Some more positive GA News

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008801280321

Our local newspaper is doing a great job of helping us to promote GA. After
years of being anti-airport, it's a wonderful thing to see.

Now all we need to do is clone this kid, and GA's future is secure.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[BDS[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote
> Our local newspaper is doing a great job of helping us to promote GA.
After
> years of being anti-airport, it's a wonderful thing to see.
>
> Now all we need to do is clone this kid, and GA's future is secure.

I don't know about that. We just scrapped a business trip via GA due to
cost differential - going GA would have been $1,300 just in fuel, via the
airlines the same two people could go for $500 total and not have to worry
about potential delays due to winter weather.

It has always been the case for us that airline travel was cheaper than
travel by GA, but in the past we could justify the differential due to
convenience and traveling on our own schedule. The gap is getting so wide
now that it is becoming increasingly difficult to justify anymore.

GA obviously won't die, but its rising costs are going to limit its use as a
practical alternative to the airlines, and this will certainly impact the
smaller airports and FBOs.

BDS

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:47:58 GMT, "BDS" > wrote in
>:

>
>"Jay Honeck" > wrote
>> Our local newspaper is doing a great job of helping us to promote GA.
>After
>> years of being anti-airport, it's a wonderful thing to see.
>>
>> Now all we need to do is clone this kid, and GA's future is secure.
>
>I don't know about that. We just scrapped a business trip via GA due to
>cost differential - going GA would have been $1,300 just in fuel, via the
>airlines the same two people could go for $500 total and not have to worry
>about potential delays due to winter weather.

Perhaps if you had been able amortize the cost of that flight over
four seats instead of two (as is possible in the PA28-235/6) it might
have worked out better.

>It has always been the case for us that airline travel was cheaper than
>travel by GA, but in the past we could justify the differential due to
>convenience and traveling on our own schedule. The gap is getting so wide
>now that it is becoming increasingly difficult to justify anymore.

I hope you're not intimating that airline travel is getting easier for
passengers. Given the security indignity and delay, and other airline
delays, the cost of GA travel is becoming more attractive, IMO.

>GA obviously won't die, but its rising costs are going to limit its use as a
>practical alternative to the airlines, and this will certainly impact the
>smaller airports and FBOs.
>
>BDS
>

The cost of everything is going up all the time. The government
printing presses are working non-stop. This influx of new paper
dilutes the value of the dollar, but the VALUE of the goods it will
purchase is unaffected, so prices rise while the purchasing power of
the dollar declines.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:


>
> The cost of everything is going up all the time.

This is good stuff.

Bertie

[BDS[_2_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote
> >I don't know about that. We just scrapped a business trip via GA due to
> >cost differential - going GA would have been $1,300 just in fuel, via the
> >airlines the same two people could go for $500 total and not have to
worry
> >about potential delays due to winter weather.
>
> Perhaps if you had been able amortize the cost of that flight over
> four seats instead of two (as is possible in the PA28-235/6) it might
> have worked out better.

We have six seats as well (light twin), but only two people needed to go on
this trip which is typical of most of our trips (1 or 2 people). We have
considered getting a fast single, but we also occasionally need the
load-carrying capacity, room, and speed of a light twin.

> >It has always been the case for us that airline travel was cheaper than
> >travel by GA, but in the past we could justify the differential due to
> >convenience and traveling on our own schedule. The gap is getting so
wide
> >now that it is becoming increasingly difficult to justify anymore.
>
> I hope you're not intimating that airline travel is getting easier for
> passengers. Given the security indignity and delay, and other airline
> delays, the cost of GA travel is becoming more attractive, IMO.

No, you're right - airline travel is certainly not getting easier and I
agree that those issues are worth something, just not $800 in direct costs
in the case of this trip.

We do have trips that involve bringing delicate test equipment or
transporting our products for demos, and in those cases going via airlines
is impractical or out of the question entirely in the post-9/11 environment.
Those trips are just not the norm anymore.

BDS

[[email protected]]

On Jan 30, 8:31*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008801280321
>
> Our local newspaper is doing a great job of helping us to promote GA. *After
> years of being anti-airport, it's a wonderful thing to see.
>
> Now all we need to do is clone this kid, and GA's future is secure.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Jay,

What turned the paper around? Any tips for others who need to get
local editorial support?

John

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 1, 6:39*am, "BDS" > wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote
>
> > >I don't know about that. *We just scrapped a business trip via GA due to
> > >cost differential - going GA would have been $1,300 just in fuel, via the
> > >airlines the same two people could go for $500 total and not have to
> worry
> > >about potential delays due to winter weather.
>
> > Perhaps if you had been able amortize the cost of that flight over
> > four seats instead of two (as is possible in the PA28-235/6) it might
> > have worked out better.
>
> We have six seats as well (light twin), but only two people needed to go on
> this trip which is typical of most of our trips (1 or 2 people). *We have
> considered getting a fast single, but we also occasionally need the
> load-carrying capacity, room, and speed of a light twin.
>
>

It might be that using a modern fast single can meet 90% of your needs
and will save a lot on fuel while not giving up much speed. If you
need more seats and cargo, fly two planes :-)

Cheers

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>What turned the paper around? Any tips for others who need to get
>local editorial support?

