some
plane-shaped holes in the sky and take in the view.

My concern is for the next generation of rental aircraft. The cheap
LSA and ultralights that you cited all seem to be flying under the
experimental rules, which I believe don't allow an aircraft to be
rented or used for any commercial purpose including instruction for
hire. (If I've misread the FARs, please correct me as IANAP) There
doesn't seem to be anything coming along to replace the Cessna 150 on
the flight school and rental lineup, and that's what worries me.

-JTD

[Maxwell]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> In order to appeal to the next generation, this is what I think we
> need:
> - a small turbine engine suitable for GA aircraft with fewer moving
> parts and smoother operation
> - gas mileage comparable to an SUV
> - a fully composite airframe
> - molded aesthetic interiors
> - cost about 2-3x the price of a luxury car
>

Rotary engine - Poor boys turbine. Greatly reduce the moving part count, for
weight, cost and reliability, and keep some of the fuel efficiency.

Noise - The need for wearing a headset has to go.

Vibration - Hard for me to understand with today's technology, why we are
still flying aircraft with reciprocating engines, hard coupled to flywheels
(propellers). Every other vehicle I can think of provides some kind of
dampening between the engine and final drive. Would make a tremendous
deference in creature comforts, if not reliability as well.

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Sep 12, 1:31 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
> > Some things can only be simplified down so much. Basic flying has been
> > simplified from 40 required hours to 20. That's pretty damn good and I
> > really don't see how you could get it any shorter without taking everything
> > away that makes it worth while to do.
>
> There's a huge amount of red tape that has little to do with actually flying
> that gets in the way for all but the most dedicated.

Eh? All I had to do to get in to flight school was show up with a
check in my hand. The third class medical doesn't do much more than
make sure you won't have a heart attack or seizure at 5,000 feet, and
I never got the idea that flight instruction was more complex than it
needed to be. Yeah, it was hard, in my limited experience, but flying
is complex. There's weather to consider, navigation from a completely
different perspective, and that pesky third dimension...

I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. Could you give an
example?

-JTD

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Such as?

The entire process of obtaining a license, for example, as well as the endless
currency requirements, medical exams, type ratings, and so on.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> How the hell would you know that?

By looking it up. The concept of research is not widely known but it remains
very useful.

[Mxsmanic]

Jeff Dougherty writes:

> Eh? All I had to do to get in to flight school was show up with a
> check in my hand.

Getting in is just the beginning.

> The third class medical doesn't do much more than make sure you
> won't have a heart attack or seizure at 5,000 feet ...

The medicals are excessively restrictive--reminiscent of military
requirements--and archaic, disqualifying some conditions that are generally
harmless while accepting others that can often be dangerous. They are also
unnecessarily repetitive.

Red tape is abundant in certification as well, with special procedures just
for having retractable gear, excessive currency requirements, heavy
regulation, and so on.

It's easier to become a lawyer than it is to become a pilot, and in some
respects it's easier to become a doctor as well.

[Mxsmanic]

john writes:

> BZZZ wrong answer, your not learning to fly, your learning to play a game

It's no more a game than any other simulator, and some of the people flying
you from place to place have learned with those "games" (and more will do so
in the future).

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
>john writes:
>
>> BZZZ wrong answer, your not learning to fly, your learning to play a game
>
>It's no more a game than any other simulator, and some of the people flying
>you from place to place have learned with those "games" (and more will do so
>in the future).

You think your $69.95 copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator is exactly the
same as the $5 million sim at Flight Safety? Geez, you're even vainer
than I thought, and that's saying something.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Here at WeSellCellPhones, I was pleased to hear that they believe in
"work-life balance." What it turned out this actually means is that your work
is your life, and is by definition balanced... -- JDF

[David Horne, _the_ chancellor]

Paul Tomblin > wrote:

> In a previous article, Mxsmanic > said:
> >john writes:
> >
> >> BZZZ wrong answer, your not learning to fly, your learning to play a game
> >
> >It's no more a game than any other simulator, and some of the people flying
> >you from place to place have learned with those "games" (and more will do so
> >in the future).
>
> You think your $69.95 copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator is exactly the
> same as the $5 million sim at Flight Safety? Geez, you're even vainer
> than I thought, and that's saying something.

I've been flying with google earth's flight simulation add-on. I feel
almost qualified already! :)

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably
is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush"

[Jon Woellhaf]

Jeff Dougherty wrote
>... The third class medical doesn't do much more than
> make sure you won't have a heart attack or seizure at 5,000 feet ...

I believe the third class medical -- or even the first class medical --
provide no assurance whatsoever that you won't have a heart attack on the
way from the doctor's office to your car.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, (David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)) said:
>Paul Tomblin > wrote:
>> You think your $69.95 copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator is exactly the
>> same as the $5 million sim at Flight Safety? Geez, you're even vainer
>> than I thought, and that's saying something.
>
>I've been flying with google earth's flight simulation add-on. I feel
>almost qualified already! :)

Here's the keys to my Lance. Have fun.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Company slogan: The Mandatory Beatings Will Continue Until Morale
Improves.

[David Horne, _the_ chancellor]

Paul Tomblin > wrote:

> In a previous article, (David Horne, _the_ chancellor
(*)) said:
> >Paul Tomblin > wrote:
> >> You think your $69.95 copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator is exactly the
> >> same as the $5 million sim at Flight Safety? Geez, you're even vainer
> >> than I thought, and that's saying something.
> >
> >I've been flying with google earth's flight simulation add-on. I feel
> >almost qualified already! :)
>
> Here's the keys to my Lance. Have fun.

Thanks- but where's the "9" key?

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably
is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush"

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"Jon Woellhaf" > writes:

> Jeff Dougherty wrote
>>... The third class medical doesn't do much more than
>> make sure you won't have a heart attack or seizure at 5,000 feet ...
>
> I believe the third class medical -- or even the first class medical --
> provide no assurance whatsoever that you won't have a heart attack on the
> way from the doctor's office to your car.

Indeed. In the Canadian regulations someplace, they describe the
intent of the medical exams as to reduce the probability of an
in-flight incapacitation to something like 1%. For the higher levels
of certificates, this is assumed to be under conditions of higher
stress/intensity/endurance - considering commercial pilots as flying
harder (physiologically speaking) than private pilots.


- FChE

[[email protected]]

On Sep 12, 1:06 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> It's easier to become a lawyer than it is to become a pilot, and in some
> respects it's easier to become a doctor as well.

An amazingly stupid statement, even without any background in any of
these fields..

F--

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Jeff Dougherty wrote:
> On Sep 12, 12:40 am, James Sleeman > wrote:
>> On Sep 12, 1:17 pm, Jeff Dougherty >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> to rent than the next one over. If the community could successfully
>>> lobby for a cheap, VFR plane that could lower the cost of renting
>>> and serve as a "gateway" into flying, I believe that would do a
>>> great deal towards attracting new pilots.
>>
>> It's called a US-Legal ultralight. Or LSA like an X-Air H or RANS S6
>> for a little more $ and comfort.
>>
>> You sound like the kind of person who would really get a kick out of
>> flying even first generation ultralghts, it really is getting right
>> back to basics, stick, rudder, and not a whole lot else to get
>> between you and the art of flying.
>
> I think I would, actually. When I fly, it will likely be under light-
> sport rules since all I anticipate really wanting to do is drill some
> plane-shaped holes in the sky and take in the view.
>
> My concern is for the next generation of rental aircraft. The cheap
> LSA and ultralights that you cited all seem to be flying under the
> experimental rules, which I believe don't allow an aircraft to be
> rented or used for any commercial purpose including instruction for
> hire. (If I've misread the FARs, please correct me as IANAP) There
> doesn't seem to be anything coming along to replace the Cessna 150 on
> the flight school and rental lineup, and that's what worries me.
>
> -JTD

You are half right. the S-LSA aircraft can be rented indeed Cessna
themselves have just started taking orders on the 162 Skycatcher.

Also, for at least a while the E-LSA (the ******* children of Experimental
and S-LSA) can be rented.

Check out sportpilot.org for more info.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Maxwell wrote:

> Noise - The need for wearing a headset has to go.
>

Oh you kids. When I got my PP-SEL back in 79 nobody at the airport wore
headsets. Of course we are all deaf today. But I don't see headsets as a
negative. Kids grow up wearing bike helmets and iPod ear buds. They are used
to wearing stuff on their heads.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Getting in is just the beginning.
>
>> The third class medical doesn't do much more than make sure you
>> won't have a heart attack or seizure at 5,000 feet ...
>
> The medicals are excessively restrictive--reminiscent of military
> requirements--and archaic, disqualifying some conditions that are
> generally harmless while accepting others that can often be
> dangerous. They are also unnecessarily repetitive.
>

Agreed but now we have LSA so that doesn't have to be an issue for the
average recreational pilot.


> Red tape is abundant in certification as well, with special
> procedures just for having retractable gear, excessive currency
> requirements, heavy regulation, and so on.

Please give us an example of the excessive requirements? And the average
recreational pilot (which is what this thread is about) isn't going to be
flying retracts.


>
> It's easier to become a lawyer than it is to become a pilot, and in
> some respects it's easier to become a doctor as well.

Well, now you are getting into the professional side of things but you are
once again wrong. I'm sure some of the doctors and lawyers around here will
jump in on this one.

[Maxwell]

"Some Other Guy" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell wrote:
>> Vibration - Hard for me to understand with today's technology, why we are
>> still flying aircraft with reciprocating engines, hard coupled to
>> flywheels (propellers). Every other vehicle I can think of provides some
>> kind of dampening between the engine and final drive. Would make a
>> tremendous deference in creature comforts, if not reliability as well.
>
> Reliability? Wouldn't it just be adding another potential point of
> failure?
>

Well I suppose it could, but certainly wouldn't have to be a given.
Torsional vibration devices in other vehicles don't seem to be common causes
of wear or failure. But the amount of vibration they can eliminate, could
very be helpful in reducing fatigue in other systems. It might even be
useful in reducing weight of things like the prop itself.

[Maxwell]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Maxwell wrote:
>
>> Noise - The need for wearing a headset has to go.
>>
>
> Oh you kids. When I got my PP-SEL back in 79 nobody at the airport wore
> headsets. Of course we are all deaf today. But I don't see headsets as a
> negative. Kids grow up wearing bike helmets and iPod ear buds. They are
> used to wearing stuff on their heads.
>

I hear ya, I soloed in 71, and got my PP in 72. So spent a lot of years
flying without them too. If fact, if I could still rent aircraft with decent
overhead speakers, I probably still wouldn't use them. But it seems most
rental aircraft have the speakers blown out from renters wearing ear plugs,
and cranking up the volume.

But from my experience, noise levels have always been a consideration to a
lot of the people I have introduced to GA. And the world is becoming more
demanding of creature comforts every day.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Such as?
>
> The entire process of obtaining a license, for example, as well as the
> endless
> currency requirements, medical exams, type ratings, and so on.

No problem. Fly and ultralight, dip****.

[Skylune]

On Sep 12, 1:01 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Such as?
>
> The entire process of obtaining a license, for example, as well as the endless
> currency requirements, medical exams, type ratings, and so on.

Its mainly Phil Boyer's fault, for publishing patent lies about the
utility of GA for travel. VFR GA is for recreation only, unless you
have a big budget pay whopping fuel bills and have unlimited time to
get to where you want.

When people realize that GA Serving America is just lies, they quit.
Most people, though, are smart enough not to believe that BS from the
start.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's easier to become a lawyer than it is to become a pilot, and in some
> respects it's easier to become a doctor as well.

Once again, a brand new high water mark for illustrating your complete
ignorance and incompetance with regard to all three persuits.

You fancy yourself such a genius, yet you can't comtemplate the rigors of
something as simple as getting a private pilots license. You're an ingorant,
arrogant moron. Thanks for a new example to remind us just how little you
understand.

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Sep 12, 1:06 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jeff Dougherty writes:
> > Eh? All I had to do to get in to flight school was show up with a
> > check in my hand.
>
> Getting in is just the beginning.

Believe me, I know. After all, I didn't finish. :-) And I did go to
college, where getting in wasn't even the beginning of the work I had
to do.

> > The third class medical doesn't do much more than make sure you
> > won't have a heart attack or seizure at 5,000 feet ...
>
> The medicals are excessively restrictive--reminiscent of military
> requirements--and archaic, disqualifying some conditions that are generally
> harmless while accepting others that can often be dangerous. They are also
> unnecessarily repetitive.

We could argue about whether or not certain conditions should be
automatically disqualifying for quite some time. I have a few pet
peeves there myself. However, according to statistics at
http://aviationmedicine.com/articles/index.cfm?fuseaction=displayArticle&articleID=19,
only 1.5% of those seeking medical certificates in 1998 (the last year
they had available) were denied one, and that included applicants who
didn't fill out the forms completely or include the appropriate
documentation. When you take those away, there were about 800 denials
out of about 450,000 applications. It doesn't sound like getting a
medical is all that restrictive.

And has been pointed out, if you don't think you can get one, fly as a
sport pilot. It's what I'll probably do.

> Red tape is abundant in certification as well, with special procedures just
> for having retractable gear, excessive currency requirements, heavy
> regulation, and so on.

I'm afraid that I can't really say much to these unless you're more
specific. As far as I know, once you have the PPL you can fly any
single engine landplane without retractable gear or a variable pitch
prop. There are enough gear-up landings each year that some
retractable-gear training certainly seems to be a good idea, and I
don't think anyone would argue that seaplanes and multiengine
airplanes shouldn't have their own training requirements.

Currency requirements? The only requirement for a VFR private pilot
is a checkride once every two years, requiring you to pay for a couple
hours of an instructor's time. It's every six months for IFR, but
only if you haven't logged a certain amount of instrument time. How
could those requirements be profitably reduced without compromising
safety? (Sure, it's more often if you're an ATP, but that doesn't
really apply to recreational GA)

As for "heavy regulation"...well, any amount of regulation can be
claimed to be heavy. Unless you're more specific about which regs you
consider unnecessarily burdensome, I can't really offer
counterpoints.

> It's easier to become a lawyer than it is to become a pilot, and in some
> respects it's easier to become a doctor as well.

Er. As a current applicant for medical school, I've gone through a
year of premed coursework (after finishing a bio major at a liberal
arts college), followed by a yearlong application process that
involves a lot of paperwork and some not inconsiderable fees to get me
the chance to fly at my own expense somewhere for an interview, after
which the school might or might not admit me. I've definitely spent
more than 90 hours on the application process, and my total bill
probably won't come out to be much less than a PPL once I'm done
interviewing all over creation. (With the amount of flying I need to
do soon, I'll have my multiengine pax rating in no time! ;~) ) It's
taken two years on top of the four I spent in college, a lot of money
and skull sweat...

....and that's just to get *into* medical school. When/if I start,
I'll then do four years worth of intensive coursework, followed by at
least three years of residency pulling 80-100 hour weeks. Followed by
a licensing process that will look at my health at least as closely as
an FAA medical.

(And oh yeah, I'll be paying for it all too, at about $40K a year.
Debt, here I come!)

The above is not a complaint by any means. I can't wait to get in and
start my journey towards being a physician, and I knew what the rules
of the game were when I started the process. But in consideration of
the above, I would be interested to know what part of becoming a
doctor you consider easier than becoming a private pilot.

-JTD

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Maxwell wrote:

>
> But from my experience, noise levels have always been a consideration
> to a lot of the people I have introduced to GA. And the world is
> becoming more demanding of creature comforts every day.

No Sh!t, how do you think Bose gets away with selling $1000 headsets.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Some Other Guy" > wrote
>> Maxwell wrote:
>> Vibration - Hard for me to understand with today's technology, why we are
>> still flying aircraft with reciprocating engines, hard coupled to
>> flywheels (propellers). Every other vehicle I can think of provides some
>> kind of dampening between the engine and final drive. Would make a
>> tremendous deference in creature comforts, if not reliability as well.
>
> Reliability? Wouldn't it just be adding another potential point of
> failure?

Plus the big killer of airplanes and "improvements" - WEIGHT !

A vibration isolator/dampener would have to be extreeeeemly robust, to
handle the torque pulses, and would weigh a significant amount.

A properly indexed and balanced prop is not going to be worse than a prop
isolated from the engine, either.

There are some devices that bolt on the backplate of the spinner, (as I
recall) but I don't remember the name. They work by letting some weight in
a viscous fluid find the right place to settle and balance the system out,
automatically. I do recall that people that have used them rave about them.
Anyone?
--
Jim in NC

[Maxwell]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Maxwell wrote:
>
>>
>> But from my experience, noise levels have always been a consideration
>> to a lot of the people I have introduced to GA. And the world is
>> becoming more demanding of creature comforts every day.
>
> No Sh!t, how do you think Bose gets away with selling $1000 headsets.
>

But if people will pay $1000 for headsets, what would they pay for an
aircraft that doesn't require them?

And how many more people would be attracted to GA, if they didn't have to
decide between noise - and the discomfort, cost and inconvenience of
headsets. And before you answer, consider the battle in the motorcycle
community over helmets.

I really believe most pilots today, are pilots because they love to fly. And
most would continue to fly even if they had to wear a space suit. But we
will never know how much noise, vibration and inconvenience has handicapped
aviation's ability to compete with other pursuits, until we have eliminated
them.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Such as?

> The entire process of obtaining a license, for example, as well as the endless
> currency requirements, medical exams, type ratings, and so on.

Clueless babbling idiot.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Maxwell wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> But from my experience, noise levels have always been a
>>> consideration to a lot of the people I have introduced to GA. And
>>> the world is becoming more demanding of creature comforts every day.
>>
>> No Sh!t, how do you think Bose gets away with selling $1000 headsets.
>>
>
> But if people will pay $1000 for headsets, what would they pay for an
> aircraft that doesn't require them?

Which is cheaper? A $1000 pair of headsets or the multi hundred pounds it
will take to make aircraft quieter in the cockpit. And before you answer we
aren't just talking insullation here we are talking a bigger engine to carry
the weight of the insullation, more fuel and fuel burn because of the bigger
engine and probably 100 other things I haven't even thought of.


>
> And how many more people would be attracted to GA, if they didn't
> have to decide between noise - and the discomfort, cost and
> inconvenience of headsets. And before you answer, consider the battle
> in the motorcycle community over helmets.
>

The fact is most people that ride motorcycles DO where helments. I personaly
got ****ed as hell that in the same session of the Arkansas legislature they
passed a law that adults could ride without them and at then turned around
and passed a law that requires that same adult to put on a seat belt in a
car that has airbags all around the driver.



> I really believe most pilots today, are pilots because they love to
> fly. And most would continue to fly even if they had to wear a space
> suit. But we will never know how much noise, vibration and
> inconvenience has handicapped aviation's ability to compete with
> other pursuits, until we have eliminated them.

You are right that there are probably some folks out there that don't fly
for that reason. But motorcycles are loud, jetskis are loud, ski and bass
boats are loud. Being loud isn't the problem. The same goes for vibration.

[Maxwell]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> A properly indexed and balanced prop is not going to be worse than a prop
> isolated from the engine, either.
>

How does properly indexing and balancing a prop reduce torsional vibration?

[Maxwell]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...

> Which is cheaper? A $1000 pair of headsets or the multi hundred pounds it
> will take to make aircraft quieter in the cockpit. And before you answer
> we aren't just talking insullation here we are talking a bigger engine to
> carry the weight of the insullation, more fuel and fuel burn because of
> the bigger engine and probably 100 other things I haven't even thought of.
>
You might not have to add weight. The auto industry seems to have avoided
it.

>
> You are right that there are probably some folks out there that don't fly
> for that reason. But motorcycles are loud, jetskis are loud, ski and bass
> boats are loud. Being loud isn't the problem. The same goes for vibration.
>

Perhaps not to you, but there are a lot of people out there that can easily
afford any small plane they choose. But they don't fly airplanes, ride jet
skis, motorcycles or bass boats. Most do however seem to drive a Lexus, or
something a whole lot like one.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:49:36 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>Which is cheaper? A $1000 pair of headsets or the multi hundred pounds it
>will take to make aircraft quieter in the cockpit.

Now that the jet airliners are quieter than the light singles, isn't
it time for some noise reduction? What significant disadvantage would
there be to a muffler re-design to reduce noise? I realize there
isn't much room available for a larger muffler, and the increased heat
it might radiate would be a factor to consider. But I can recall when
police helos would awaken the neighborhood; now that's a thing of the
past. Surely there is some technologic expertise that could be
applied to aircraft noise reduction, isn't there? Aren't Q-tip props
quieter?

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Maxwell" >
wrote:

> But if people will pay $1000 for headsets, what would they pay for an
> aircraft that doesn't require them?

nothing.

> And how many more people would be attracted to GA, if they didn't have to
> decide between noise - and the discomfort, cost and inconvenience of
> headsets.

Do you know anyone who said something like "I'd fly but these airplanes
are just too noisy"?

>And before you answer, consider the battle in the motorcycle
> community over helmets.

Is anyone requiring pilots to wear headsets? No. Your comparison
to nanny-state requirements for helmets is invalid.

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

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

Bottom line is that flying, like skiing, scuba diving, skydiving,
motocross, etc is not for everyone.

Ron Lee

[Maxwell]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Maxwell"
> >
> wrote:
>
>> But if people will pay $1000 for headsets, what would they pay for an
>> aircraft that doesn't require them?
>
> nothing.

Nonsense. You cut the noise level on GA 50%, and pilots would be lining up.

>
>> And how many more people would be attracted to GA, if they didn't have to
>> decide between noise - and the discomfort, cost and inconvenience of
>> headsets.
>
> Do you know anyone who said something like "I'd fly but these airplanes
> are just too noisy"?

Yes. I have know a couple of pilots that gave it up because their wives had
problems with noise, and I would certainly enjoy it more myself.

>
>>And before you answer, consider the battle in the motorcycle
>> community over helmets.
>
> Is anyone requiring pilots to wear headsets? No. Your comparison
> to nanny-state requirements for helmets is invalid.

I think you missed the point on that one, Bob. I think as many pilots would
like to loose their headset, as bikers would their helmets. But they don't
want to suffer the loss of hearing or safety.

[Jim Logajan]

Bob Noel > wrote:
> Do you know anyone who said something like "I'd fly but these
> airplanes are just too noisy"?

I know someone who is a pilot and thought small airplanes were noisy enough
(among other reasons of course) to design, build, and fly an experimental
hot-air airship. There is an interesting video made for the Boston Globe
newspaper of the airship in action and an interview with the designers
where one of them cites noise of small aircraft as one motivation. Click on
the image with the words "Going Up" on this website to see the video:

http://www.personalblimp.com/

(That kind of leisurely flying appeals to me - being able to stop and smell
the roses, or pick the apples off the top of tree by reaching _downward_.
;-). I'm definitely out of step with the go-fast crowd.)

[Maxwell]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> Bottom line is that flying, like skiing, scuba diving, skydiving,
> motocross, etc is not for everyone.
>

If it is not, why shouldn't it be? Besides, how does GA compare to any of
those activities? You are inside a heated motor vehicle, that usually
affords passengers, and has a much better safety record.

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Sep 12, 1:06 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jeff Dougherty writes:
> > Eh? All I had to do to get in to flight school was show up with a
> > check in my hand.
>
> Getting in is just the beginning.
>
> > The third class medical doesn't do much more than make sure you
> > won't have a heart attack or seizure at 5,000 feet ...
>
> The medicals are excessively restrictive--reminiscent of military
> requirements--and archaic, disqualifying some conditions that are generally
> harmless while accepting others that can often be dangerous. They are also
> unnecessarily repetitive.
>
> Red tape is abundant in certification as well, with special procedures just
> for having retractable gear, excessive currency requirements, heavy
> regulation, and so on.
>
> It's easier to become a lawyer than it is to become a pilot, and in some
> respects it's easier to become a doctor as well.

I agree that medicals are excessively restrictive, but that has been
slowly changing. Also, based on accident records, having a special
rating for retract makes perfect sense. If the FAA does not, the
insurance companies will (and do) impose extra conditions for flying a
retract. No, it is not easier to become a physician or a lawyer.
Anyone without a serious physical handicap, about $5k of cash and
average or even below average intelligence can become a pilot in a few
months. Even if you are talking about becoming a professional pilot,
there are places that will train you from zero for about $50k.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Maxwell"
> >
> wrote:
>
>> But if people will pay $1000 for headsets, what would they pay for an
>> aircraft that doesn't require them?
>
> nothing.

But they WILL pay $$$ hundreds of thousands to have pressurization so they
don't have to have a cannula shoved up their nose, or a face mask. :~)

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> Bottom line is that flying, like skiing, scuba diving, skydiving,
> motocross, etc is not for everyone.
>
Well., you have to wear a FACE MASK OR GOGGLES for all those hobbies.

Gotta be more annoying than headphones.

Of course, how many people wander around with a Walkman blasting in their
ears?

[Andrew Sarangan]

On Sep 12, 1:37 pm, "Jon Woellhaf" > wrote:
> Jeff Dougherty wrote
>
> >... The third class medical doesn't do much more than
> > make sure you won't have a heart attack or seizure at 5,000 feet ...
>
> I believe the third class medical -- or even the first class medical --
> provide no assurance whatsoever that you won't have a heart attack on the
> way from the doctor's office to your car.

Someone posted their story here a while ago about having to get a
special psychiatric evaluation just because he happened to mention to
the FAA that he had a psychological evaluation when he was an 5-year
old (or something close to that age). There is no doubt that the FAA
medical process is unnecessarily bureaucratic and has grounded too
many perfectly fine pilots. A fairer system would be to do away with
medicals except for those who fly for a living. Just like we do for
driving. To my knowledge, it has never been proven that medical
incapacitation is a leading cause of aviation accidents.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Agreed but now we have LSA so that doesn't have to be an issue for the
> average recreational pilot.

LSA is so restrictive that it's uninteresting to many potential pilots. And
the existence of LSA demonstrates that the normal PPL is too draconian in its
requirements. Flying an LSA doesn't make you any more fit to fly.

> Please give us an example of the excessive requirements? And the average
> recreational pilot (which is what this thread is about) isn't going to be
> flying retracts.

Why not?

> Well, now you are getting into the professional side of things but you are
> once again wrong. I'm sure some of the doctors and lawyers around here will
> jump in on this one.

I'm not talking about professional pilots, even private pilots have this
problem.

[Adhominem]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> To my knowledge, it has never been proven that medical
> incapacitation is a leading cause of aviation accidents.

Well, that could also be interpreted as supporting the medicals: After all,
medical incapacitation isn't a leading cause of aviation accidents, so the
medicals must be doing a good job of preventing
medical-incapacitation-caused accidents.

We need data on the frequency of medical incapacitation accidents in the
absence of medicals in order to really be able to make a point either way.

Ad.

--
The mail address works, but please notify me via usenet of any mail you send
to it, as it has a retention period of just a few hours.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> But they WILL pay $$$ hundreds of thousands to have pressurization so they
> don't have to have a cannula shoved up their nose, or a face mask. :~)

A better reason is to fly over rather than through mountains and some weather.

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

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Which is cheaper? A $1000 pair of headsets or the multi hundred
>> pounds it will take to make aircraft quieter in the cockpit. And
>> before you answer we aren't just talking insullation here we are
>> talking a bigger engine to carry the weight of the insullation, more
>> fuel and fuel burn because of the bigger engine and probably 100
>> other things I haven't even thought of.
> You might not have to add weight. The auto industry seems to have
> avoided it.

My last car was a Honda S2000. 2 Seats, good performance and a trunk about
the size of the cargo area in a 150.

Curb Weight 2,835 lbs.

And since you mention Lexus below.

Lexus GS450h Hybrid.

Curb Weight 4,134 lbs.


>
>>
>> You are right that there are probably some folks out there that
>> don't fly for that reason. But motorcycles are loud, jetskis are
>> loud, ski and bass boats are loud. Being loud isn't the problem. The
>> same goes for vibration.
>
> Perhaps not to you, but there are a lot of people out there that can
> easily afford any small plane they choose. But they don't fly
> airplanes, ride jet skis, motorcycles or bass boats. Most do however
> seem to drive a Lexus, or something a whole lot like one.

I'm not really sure of your point on this. You seem to be comparing GA as
recreation to a auto for transportation.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Agreed but now we have LSA so that doesn't have to be an issue for
>> the average recreational pilot.
>
> LSA is so restrictive that it's uninteresting to many potential
> pilots. And the existence of LSA demonstrates that the normal PPL is
> too draconian in its requirements. Flying an LSA doesn't make you
> any more fit to fly.
>

Tell me what is so restrictive about it. The type of flight it authorizes
would cover 90% of the recreational GA flight in the US.



>> Please give us an example of the excessive requirements? And the
>> average recreational pilot (which is what this thread is about)
>> isn't going to be flying retracts.
>
> Why not?
>


Because of the additional cost of the aircraft and the general lack of need
for it in recreational GA flying.


>> Well, now you are getting into the professional side of things but
>> you are once again wrong. I'm sure some of the doctors and lawyers
>> around here will jump in on this one.
>
> I'm not talking about professional pilots, even private pilots have
> this problem.

So it is your stance that the requirements for a private pilot ticket are on
par with the requirements to be a lawyer or doctor?

[Maxwell]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Maxwell wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Which is cheaper? A $1000 pair of headsets or the multi hundred
>>> pounds it will take to make aircraft quieter in the cockpit. And
>>> before you answer we aren't just talking insullation here we are
>>> talking a bigger engine to carry the weight of the insullation, more
>>> fuel and fuel burn because of the bigger engine and probably 100
>>> other things I haven't even thought of.
>> You might not have to add weight. The auto industry seems to have
>> avoided it.
>
> My last car was a Honda S2000. 2 Seats, good performance and a trunk about
> the size of the cargo area in a 150.
>
> Curb Weight 2,835 lbs.
>
> And since you mention Lexus below.
>
> Lexus GS450h Hybrid.
>
> Curb Weight 4,134 lbs.
>

You're right. Most hybrids do weigh more.


>>
>>>
>>> You are right that there are probably some folks out there that
>>> don't fly for that reason. But motorcycles are loud, jetskis are
>>> loud, ski and bass boats are loud. Being loud isn't the problem. The
>>> same goes for vibration.
>>
>> Perhaps not to you, but there are a lot of people out there that can
>> easily afford any small plane they choose. But they don't fly
>> airplanes, ride jet skis, motorcycles or bass boats. Most do however
>> seem to drive a Lexus, or something a whole lot like one.
>
> I'm not really sure of your point on this. You seem to be comparing GA as
> recreation to a auto for transportation.

Not at all. Just than in the last 30 years automobiles have gotten "A LOT"
quieter and GA aircraft haven't kept pace.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Maxwell wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> Maxwell wrote:
>>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Which is cheaper? A $1000 pair of headsets or the multi hundred
>>>> pounds it will take to make aircraft quieter in the cockpit. And
>>>> before you answer we aren't just talking insullation here we are
>>>> talking a bigger engine to carry the weight of the insullation,
>>>> more fuel and fuel burn because of the bigger engine and probably
>>>> 100 other things I haven't even thought of.
>>> You might not have to add weight. The auto industry seems to have
>>> avoided it.
>>
>> My last car was a Honda S2000. 2 Seats, good performance and a trunk
>> about the size of the cargo area in a 150.
>>
>> Curb Weight 2,835 lbs.
>>
>> And since you mention Lexus below.
>>
>> Lexus GS450h Hybrid.
>>
>> Curb Weight 4,134 lbs.
>>
>
> You're right. Most hybrids do weigh more.


That little S2000 wasn't a Hybrid.



>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are right that there are probably some folks out there that
>>>> don't fly for that reason. But motorcycles are loud, jetskis are
>>>> loud, ski and bass boats are loud. Being loud isn't the problem.
>>>> The same goes for vibration.
>>>
>>> Perhaps not to you, but there are a lot of people out there that can
>>> easily afford any small plane they choose. But they don't fly
>>> airplanes, ride jet skis, motorcycles or bass boats. Most do however
>>> seem to drive a Lexus, or something a whole lot like one.
>>
>> I'm not really sure of your point on this. You seem to be comparing
>> GA as recreation to a auto for transportation.
>
> Not at all. Just than in the last 30 years automobiles have gotten "A
> LOT" quieter and GA aircraft haven't kept pace.

Because weight is an insignificant issue in autos but not in aircraft.

And while autos have gotten quieter there are a bunch of people out there
that will pay a premium to make them louder by getting them with a
convertable top. When I had that S2000 and was on the highway I had to
listen to my iPod via the earbuds because of the noise.

[Ken Finney]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, "Maxwell"
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But if people will pay $1000 for headsets, what would they pay for an
>>> aircraft that doesn't require them?
>>
>> nothing.
>
> Nonsense. You cut the noise level on GA 50%, and pilots would be lining
> up.
>

< snip >

I'm VERY sensitive to noise. I don't find cabin noise to be a problem at
all. I suppose if I had an issue with wearing headsets, I might not feel
this way. I do have a problem with some of the planes being as noisy as
they are on the outside, but I believe there really are just a few bad
apples in this regard.

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> But they WILL pay $$$ hundreds of thousands to have pressurization so
>> they
>> don't have to have a cannula shoved up their nose, or a face mask. :~)
>
> A better reason is to fly over rather than through mountains and some
> weather.

Pressurization is better for flying over mountains verses around?

[Bob Martin]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >, "Maxwell" >
> wrote:
>
>> But if people will pay $1000 for headsets, what would they pay for an
>> aircraft that doesn't require them?
>
> nothing.
>
>> And how many more people would be attracted to GA, if they didn't have to
>> decide between noise - and the discomfort, cost and inconvenience of
>> headsets.
>
> Do you know anyone who said something like "I'd fly but these airplanes
> are just too noisy"?

Well, to be fair, that's the primary reason my fiancee doesn't fly with me more. It's
loud and there's lots of vibration, and wearing headsets (or any kind of headphones, for
that matter) makes her nauseous after a little while.

Whatever I wind up building in the future, it'll take some very careful work to keep it
quiet enough...

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

>>> But they WILL pay $$$ hundreds of thousands to have pressurization so
>>> they
>>> don't have to have a cannula shoved up their nose, or a face mask. :~)
>>
>> A better reason is to fly over rather than through mountains and some
>> weather.
>
>Pressurization is better for flying over mountains verses around?

I fly over the Rockies in an RV-6A (non-pressurized) at altitudes as
high as 17,500'. No problem.

Ron Lee

[Mxsmanic]

Jeff Dougherty writes:

> We could argue about whether or not certain conditions should be
> automatically disqualifying for quite some time. I have a few pet
> peeves there myself. However, according to statistics at
> http://aviationmedicine.com/articles/index.cfm?fuseaction=displayArticle&articleID=19,
> only 1.5% of those seeking medical certificates in 1998 (the last year
> they had available) were denied one, and that included applicants who
> didn't fill out the forms completely or include the appropriate
> documentation. When you take those away, there were about 800 denials
> out of about 450,000 applications. It doesn't sound like getting a
> medical is all that restrictive.

That surprises me, since a number of the disqualifying conditions are more
common than 1.5% of the population.

> And has been pointed out, if you don't think you can get one, fly as a
> sport pilot. It's what I'll probably do.

Sport pilot is so restrictive that I don't think it would be worth the trouble
(at least for me).

> I'm afraid that I can't really say much to these unless you're more
> specific. As far as I know, once you have the PPL you can fly any
> single engine landplane without retractable gear or a variable pitch
> prop. There are enough gear-up landings each year that some
> retractable-gear training certainly seems to be a good idea, and I
> don't think anyone would argue that seaplanes and multiengine
> airplanes shouldn't have their own training requirements.

There are lots of things that can make an aircraft more complex to fly, not
just retractable gear. So I'm not sure why retractable gear justifies a
separate restriction if the other stuff doesn't.

Not only that, but I like twin-engine aircraft with retractable gear and all
the other "complex" and "high-performance" stuff.

> Currency requirements? The only requirement for a VFR private pilot
> is a checkride once every two years, requiring you to pay for a couple
> hours of an instructor's time. It's every six months for IFR, but
> only if you haven't logged a certain amount of instrument time. How
> could those requirements be profitably reduced without compromising
> safety?

I don't know. But conversely I'm not sure that they make instrument pilots
safer.

> As for "heavy regulation"...well, any amount of regulation can be
> claimed to be heavy. Unless you're more specific about which regs you
> consider unnecessarily burdensome, I can't really offer
> counterpoints.

Compare the length of the FARs (even Part 91 alone) to a typical motor vehicle
code.

> Er. As a current applicant for medical school, I've gone through a
> year of premed coursework (after finishing a bio major at a liberal
> arts college), followed by a yearlong application process that
> involves a lot of paperwork and some not inconsiderable fees to get me
> the chance to fly at my own expense somewhere for an interview, after
> which the school might or might not admit me. I've definitely spent
> more than 90 hours on the application process, and my total bill
> probably won't come out to be much less than a PPL once I'm done
> interviewing all over creation. (With the amount of flying I need to
> do soon, I'll have my multiengine pax rating in no time! ;~) ) It's
> taken two years on top of the four I spent in college, a lot of money
> and skull sweat...
>
> ...and that's just to get *into* medical school.

Sure, but a PPL is just to get _into_ flying. You still need other ratings
and certifications, an airplane, an airport, and so on.

> When/if I start,
> I'll then do four years worth of intensive coursework, followed by at
> least three years of residency pulling 80-100 hour weeks. Followed by
> a licensing process that will look at my health at least as closely as
> an FAA medical.

You can't be a doctor if you're diabetic or an epileptic?

> But in consideration of
> the above, I would be interested to know what part of becoming a
> doctor you consider easier than becoming a private pilot.

If all you want is a PPL, it's easier than becoming a doctor. If you want
something more complex than a PPL, and if you want to actually fly on a
regular basis, the time and expense starts to increase almost exponentially.

In my case, my favorite sim aircraft is a Beechcraft Baron 58. But becoming a
pilot of my own Baron in real life would be hideously time-consuming,
difficult, and expensive. I suppose if I just wanted to fly a Piper Cub,
things might be different, but I don't want to fly a piece of junk, and I'd
want to be instrument rated.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Tell me what is so restrictive about it. The type of flight it authorizes
> would cover 90% of the recreational GA flight in the US.

It's restrictive because it wouldn't allow me to fly in a way that would make
flying worthwhile. I don't just want to putter around in a circle.

> Because of the additional cost of the aircraft and the general lack of need
> for it in recreational GA flying.

In other words, time, expense, and difficulty, QED.

> So it is your stance that the requirements for a private pilot ticket are on
> par with the requirements to be a lawyer or doctor?

They are certainly on a par with becoming a lawyer, which (surprisingly) isn't
that difficult in the U.S. They are comparable to becoming a doctor as well,
depending on how far you want to go.

[Mxsmanic]

Andrew Sarangan writes:

> I agree that medicals are excessively restrictive, but that has been
> slowly changing.

VERY slowly changing.

I figure that a private pilot is far less likely to take anyone with him if he
kills himself in an accident than is an automobile driver, so why the
restrictive medical requirements? A pilot's only victims are likely to be his
passengers, if any, but someone crashing on the highway can cause many
injuries and deaths.

A good first step would be to dramatically reduce the requirements for
piloting alone, while (perhaps) maintaining somewhat more stringent
requirements for pilots who want to take passengers with them. However, I'm
not convinced that the chances of sudden incapacitation are really high enough
to worry about in any case.

> Also, based on accident records, having a special
> rating for retract makes perfect sense. If the FAA does not, the
> insurance companies will (and do) impose extra conditions for flying a
> retract.

I don't think insurance should be mandatory for pilots, either.

> Anyone without a serious physical handicap, about $5k of cash and
> average or even below average intelligence can become a pilot in a few
> months. Even if you are talking about becoming a professional pilot,
> there are places that will train you from zero for about $50k.

Yeah, I saw an ad for $42K. But I'm sure there are a great many prerequisites
for admission to the school.

[Mxsmanic]

Jon Woellhaf writes:

> I believe the third class medical -- or even the first class medical --
> provide no assurance whatsoever that you won't have a heart attack on the
> way from the doctor's office to your car.

There have been cases of airline pilots dying suddenly in the cockpit from
severe cardiovascular disease even though they had passed their stringent
medicals. The medicals worry too much about some things while ignoring
others.

[Mxsmanic]

Adhominem writes:

> Well, that could also be interpreted as supporting the medicals: After all,
> medical incapacitation isn't a leading cause of aviation accidents, so the
> medicals must be doing a good job of preventing
> medical-incapacitation-caused accidents.
>
> We need data on the frequency of medical incapacitation accidents in the
> absence of medicals in order to really be able to make a point either way.

We can get those numbers from automobile accidents. How many accidents are
caused by sudden incapacitation of automobile drivers? How many are caused by
drivers having a sudden heart attack or seizure?

[Mxsmanic]

Paul Tomblin writes:

> You think your $69.95 copy of Microsoft Flight Simulator is exactly the
> same as the $5 million sim at Flight Safety?

No, but it's a good simulator. In fact, it's better than some older
simulators that _used_ to cost $5 million.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> You might not have to add weight. The auto industry seems to have avoided
> it.

True, but lightweight soundproofing is more expensive. So you either pay in
weight or in materials cost. I suppose the lightweight stuff would save money
over the long run--but that wouldn't help if it made the aircraft too
unaffordable up front.

> Perhaps not to you, but there are a lot of people out there that can easily
> afford any small plane they choose. But they don't fly airplanes, ride jet
> skis, motorcycles or bass boats. Most do however seem to drive a Lexus, or
> something a whole lot like one.

A lot of people have simply not been exposed to anything else. If everyone
were given a chance to ride an airplane, jet ski, motorcycle, bass boat, and
Lexus, I daresay there would be far fewer Lexus drivers and far more people
using the other vehicles ... at least for purposes of leisure and enjoyment
(in terms of transportation, only the motorcycle can compete with a car).

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Noel writes:

> Do you know anyone who said something like "I'd fly but these airplanes
> are just too noisy"?

I've seen quite a few complaints about it. The noise level in many small
aircraft is high enough to damage hearing.

[Mike Isaksen]

"Jeff Dougherty" wrote ...
>
> On Sep 12, 1:06 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
>> It's easier to become a lawyer than it is to become a pilot, and
>> in some respects it's easier to become a doctor as well.
>
> Er. As a current applicant for medical school,...

Jeff, welcome to the head banging portion of the Mxsmanic Experience. Every
regular on this group has gone through this "reasoned discussion phase",
gotton dizzy, and fallen down. There's lots of us here to help you up. Nuff
said.

Keep focused on the med school road, but spend a bit of free time (yeah
right,...ha,ha) searching out a flying club in the area around the school.
Go to meetings and announce that you would like share some time and
expenses. You are bound to get some takers and you'll undoubtedly find
yourself on the controls (most PPLs are eager teachers). Good luck.

[BDS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> I suppose if I just wanted to fly a Piper Cub,
> things might be different, but I don't want to fly a piece of junk, and
I'd
> want to be instrument rated.

Speaking of Piper Cubs, I just got my tailwheel endorsement in one and I've
got to say it's one of the most fun airplanes to fly that I've ever flown.
All of a sudden it's fun to just fly around the pattern doing takeoffs and
landings again at some small grass strip, or just cruising along the
countryside with the door and windows open at 60 mph.

If you don't have your tailwheel endorsement yet and you're looking for
something fun and challenging to do that will definitely improve your
skills, I'd highly recommend doing it, especially if you can do it in
something like a '40s vintage J3. It's alot of fun and it opens up a whole
new world of airplanes to fly.

BDS

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> You might not have to add weight. The auto industry seems to have avoided
>> it.
>
> True, but lightweight soundproofing is more expensive. So you either pay
> in
> weight or in materials cost. I suppose the lightweight stuff would save
> money
> over the long run--but that wouldn't help if it made the aircraft too
> unaffordable up front.

I guess you are stupid enough to think the only way to reduce noise is some
type of insulation. Maybe wrap your head in a blanket.

>
>> Perhaps not to you, but there are a lot of people out there that can
>> easily
>> afford any small plane they choose. But they don't fly airplanes, ride
>> jet
>> skis, motorcycles or bass boats. Most do however seem to drive a Lexus,
>> or
>> something a whole lot like one.
>
> A lot of people have simply not been exposed to anything else. If
> everyone
> were given a chance to ride an airplane, jet ski, motorcycle, bass boat,
> and
> Lexus, I daresay there would be far fewer Lexus drivers and far more
> people
> using the other vehicles ... at least for purposes of leisure and
> enjoyment
> (in terms of transportation, only the motorcycle can compete with a car).

Lost again moron, the topic was making GA more appealing to the average
person. Can't you follow a thread??? Take your meds.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Lost again moron, the topic was making GA more appealing to the average
> person.

Yes, and exposing more people to aviation would potentially be a step in that
direction, although it's hard to say how many it would turn on vs. how many it
would turn off.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Lost again moron, the topic was making GA more appealing to the average
>> person.
>
> Yes, and exposing more people to aviation would potentially be a step in
> that
> direction, although it's hard to say how many it would turn on vs. how
> many it
> would turn off.

Give it up dip****, you still missed the point.

[Zaroc Stone]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:07:43 -0700, Andrew Sarangan
> wrote:

>This is a follow-on to the various discussions on the future of GA.
>
>Why aren't the kids who grew up with cell phones and iPods not
>interested in aviation?
>
>One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly. If we could only
>drive a1975 Chevy Nova or something similar, with bolted down wooden
>panels and foggy instruments, I doubt many teenagers would be earger
>to get their drivers license.
>
>The second aspect is the fascination pilots seem to have with war
>equipment, and the yearning for the 'good ol days'. Many pilots look
>at a WW2 airplane like a B17 as if it were a technological marvel.
>That may be true, but it just doesn't connect with the new generation.
>Even though I am not from the iPod generation, I too found this
>fascination with war equipment rather strange. Perhaps it is because
>no one in my anscestry participated in the war.
>
>How many kids do you see hanging around at antique car shows? Airports
>are not too far from being an antique museum.
>
>Aviation technology has marched on in great strides in the past 50
>years. But almost all of the modernization has occured due to the
>advancement in electronics. This is the only aspect that keeps some of
>us still interested in aviation. That includes VOR, GPS, satellite
>weather, flight planning tools, electronic charts, glass panels etc..
>The mechanical aspects have been stagnant. All these modern
>electronics are still housed in ancient aluminum panels that are
>riveted togother. They creak and vibrate, and the engines consume
>leaded fuel and puff out smoke and oil, and have frightening gas
>mileage.
>
>In order to appeal to the next generation, this is what I think we
>need:
>- a small turbine engine suitable for GA aircraft with fewer moving
>parts and smoother operation
>- gas mileage comparable to an SUV
>- a fully composite airframe
>- molded aesthetic interiors
>- cost about 2-3x the price of a luxury car
>
You were doing fine until the last item. 2-3X the price of a luxury
car? Would this be $150,000? You just priced the majority of people
out of the market. I've owned 2 airplanes (not at once) hold a
Commercial, Instrument and Multi engine ratings. After 4000+ hours, I
had to give it up. I can't afford aviation any more than I can afford
a boat. I make more than a lot of people do, but not enough.
>
>The list is very ambitious, but we are on the right path with LSA.
>What is still seriously lacking is the powerplant.
>I would really like to see is a small turbine engine. I don't mean
>salvaged APUs. It has to be something that is designed from the bottom
>up as a GA powerplant.
>
>Any comments?
>
You have it.
Zaroc

[Mike Isaksen]

"Zaroc Stone" ...
> You were doing fine until the last item. 2-3X the price of a luxury
> car? Would this be $150,000? You just priced the majority of people
> out of the market. I've owned 2 airplanes (not at once) hold a
> Commercial, Instrument and Multi engine ratings. After 4000+ hours, I
> had to give it up. I can't afford aviation any more than I can afford
> a boat. I make more than a lot of people do, but not enough.

I've seen a lot of pilots who stop flying "cold turkey". The common first
reason given was money, but asking more questions revealed they were more
concerned about their skill degradation and the perceived value. Most of
these guys had some hard IMC in their past with the acquired skill and
equipment to match. Most viewed it as a challenge, like a mountain to climb.
Now they've "been there done that", with the nagging knowledge that their
skills have atrophied and it's costing them $400 to go up for an hour.

Side note: You're probably rolling your eyes about that $400 number. But
remember you are probably not that owner of a 30yo hi-perf airplane that has
gotten a total of 25 hrs over the last two years, with bladders, an
intermittent avionics problem, and a new Garmin " just because it would get
you interested again".

It is very hard to get these guys to give up on the Hard IMC paradigm and
get back into less complex airplanes. Their main excuse is always Speed.
Sometimes I'm successful and get them into a club; sometimes they just walk
away with their memories.

My experience of the typical flying club member: 10 to 20 hours per year,
about $100 per hour with no sales tax, and a general low whine about
availability without any actual example of when he couldn't get a plane.
That really is flying heaven for most.

[Newps]

Zaroc Stone wrote:

> You were doing fine until the last item. 2-3X the price of a luxury
> car? Would this be $150,000? You just priced the majority of people
> out of the market. I've owned 2 airplanes (not at once) hold a
> Commercial, Instrument and Multi engine ratings. After 4000+ hours, I
> had to give it up. I can't afford aviation any more than I can afford
> a boat. I make more than a lot of people do, but not enough.


You can't afford a boat? What the hell is there to afford there? I
bought my brothers boat this spring. Ten year old Bayliner 20 foot
speedboat we use for skiing, cruising the Bighorn Canyon, etc. After
the initial outlay of $8000 it costs virtually nothing to own. 32
gallons of gas lasts a weekend.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Newps" > wrote

> You can't afford a boat? What the hell is there to afford there? I
> bought my brothers boat this spring. Ten year old Bayliner 20 foot
> speedboat we use for skiing, cruising the Bighorn Canyon, etc. After the
> initial outlay of $8000 it costs virtually nothing to own. 32 gallons of
> gas lasts a weekend.

Wait until the outdrive craps out, or some other major engine problem
surfaces.

Boat stands for "break out another thousand."
--
Jim in NC

[Zaroc Stone]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 15:21:05 GMT, "Mike Isaksen"
> wrote:

>
>"Zaroc Stone" ...
>> You were doing fine until the last item. 2-3X the price of a luxury
>> car? Would this be $150,000? You just priced the majority of people
>> out of the market. I've owned 2 airplanes (not at once) hold a
>> Commercial, Instrument and Multi engine ratings. After 4000+ hours, I
>> had to give it up. I can't afford aviation any more than I can afford
>> a boat. I make more than a lot of people do, but not enough.
>
>I've seen a lot of pilots who stop flying "cold turkey". The common first
>reason given was money, but asking more questions revealed they were more
>concerned about their skill degradation and the perceived value. Most of
>these guys had some hard IMC in their past with the acquired skill and
>equipment to match. Most viewed it as a challenge, like a mountain to climb.
>Now they've "been there done that", with the nagging knowledge that their
>skills have atrophied and it's costing them $400 to go up for an hour.
>
>Side note: You're probably rolling your eyes about that $400 number. But
>remember you are probably not that owner of a 30yo hi-perf airplane that has
>gotten a total of 25 hrs over the last two years, with bladders, an
>intermittent avionics problem, and a new Garmin " just because it would get
>you interested again".
>
>It is very hard to get these guys to give up on the Hard IMC paradigm and
>get back into less complex airplanes. Their main excuse is always Speed.
>Sometimes I'm successful and get them into a club; sometimes they just walk
>away with their memories.
>
>My experience of the typical flying club member: 10 to 20 hours per year,
>about $100 per hour with no sales tax, and a general low whine about
>availability without any actual example of when he couldn't get a plane.
>That really is flying heaven for most.
>
Everyone's situation is a bit different. I sold a 1967 Mooney S-21. I
delivered it to the buyer and had someone pick me up in a car to get
home. The next time I would fly was when my wife bought me an hour in
a Cessna 172 with an instructor of course. We flew from Centennial to
Colorado Springs for a brunch and then home. He had me do the flying
and it had been 20 years. The only thing he had to tell me was that
it might be a good idea to slow down, I was still at cruise when I
turned final. The mechanics were still there, it is like riding a
bike. Both landings were perfect.

When I was active, we used the airplane for cross country flights.
We've been across the US a dozen or more times. Relatives are in
Sandpoint, Idaho, Great Falls, Montana and near Teterboro, N.J. A
flight club probably wouldn't work because of the down time away from
base. I used to fly 3 - 5 times a week. I was as proficient as
possible. Everytime the weather went IFR, I was up there doing
practice approaches, no auto-pilot except the Mooney
wing-leveler. I could safely go 3 hours on the panel then I needed
to get on the ground. So, you're right it isn't just about flying,
it's about proficiency as well. If I couldn't afford to get up there
like I did, I wouldn't feel or be safe. I could afford a club, maybe
a fixed gear single and fly a few hours a month, but when I was
flying, gasoline was $5.00 an hour, (10gph @.50¢ a gallon) in the
Mooney). I was up there a lot.

The Cherokee we had was a 140. We moved from Pennsylvania to Colorado
and I had the nerve to fly it into Leadville Airport. 9963 msl. The
flight was planned so we landed about 8 am and took off at 8:30 am.
With two of us, the take-off was successful; good thing the ground
sloped downward and was mostly flat. Another time I tried to take a
friend from Denver to Kremling. We tried to get through Loveland Pass
twice. A downdraft had other ideas. After 3 tries, we gave up.
Shortly after that, I did a checkout in a V-Tail Bonanza (H-model)
then the Mooney. I bought the Mooney. And to be sure, I miss it. To
fly safely and live here, I'd need some degree of performance.

I trip around Landings.Com now and then. If I have nothing to do on a
Saturday I might get out my logbook and see where my old birds are.
The Cherokee we had crashed in Wisconsin a little over a year after I
traded it in. NTSB report said the air filter was clogged. What a
shame. Two on board, both survived. The aircraft was not salvaged. My
Mooney was ditched in lake Michigan. He ran out of gas but was able
to reach shore and keep it from going under water. The plane was
salvaged, fixed up and the last I saw of it, N3247F was for sale.
Maybe mentally, I'm still up there..somewhere.

I have an old FS program. I used to enjoy chosing the Lear25 and
flying off into the blue. I'd eat dinner and get back to the computer
and see where I was. That's my flying today.

Zaroc

[Zaroc Stone]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 15:25:37 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Newps" > wrote
>
>> You can't afford a boat? What the hell is there to afford there? I
>> bought my brothers boat this spring. Ten year old Bayliner 20 foot
>> speedboat we use for skiing, cruising the Bighorn Canyon, etc. After the
>> initial outlay of $8000 it costs virtually nothing to own. 32 gallons of
>> gas lasts a weekend.
>
>Wait until the outdrive craps out, or some other major engine problem
>surfaces.
>
>Boat stands for "break out another thousand."

My last boat was a 23' Zobel. Had a 6cyl greymarine in it and
everytime we went out, spent $50 on gas. That was in 1967, before I
went to aviation. Again, I'm just not satisfied with floating around,
going fishing. I'd want to be back on the coast so I could run from
Seattle to San Diego - Bar Harbor to Ft. Lauderdale would be Ok too.

I am very close to retirement. End of the year. We plan to move back
east and live near a nice big lake. I might build a full sized model
of the African Queen, find a steam engine and just burn wood.
Zaroc

[Jim Stewart]

Zaroc Stone wrote:

> I am very close to retirement. End of the year. We plan to move back
> east and live near a nice big lake. I might build a full sized model
> of the African Queen, find a steam engine and just burn wood.

Do it. By all means, do it.

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Sep 14, 7:26 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jeff Dougherty writes:

>
> That surprises me, since a number of the disqualifying conditions are more
> common than 1.5% of the population.

Well, it's what the stats say. :-) Now, the population of those
applying for an FAA medical is definitely not the same as the general
population. But I do think that those numbers support the idea that
the current medical regulations are not a serious barrier to entry
into general aviation.

> > And has been pointed out, if you don't think you can get one, fly as a
> > sport pilot. It's what I'll probably do.
>
> Sport pilot is so restrictive that I don't think it would be worth the trouble
> (at least for me).

Sure. But you're not everybody, and thus far it looks to be pretty
popular. To balance your anecdote with an anecdote, sport pilot
sounds just about perfect for yours truly.

> > I'm afraid that I can't really say much to these unless you're more
> > specific. As far as I know, once you have the PPL you can fly any
> > single engine landplane without retractable gear or a variable pitch
> > prop. There are enough gear-up landings each year that some
> > retractable-gear training certainly seems to be a good idea, and I
> > don't think anyone would argue that seaplanes and multiengine
> > airplanes shouldn't have their own training requirements.
>
> There are lots of things that can make an aircraft more complex to fly, not
> just retractable gear. So I'm not sure why retractable gear justifies a
> separate restriction if the other stuff doesn't.
> Not only that, but I like twin-engine aircraft with retractable gear and all
> the other "complex" and "high-performance" stuff.

Actually, as I see it having these separate endorsements actually
makes it easier to get into aviation. Think about it. If there were
no separate categories for complex aircraft, multiengine, and so on,
then every holder of a PPL would have to be familiar with how to fly
any land plane, no matter how it was configured. That would mean that
a lot of systems that aren't currently part of the basic PPL would
have to be added to the course- managing a variable-pitch prop,
landing gear operations, how to manage a twin (which if nothing else,
certainly changes your approach to single engine out events), and so
forth. This would greatly increase the amount of time needed to earn
the PPL, and thus cost.

But with separate endorsements, that's not necessary. The basic PPL
lets you fly single engined, fixed prop and gear planes- which I would
venture to say are the majority of the GA fleet. Thus, the majority
of pilots who don't want to fly anything else aren't burdened by
training in systems that they're not going to use.

And for that matter, I think I've heard of people taking their PPL in
complex aircraft and getting the endorsement at the same time they got
their license. It's not common, but I believe it's been done.


> > As for "heavy regulation"...well, any amount of regulation can be
> > claimed to be heavy. Unless you're more specific about which regs you
> > consider unnecessarily burdensome, I can't really offer
> > counterpoints.
>
> Compare the length of the FARs (even Part 91 alone) to a typical motor vehicle
> code.

Sure. But something being long is different from it being
unnecessarily long. My college biochemistry textbook was a fairly
massive tome, but considering how much it covered it wasn't one page
longer than it needed to be. The dictionary is long. So is an
encyclopedia. Aviation is a complex subject, and just saying that the
regulations governing it are lengthy isn't the same as saying they're
unnecessarily long.

Now, I'm not defending every jot and title of the FARs. If every rule
in them is really necessary, they'll be the very first set of
government regulations in human history for which that is the case.
But length alone isn't a good criteria here.

> > Er. As a current applicant for medical school, I've gone through a
> > year of premed coursework (after finishing a bio major at a liberal
> > arts college), followed by a yearlong application process that
> > involves a lot of paperwork and some not inconsiderable fees to get me
> > the chance to fly at my own expense somewhere for an interview, after
> > which the school might or might not admit me. I've definitely spent
> > more than 90 hours on the application process, and my total bill
> > probably won't come out to be much less than a PPL once I'm done
> > interviewing all over creation. (With the amount of flying I need to
> > do soon, I'll have my multiengine pax rating in no time! ;~) ) It's
> > taken two years on top of the four I spent in college, a lot of money
> > and skull sweat...
>
> > ...and that's just to get *into* medical school.
>
> Sure, but a PPL is just to get _into_ flying. You still need other ratings
> and certifications, an airplane, an airport, and so on.
>
> > When/if I start,
> > I'll then do four years worth of intensive coursework, followed by at
> > least three years of residency pulling 80-100 hour weeks. Followed by
> > a licensing process that will look at my health at least as closely as
> > an FAA medical.
>
> You can't be a doctor if you're diabetic or an epileptic?

That's actually a good question, and I had to do some searching to get
the exact answer. (This is all based off of the Mass. Medical Board's
rules, if anyone is interested.) There don't seem to be any
conditions that are automatic DQs, but any physical or mental
condition which in the Board's opinion could interfere with the
practice of medicine is grounds for denial of a license to practice.
Short, but it potentially covers a lot of ground.

At any rate, even if we want to say that the physical itself is easier
I think the rest of my point stands.

> > But in consideration of
> > the above, I would be interested to know what part of becoming a
> > doctor you consider easier than becoming a private pilot.
>
> If all you want is a PPL, it's easier than becoming a doctor. If you want
> something more complex than a PPL, and if you want to actually fly on a
> regular basis, the time and expense starts to increase almost exponentially.

Right. But the thread was talking about GA and people getting a PPL,
and you said upthread that you weren't talking about professional
pilots, but about the problems faced by amateurs. Which are there, no
question, but comparing the amount of time and money required to be a
pilot to the amount required to be a doctor is a little silly. With
five minutes on Google I found a flight school that would take me from
zero time to ATP for what I could end up spending on about a year and
a half worth of medical school, and probably in a lot less time as
well.

> In my case, my favorite sim aircraft is a Beechcraft Baron 58. But becoming a
> pilot of my own Baron in real life would be hideously time-consuming,
> difficult, and expensive. I suppose if I just wanted to fly a Piper Cub,
> things might be different, but I don't want to fly a piece of junk, and I'd
> want to be instrument rated.

Piper Cub a piece of junk?

Man, where's your sense of beauty? :-)

Seriously, to each his own. But if anyone offered me a chance to get
in an honest-to-Yeager Piper Cub and buzz around, I'd be out the door
so fast you'd never see me going.

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Sep 15, 12:45 am, "Mike Isaksen" > wrote:
> "Jeff Dougherty" wrote ...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 12, 1:06 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
> >> It's easier to become a lawyer than it is to become a pilot, and
> >> in some respects it's easier to become a doctor as well.
>
> > Er. As a current applicant for medical school,...
> Keep focused on the med school road, but spend a bit of free time (yeah
> right,...ha,ha) searching out a flying club in the area around the school.
> Go to meetings and announce that you would like share some time and
> expenses. You are bound to get some takers and you'll undoubtedly find
> yourself on the controls (most PPLs are eager teachers). Good luck.

We'll see. I don't know if "free time" and "medical school" belong in
the same paragraph, let alone the same sentence...but there's endless
room in this world to improvise, adapt, and overcome. Thanks for the
good wishes.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> Tell me what is so restrictive about it. The type of flight it
>> authorizes would cover 90% of the recreational GA flight in the US.
>
> It's restrictive because it wouldn't allow me to fly in a way that
> would make flying worthwhile. I don't just want to putter around in
> a circle.

The current crop of S-LSA aircraft are capable of turning a 5.5 hour car
trip into a 2 hour trip with a wonderful view.


>
>> Because of the additional cost of the aircraft and the general lack
>> of need for it in recreational GA flying.
>
> In other words, time, expense, and difficulty, QED.

As anything gets more complex it gets more expensive. VWs cost less than
Corvetts.


>
>> So it is your stance that the requirements for a private pilot
>> ticket are on par with the requirements to be a lawyer or doctor?
>
> They are certainly on a par with becoming a lawyer, which
> (surprisingly) isn't that difficult in the U.S. They are comparable
> to becoming a doctor as well, depending on how far you want to go.

Let's look and see. http://www.ilrg.com/schools/analysis/ That site has a
link to the to 51 top law schools on a cost/benefit ranking. Number 51
University of CT. Shows a THREE YEAR TOTAL COST of $103,182 & number 1
Univ. of GA was $45K.

How is that "on par" with getting a PP-SEL rating?

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> The current crop of S-LSA aircraft are capable of turning a 5.5 hour car
> trip into a 2 hour trip with a wonderful view.

I don't like to travel.

> Let's look and see. http://www.ilrg.com/schools/analysis/ That site has a
> link to the to 51 top law schools on a cost/benefit ranking. Number 51
> University of CT. Shows a THREE YEAR TOTAL COST of $103,182 & number 1
> Univ. of GA was $45K.
>
> How is that "on par" with getting a PP-SEL rating?

How much do the top flight schools cost? And a top aircraft? And hours of
study equivalent to those required for a law degree?

[Mxsmanic]

Jeff Dougherty writes:

> And for that matter, I think I've heard of people taking their PPL in
> complex aircraft and getting the endorsement at the same time they got
> their license. It's not common, but I believe it's been done.

That's what I'd want to do. Train and get all necessary certifications in the
very aircraft I plan to fly.

> That's actually a good question, and I had to do some searching to get
> the exact answer. (This is all based off of the Mass. Medical Board's
> rules, if anyone is interested.) There don't seem to be any
> conditions that are automatic DQs, but any physical or mental
> condition which in the Board's opinion could interfere with the
> practice of medicine is grounds for denial of a license to practice.
> Short, but it potentially covers a lot of ground.

Sounds mostly like certain mental illnesses and contagious diseases. So
lepers and psychotics need not apply. But hypertension, migraines, a single
seizure at the age of 12, or a prescription for an anxiolytic 20 years ago
presumably are not obstacles.

> Piper Cub a piece of junk?

I exaggerate for emphasis, but it's a bit too small and primitive for my
tastes.

> Man, where's your sense of beauty?

Yellow is just not my color.

> Seriously, to each his own. But if anyone offered me a chance to get
> in an honest-to-Yeager Piper Cub and buzz around, I'd be out the door
> so fast you'd never see me going.

You have a problem with Beechcraft Barons?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> The current crop of S-LSA aircraft are capable of turning a 5.5 hour
>> car trip into a 2 hour trip with a wonderful view.
>
> I don't like to travel.
>
>> Let's look and see. http://www.ilrg.com/schools/analysis/ That site
>> has a link to the to 51 top law schools on a cost/benefit ranking.
>> Number 51 University of CT. Shows a THREE YEAR TOTAL COST of $103,182
>> & number 1 Univ. of GA was $45K.
>>
>> How is that "on par" with getting a PP-SEL rating?
>
> How much do the top flight schools cost?


Doesn't matter, if they were fifty cents an hour you wouldn't be able to
afford it.


And a top aircraft? And
> hours of study equivalent to those required for a law degree?
>

You're an idiot.


Bertie

[Mike Isaksen]

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>>> Tell me what is so restrictive about it. The type of flight it
>>> authorizes would cover 90% of the recreational GA flight in the US.
>>
>> It's restrictive because it wouldn't allow me to fly in a way that
>> would make flying worthwhile. I don't just want to putter around in
>> a circle.

The pilot licensing process is not restricting you, lack of money is
restricting you. You have champain dreams on a tap water budget. Your desire
to (as you said) fly a King Air under IFR in and out of IMC is shared by
almost everyone. Your distain for recreational VFR flying is however shared
by almost no one in this newsgroup. And many pilots look upon the licensing
steps as challenges met and experience earned. You choose to skip past all
that, run to the head of the line, and expound on flying "experience" you've
never had.

There is one way that the licensing process is restrictive in a very good
way: It protects the safety of the public. It places legal and functional
hurdles before those with "too much money & too little judgement", although
it leaves wiggle room (Kennedy, Munson, Lidle). And most importantly it
gives the public comfort that the person sitting at the front of the metal
tube has met the minimum standards to pilot them to a safe destination.

And you seem to want to bypass all that, stand with the people who have
walked that road, and insist upon being taken as an expert. Not here, not
ever!

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Isaksen writes:

> The pilot licensing process is not restricting you, lack of money is
> restricting you.

Both are. I have a strong aversion to useless bureaucracy and credentialism,
and aviation is rife with both. But it is also true that I have no money.

> Your desire to (as you said) fly a King Air under IFR in and out of IMC is shared by
> almost everyone.

A Baron is very different from a King Air. I'm only interested in the Baron.
If I want to fly something bigger, I'll fly a Boeing jet.

> Your distain for recreational VFR flying is however shared by almost no
> one in this newsgroup.

Because most people in this newsgroup are hobbyists who like recreational VFR
flying. Many of them probably don't even know the names of all the
instruments on a typical Baron panel.

> And many pilots look upon the licensing steps as challenges met and experience
> earned.

I look upon them as a waste of time. Some people enjoy jumping through hoops;
I don't.

> There is one way that the licensing process is restrictive in a very good
> way: It protects the safety of the public. It places legal and functional
> hurdles before those with "too much money & too little judgement", although
> it leaves wiggle room (Kennedy, Munson, Lidle). And most importantly it
> gives the public comfort that the person sitting at the front of the metal
> tube has met the minimum standards to pilot them to a safe destination.

Then why are there so many GA accidents?

> And you seem to want to bypass all that, stand with the people who have
> walked that road, and insist upon being taken as an expert. Not here, not
> ever!

I learned long ago that those who feel they must "pay their dues" spend their
entire lives being trampled by those who know better.

[Mike Isaksen]

"Mxsmanic" wrote ...
> I learned long ago that those who
> feel they must "pay their dues" spend
> their entire lives being trampled by
> those who know better.

I learned long ago that those people you decribe as "those who know better"
tend to be charlatans and frequently get caught in the woes they sow (ie the
dot com boys).
I do not try to emulate those people.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> The current crop of S-LSA aircraft are capable of turning a 5.5 hour
>> car trip into a 2 hour trip with a wonderful view.
>
> I don't like to travel.
>
>> Let's look and see. http://www.ilrg.com/schools/analysis/ That site
>> has a link to the to 51 top law schools on a cost/benefit ranking.
>> Number 51 University of CT. Shows a THREE YEAR TOTAL COST of
>> $103,182 & number 1 Univ. of GA was $45K.
>>
>> How is that "on par" with getting a PP-SEL rating?
>
> How much do the top flight schools cost? And a top aircraft? And
> hours of study equivalent to those required for a law degree?

$4-8k in a brand new 172. The written can be passed in a weekend.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Both are. I have a strong aversion to useless bureaucracy and
> credentialism, and aviation is rife with both. But it is also true
> that I have no money.
>

While many of us who have become certified pilots will from time to time
bitch about the FAA and certain hoops we have to jump through only a true
idiot would think that just anyone should be allowed to hop in a Baron
without some level of certification.



> A Baron is very different from a King Air. I'm only interested in
> the Baron. If I want to fly something bigger, I'll fly a Boeing jet.
>

You set your minimum so high because you KNOW you will never be able to
attain it and it lets you off the hook to yourself for never attaining
anything.




>
> I learned long ago that those who feel they must "pay their dues"
> spend their entire lives being trampled by those who know better.

And since you obviously know better who have you been able to trample on?

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> $4-8k in a brand new 172.

A Cessna 172 is hardly a top aircraft.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> You set your minimum so high because you KNOW you will never be able to
> attain it and it lets you off the hook to yourself for never attaining
> anything.

I don't consider it especially high. It's just the aircraft I fly in
simulation. Naturally I'd like to fly the same thing in real life, without
stepping down to anything more primitive. The Baron doesn't seem particularly
difficult to fly, although perhaps it would seem so to someone who has only
flown small single-engine Cessnas.

> And since you obviously know better who have you been able to trample on?

I haven't trampled on anyone, but I've irritated quite a few by skipping the
"paying your dues" part in some cases. I suppose the irritated ones are still
"paying their dues" somewhere, hoping that they will magically be promoted
automatically at some point despite their willingness to be eternal clerks.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> $4-8k in a brand new 172.
>
> A Cessna 172 is hardly a top aircraft.
>

You are an idiot. Why do you think it is the most produced lightplane of
all time?



It's a million times the airplane you have, fjukkktard



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder writes:
>
>> You set your minimum so high because you KNOW you will never be able
>> to attain it and it lets you off the hook to yourself for never
>> attaining anything.
>
> I don't consider it especially high. It's just the aircraft I fly in
> simulation.


You don't fly in similation, you sit in front of a computer.

Fjukkwit


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Mike Isaksen writes:
>
>> The pilot licensing process is not restricting you, lack of money is
>> restricting you.
>
> Both are. I have a strong aversion to useless bureaucracy and
> credentialism, and aviation is rife with both. But it is also true
> that I have no money.
>
>> Your desire to (as you said) fly a King Air under IFR in and out of
>> IMC is shared by almost everyone.
>
> A Baron is very different from a King Air.

No it isn't. They are both airplanes and they both fly in exactly the
same way.


I'm only interested in the
> Baron. If I want to fly something bigger, I'll fly a Boeing jet.


You will never fly anything, fjukkkkkwit.



>
>> Your distain for recreational VFR flying is however shared by almost
>> no one in this newsgroup.
>
> Because most people in this newsgroup are hobbyists who like
> recreational VFR flying. Many of them probably don't even know the
> names of all the instruments on a typical Baron panel.
>
>> And many pilots look upon the licensing steps as challenges met and
>> experience earned.
>
> I look upon them as a waste of time.




Of course you do, you're a coward.


Some people enjoy jumping
> through hoops; I don't.
>
>> There is one way that the licensing process is restrictive in a very
>> good way: It protects the safety of the public. It places legal and
>> functional hurdles before those with "too much money & too little
>> judgement", although it leaves wiggle room (Kennedy, Munson, Lidle).
>> And most importantly it gives the public comfort that the person
>> sitting at the front of the metal tube has met the minimum standards
>> to pilot them to a safe destination.
>
> Then why are there so many GA accidents?

there aren't, fjukkwit.


>
>> And you seem to want to bypass all that, stand with the people who
>> have walked that road, and insist upon being taken as an expert. Not
>> here, not ever!
>
> I learned long ago that those who feel they must "pay their dues"
> spend their entire lives being trampled by those who know better.
>


Bwawhahwhahwhhahwhahwh!

Says he from the bottom of the dumpster.

Way to go bankruptcy boi


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jeff Dougherty writes:
>
>> And for that matter, I think I've heard of people taking their PPL in
>> complex aircraft and getting the endorsement at the same time they
>> got their license. It's not common, but I believe it's been done.
>
> That's what I'd want to do. Train and get all necessary
> certifications in the very aircraft I plan to fly.
>
Then you're an even bigger idiot than I previously thought.


>> That's actually a good question, and I had to do some searching to
>> get the exact answer. (This is all based off of the Mass. Medical
>> Board's rules, if anyone is interested.) There don't seem to be any
>> conditions that are automatic DQs, but any physical or mental
>> condition which in the Board's opinion could interfere with the
>> practice of medicine is grounds for denial of a license to practice.
>> Short, but it potentially covers a lot of ground.
>
> Sounds mostly like certain mental illnesses and contagious diseases.


What, like the one you have?


> So lepers and psychotics need not apply. But hypertension, migraines,
> a single seizure at the age of 12, or a prescription for an anxiolytic
> 20 years ago presumably are not obstacles.
>
>> Piper Cub a piece of junk?
>
> I exaggerate for emphasis, but it's a bit too small and primitive for
> my tastes.

It's not primitive, fjukkwit. And you couldn't handle one.


>
>> Man, where's your sense of beauty?
>
> Yellow is just not my color.
>
>> Seriously, to each his own. But if anyone offered me a chance to get
>> in an honest-to-Yeager Piper Cub and buzz around, I'd be out the door
>> so fast you'd never see me going.
>
> You have a problem with Beechcraft Barons?


I don't, but you couldn't even get one to the end of the runway.


Fjukkwit.

Bertie
>

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> You don't fly in similation, you sit in front of a computer.
>
> Fjukkwit

I just went through a similar "discussion", with an MSFS simmer on a
different group who's never flown a real anything, yet is adamant that
his flight models are "totally realistic", and he's a "natural" at
flying. Even though he's never flown anything, he personally tweaks his
flight models for perfect reaction. He "flew" a 757/767 full motion
simulator ONCE, and apparently is ready for his type rating.

My suggestion to spend $49-99 on a Discovery Flight in an actual
airplane simply to feel the controls, motions, and sounds, was passed
off as useless, as he can't afford his own plane and has known other
pilots who never used their license.

Is there some sort of subliminal brain washing routine coded into random
copies of MSFS? <G>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

B A R R Y > wrote in news:81QHi.5866$FO2.4266
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> You don't fly in similation, you sit in front of a computer.
>>
>> Fjukkwit
>
> I just went through a similar "discussion", with an MSFS simmer on a
> different group who's never flown a real anything, yet is adamant that
> his flight models are "totally realistic", and he's a "natural" at
> flying. Even though he's never flown anything, he personally tweaks his
> flight models for perfect reaction. He "flew" a 757/767 full motion
> simulator ONCE, and apparently is ready for his type rating.

Snort!

I'd love to do his checkride.
>
> My suggestion to spend $49-99 on a Discovery Flight in an actual
> airplane simply to feel the controls, motions, and sounds, was passed
> off as useless, as he can't afford his own plane and has known other
> pilots who never used their license.
>
> Is there some sort of subliminal brain washing routine coded into random
> copies of MSFS? <G>
>
He he. We have a simmer where I work who spends much of his time outside of
the airplane playing in his sim. He flies about as well as you would
expect.

Badly.

Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> I just went through a similar "discussion", with an MSFS simmer on a
> different group who's never flown a real anything, yet is adamant that
> his flight models are "totally realistic", and he's a "natural" at
> flying. Even though he's never flown anything, he personally tweaks his
> flight models for perfect reaction. He "flew" a 757/767 full motion
> simulator ONCE, and apparently is ready for his type rating.

He may be right. Or he may not. But without testing him in a certified
full-motion sim, there's no way to know for sure.

Some pilots have to practice a lot to become good, but that doesn't mean that
all pilots do.

> Is there some sort of subliminal brain washing routine coded into random
> copies of MSFS?

It's more a matter of keeping an open mind.

Astronauts never train in a real spacecraft before the actual day of the
launch, and they seem to do pretty well. They did well even in the days
before good full-motion simulators. And one serious problem with piloting the
Shuttle was corrected by having astronauts practice it in a sim until they got
it right.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> B A R R Y writes:
>
>> I just went through a similar "discussion", with an MSFS simmer on a
>> different group who's never flown a real anything, yet is adamant
>> that his flight models are "totally realistic", and he's a "natural"
>> at flying. Even though he's never flown anything, he personally
>> tweaks his flight models for perfect reaction. He "flew" a 757/767
>> full motion simulator ONCE, and apparently is ready for his type
>> rating.
>
> He may be right. Or he may not. But without testing him in a
> certified full-motion sim, there's no way to know for sure.

That's not enought, fjukktard.There are many who make it through the sim
and still fail,.

he wouldn't make it throught the sim. Believe me.

>
> Some pilots have to practice a lot to become good, but that doesn't
> mean that all pilots do.
>

Practice has nothing to do with it fjukkwit.


>> Is there some sort of subliminal brain washing routine coded into
>> random copies of MSFS?
>
> It's more a matter of keeping an open mind.


Bwawhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwh ahwhahhwhahwhahw!


>
> Astronauts never train in a real spacecraft before the actual day of
> the launch, and they seem to do pretty well.

That's because they are all experienced pilots, fjukkwit.


But you wouldn't know, because you have zero experience.

And you always will have zero experience.


Bertie

[Viperdoc]

Anthony, let's be clear: the only thing you fly is a chair. You would'nt
have a clue as to how to even open the door on a Baron, let alone fly one.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
t:

> Anthony, let's be clear: the only thing you fly is a chair. You
> would'nt have a clue as to how to even open the door on a Baron, let
> alone fly one.
>
>
>
>

10 to one he couldn't get up on the wing without barking his shin.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Nomen Nescio > wrote in
:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Mxsmanic >
>
>>The Baron doesn't seem particularly
>>difficult to fly, although perhaps it would seem so to someone who has
>>only flown small single-engine Cessnas.
>
> You have got to be pretending to be a total idiot because I really
> have a tough time believing that anyone who says things as stupid as
> you do is not under the supervision of a rational adult.


We have no evidence that he isn't, actualy.


>
> BTW, I would love to take out a $10 million life insurance policy on
> you, take you up in a REAL Baron, and then bail out. It would be the
> quickest, easiest money I ever made.

I'd prefr something slower. There's always the chance he could catch up
to you in a Baron and hit you.


Bertie
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A
>
> iQCVAwUBRu+gcpMoscYxZNI5AQF6CgQArRtVu2Bn0ZIDj9Ksdo ofiCejTPBjRN8x
> AvH05NRD96+RWlPhF5F6O9AjBBZyYjpvQTWiiVa8rMmvuEL6t3 6wt5/kwwWvPdol
> vtN4FkeVJJmjs5DF8ag4RJ9v26AxcluPanOJYikg4SjowEIISS K5ZF8xF1dUuCrj
> iPOZpFlkGAg=
> =RWYP
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>

[george]

On Sep 19, 6:07 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :

>
> That's because they are all experienced pilots, fjukkwit.
>
> But you wouldn't know, because you have zero experience.
>
> And you always will have zero experience.
>
I thought this moron would be doing his sim search for Steve Fossett
and earning a few brownie points but no..

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

george > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Sep 19, 6:07 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> :
>
>>
>> That's because they are all experienced pilots, fjukkwit.
>>
>> But you wouldn't know, because you have zero experience.
>>
>> And you always will have zero experience.
>>
> I thought this moron would be doing his sim search for Steve Fossett
> and earning a few brownie points but no..
>
>
>

Or maybe he can download a Lockheed 12 and search for Amlia Earhardt.


Bertie

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

He's too fat and out of shape to lift his lard ass up onto the wing, let
alone climb in the cockpit.

Forget doing a pre-flight and draining the sumps- they don't exist on his
game, so they aren't important.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in
:

> He's too fat and out of shape to lift his lard ass up onto the wing,
> let alone climb in the cockpit.
>
> Forget doing a pre-flight and draining the sumps- they don't exist on
> his game, so they aren't important.
>

Yep, he will never know what flight is. Never pull an airplane out of the
hanger in the morning,. never know what it's like to wake an engine up,
hear an inverter start singing, smell the smells, see the unmade beds of
clouds under you as you climb out. Feel the need to take a **** without
resort to a pause button and most importantly, flirt with the girl who
brings you your coffee at the airport cafe at your destination...

I'll be impressed with X-Plane when it can do any of those things..


Hell, you don't even have to burb the clinders on any of the radials...


bertie

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

> Yep, he will never know what flight is. Never pull an airplane out of the
> hanger in the morning,. never know what it's like to wake an engine up,
> hear an inverter start singing, smell the smells, see the unmade beds of
> clouds under you as you climb out. Feel the need to take a **** without
> resort to a pause button and most importantly, flirt with the girl who
> brings you your coffee at the airport cafe at your destination...

Hear your Cessna singing through a cloud; listen to the gyros winding down
after you pull the mixture; fly in the smooth green light under a dead
thunderstorm's anvil; slip down through a hole in the cumulus on a pretty day;
watch all the airport lights coming alive at twilight as you taxi in after a
long flight; strike up a conversation with a guy in the FBO and find out he
was a Thud pilot in 'Nam; have something go wrong that scares the crap out of
you and do the right thing to save your butt....

Yeah, the real thing's overrated.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Jim Stewart]

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>
>> Yep, he will never know what flight is. Never pull an airplane out of the
>> hanger in the morning,. never know what it's like to wake an engine up,
>> hear an inverter start singing, smell the smells, see the unmade beds of
>> clouds under you as you climb out. Feel the need to take a **** without
>> resort to a pause button and most importantly, flirt with the girl who
>> brings you your coffee at the airport cafe at your destination...
>
> Hear your Cessna singing through a cloud; listen to the gyros winding down
> after you pull the mixture; fly in the smooth green light under a dead
> thunderstorm's anvil; slip down through a hole in the cumulus on a pretty day;
> watch all the airport lights coming alive at twilight as you taxi in after a
> long flight; strike up a conversation with a guy in the FBO and find out he
> was a Thud pilot in 'Nam; have something go wrong that scares the crap out of
> you and do the right thing to save your butt....

Have a thermal smack you square in the
butt and lift you 200 feet.

I love it.

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> That's because they are all experienced pilots, fjukkwit.

If being an experienced pilot were that important, they wouldn't have to train
at all. Flying a spacecraft is not like flying an aircraft, any more than
driving a motorcycle is like driving a car.

[Mxsmanic]

Dan Luke writes:

> Hear your Cessna singing through a cloud; listen to the gyros winding down
> after you pull the mixture; fly in the smooth green light under a dead
> thunderstorm's anvil; slip down through a hole in the cumulus on a pretty day;
> watch all the airport lights coming alive at twilight as you taxi in after a
> long flight; strike up a conversation with a guy in the FBO and find out he
> was a Thud pilot in 'Nam; have something go wrong that scares the crap out of
> you and do the right thing to save your butt....
>
> Yeah, the real thing's overrated.

These are fairly visceral sensations, and while it doesn't surprise me that
pilots might be attracted to them, there's more to aviation than these
sensations. Nowadays, in particular, there's an intellectual attraction to
aviation that is independent of the sensations. Personal preferences vary.

I do understand the references to grumpy old men, though.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> That's because they are all experienced pilots, fjukkwit.
>
> If being an experienced pilot were that important, they wouldn't have
> to train at all. Flying a spacecraft is not like flying an aircraft,

Yes, it is.


> any more than driving a motorcycle is like driving a car.
>

Driving a car and riding a bike are very similar. The mechanincs are
broadly similar and it's east to convert from one to the other, fjukkktard.



You really are dummer 'n dirt.

Why do you think they choose pilots for astronauts, fjukkwit?

Union rules?


Bwaawhahhwhahwhhahwhahwhahhwhah!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dan Luke writes:
>
>> Hear your Cessna singing through a cloud; listen to the gyros
>> winding down after you pull the mixture; fly in the smooth green
>> light under a dead thunderstorm's anvil; slip down through a hole in
>> the cumulus on a pretty day; watch all the airport lights coming
>> alive at twilight as you taxi in after a long flight; strike up a
>> conversation with a guy in the FBO and find out he was a Thud pilot
>> in 'Nam; have something go wrong that scares the crap out of you and
>> do the right thing to save your butt....
>>
>> Yeah, the real thing's overrated.
>
> These are fairly visceral sensations, and while it doesn't surprise me
> that pilots might be attracted to them, there's more to aviation than
> these sensations.


How do you know, djikkhed?

You don't fly.

Aviation is flying.

You don't fly and never have

Theregfore you have nothing whatsoever to do with aviation.



Nowadays, in particular, there's an intellectual
> attraction to aviation that is independent of the sensations.
> Personal preferences vary.

You aren't intellectually attracted to anything, jerkoff.


You're just a jerkoff.



Bertie
>
> I do understand the references to grumpy old men, though.
>

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> How many of them had NEVER flown a real aircraft?

Relatively few, since most were recruited from among the ranks of pilots. But
correlation is not causation. You don't have to be a soldier to fly an
airliner, even though many airline pilots traditionally have had military
piloting backgrounds.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> How many of them had NEVER flown a real aircraft?
>
> Relatively few, since most were recruited from among the ranks of
> pilots. But correlation is not causation. You don't have to be a
> soldier to fly an airliner, even though many airline pilots
> traditionally have had military piloting backgrounds.


Your argument is ridiculous,

just like you.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Nomen Nescio > wrote in
:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Mxsmanic >
>
>>> How many of them had NEVER flown a real aircraft?
>>
>>Relatively few, since most were recruited from among the ranks of
>>pilots. But correlation is not causation. You don't have to be a
>>soldier to fly an airliner, even though many airline pilots
>>traditionally have had military piloting backgrounds.
>
> You're a f**kin' retard.
>

No, he's too retarded to f**k by his own admission.


Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Nomen Nescio > wrote in
:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "Dan Luke" >
>
>>Hear your Cessna singing through a cloud; listen to the gyros
>>winding down after you pull the mixture; fly in the smooth green light
>>under a dead thunderstorm's anvil; slip down through a hole in the
>>cumulus on a pretty day; watch all the airport lights coming alive at
>>twilight as you taxi in after a long flight; strike up a conversation
>>with a guy in the FBO and find out he was a Thud pilot in 'Nam; have
>>something go wrong that scares the crap out of you and do the right
>>thing to save your butt....
>
> Seeing land slide into gliding range after an over water flight,
> shutting down the engine after a 500 nm flight and knowing you got
> there with nothing more than a compass and a chart, seeing the look on
> a seagull's face right before he meets your prop, dropping in over the
> trees into a short grass strip with the stall warning intermittently
> beeping, making one of those rare landings when you're not sure when
> the wheels actually touched the runway, realizing the the smoothness
> of an engine truly IS inversly proportional to the difficulty of
> making an emergency landing, having the cute "counter girl" at the FBO
> tell you that she just broke up with her boyfriend and invite you to
> share a veal parm grinder with her on a blanket in the field across
> the street.....telling your geeky college friends why she was 15
> minutes late getting back to work, seeing the look in a 14 year old's
> eyes when you ask "would you like to fly it for a while?". being on
> short final and having a peregrine falcon pass you like you were
> standing still (and swearing he had an upraised middle feather as he
> went by), looking down and seeing bumper to bumper traffic on the
> highway, breaking out of the clouds in heavy rain and seeing the
> runway lights right in front of you, looking "up" at the top of a loop
> and seeing the ground, taking a leisurely flight along a river valley
> and finding yourself nose to nose with a pair of F-100's, and best of
> all...........having the IRS auditor agree with you that the flight
> you took along the coast at 500 ft was, indeed, a "business trip".
>
>

Strapping girls into a five point harness..


Bertie

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
t...
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> You don't fly in similation, you sit in front of a computer. Fjukkwit
>
> I just went through a similar "discussion", with an MSFS simmer on a
> different group who's never flown a real anything, yet is adamant that his
> flight models are "totally realistic", and he's a "natural" at flying.
> Even though he's never flown anything, he personally tweaks his flight
> models for perfect reaction. He "flew" a 757/767 full motion simulator
> ONCE, and apparently is ready for his type rating.
>
> My suggestion to spend $49-99 on a Discovery Flight in an actual airplane
> simply to feel the controls, motions, and sounds, was passed off as
> useless, as he can't afford his own plane and has known other pilots who
> never used their license.
>
> Is there some sort of subliminal brain washing routine coded into random
> copies of MSFS? <G>

Of course, just as there is in all Microsoft products [You WILL be
assimilated]

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
t...
> Anthony, let's be clear: the only thing you fly is a chair. You would'nt
> have a clue as to how to even open the door on a Baron, let alone fly one.
>
Oh, bull! He's know how.

Of course, he'd hit himself in the head with it and fall of the front of the
wing.

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

>
>From: Bertie the Bunyip >
>
>>Strapping girls into a five point harness..
>>
>>Bertie
>
>Man, That comment is lewd, crude..........and brings back a few fond
>memories. :)

gooood one, lmao.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Jim Stewart wrote:
>
>Have a thermal smack you square in the
>butt and lift you 200 feet.
>
>I love it.

And keep circling to 13,000 with an eagle at your 3 o'clock since 6k.

*glider guy lurking, sorry*

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200709/1

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Nomen Nescio > wrote in
:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Bertie the Bunyip >
>>
>>Strapping girls into a five point harness..
>>
>>
>>Bertie
>
> Man, That comment is lewd, crude..........and brings back a few fond
> memories. :)
>
>


Too bad they're only memories, eh?


Bertie


> =DIdS
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Nomen Nescio > wrote in
:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Bertie the Bunyip >
>
>>Too bad they're only memories, eh?
>
> Yea, afraid so.
> A lot of air has passed over the wings since those days.
>
> I'm now 50+, and happily married to a wonderful, attractive, smart,
> and incredibly sexy woman who occasionally reads this group and
> is a very good shot with a rifle.

Mine doesn't need a weapon.


Bertie