Endless repetition, and persistence. If you keep saying good stuff about
your airport to people long enough, they will hear it and believe it. It's
the only way to counter the NIMBYs and noise-nazis.

I can't tell you how many people I have told about our airport. I can't
tell you how many times I've mentioned that our airport brings in $5.7
million into our local economy every year, for the annual expenditure of
just $110,000. I started our airport user's group, Friends of Iowa City
Airport, back in 2003, and our email updates have been a very effective
conduit of information to local reporters, several of whom are FOICA
members.

As some here have accused me of, I do my best to promote aviation at every
possible opportunity. Some here mistake that as being self-promotion for my
son or for my hotel, but I'm here to tell you that (a) my son couldn't care
less about this newsgroup, and (b) if we never had another pilot from this
group stay at our hotel, ever, it would not make a detectable impact on our
bottom line.

Am I an inveterate aviation promoter? You bet. And I *do* promote aviation
for selfish reasons -- just not the ones that some people believe. Rather,
I do it so I'll have a place to park my plane, I'll have runways to use, and
FBOs to service my plane. Longer term, I want my kids to have GA when they
grow up -- and the only way I know how to do this is to keep trumpeting the
GA gospel.

And I'm not alone. We've got a good, proactive Airport Commission, a good,
proactive FBO, and a number of very good, influential airport users who are
excellent ambassadors for local aviation.

All of this, working in concert over time, has made a difference -- but it's
been a long haul. It takes patience, persistence, and a strong stomach.

And the knowledge that it can all go to pot with the next city council
election...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
> wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 8:31 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008801280321
>
> Our local newspaper is doing a great job of helping us to promote GA.
> After
> years of being anti-airport, it's a wonderful thing to see.
>
> Now all we need to do is clone this kid, and GA's future is secure.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Jay,

What turned the paper around? Any tips for others who need to get
local editorial support?

John

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:EKwoj.10441$9j6.4132@attbi_s22:


>
> As some here have accused me of, I do my best to promote aviation at
> every possible opportunity. Some here mistake that as being
> self-promotion for my son or for my hotel, but I'm here to tell you
> that (a) my son couldn't care less about this newsgroup, and (b) if we
> never had another pilot from this group stay at our hotel, ever, it
> would not make a detectable impact on our bottom line.

Is that the Marseleise I can hear playing in the background?

Vive Iowa!


Vive Jay!


Bertie

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> We have six seats as well (light twin), but only two people needed to go
> on
> this trip which is typical of most of our trips (1 or 2 people). We have
> considered getting a fast single, but we also occasionally need the
> load-carrying capacity, room, and speed of a light twin.

Sadly, light twins have nearly become economically unfeasible for anything
but multi-engine training. Between acquisition, fuel, and maintenance
expenses, they've been driven to near extinction.

The new plane market and resale values reflect that. A friend of mine owns
a beautiful Aerostar that has lost 50% of its value in just the last few
years. Every time fuel goes up, the price of twins go down.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[BDS]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> Sadly, light twins have nearly become economically unfeasible for anything
> but multi-engine training. Between acquisition, fuel, and maintenance
> expenses, they've been driven to near extinction.

If you stay current there is the arguable added advantage of the extra
engine, and the duplicate vacuum and electrical systems, and the big plus of
easy loading of heavy items. I brought a snowblower home from across the
country in the back of ours a few years ago - try fitting one of those in
the back of any single - and have transported lots of equipment over the
years. We went to a trade show a few years back and had so much gear in the
back it would barely all fit into the rental car.

The extra engine and duplicate systems have also come in handy. Over the
years we have owned this particular aircraft I have had one complete engine
failure (sheared oil pump shaft) and two vacuum pump failures. When your
engine takes a hike over the mountains of WV it's nice to have another
completely good one still making noise.

However, it definitely is getting too expensive to keep and operate since
the hauling type trips are getting more and more rare. We need to find a
fast single that is easy to put a 100-lb piece of ungainly demo equipment
into, and easy to get it back out.

BDS

[Matt Whiting]

BDS wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
>> Sadly, light twins have nearly become economically unfeasible for anything
>> but multi-engine training. Between acquisition, fuel, and maintenance
>> expenses, they've been driven to near extinction.
>
> If you stay current there is the arguable added advantage of the extra
> engine, and the duplicate vacuum and electrical systems, and the big plus of
> easy loading of heavy items. I brought a snowblower home from across the
> country in the back of ours a few years ago - try fitting one of those in
> the back of any single - and have transported lots of equipment over the
> years. We went to a trade show a few years back and had so much gear in the
> back it would barely all fit into the rental car.

The added safety truly is arguable. I've seen comparisons over the
years that don't show any real advantage for twins. The added safety
provided for an engine failure in cruise is offset by the added risk of
an engine failure during takeoff and initial climb.

And the fuselage of most light twins is based on a single so the cargo
space isn't much different other than having baggage storage in the
nose, but you won't fit a snow blower in the nose on most light twins.


> The extra engine and duplicate systems have also come in handy. Over the
> years we have owned this particular aircraft I have had one complete engine
> failure (sheared oil pump shaft) and two vacuum pump failures. When your
> engine takes a hike over the mountains of WV it's nice to have another
> completely good one still making noise.

Yes, redundant systems are nice, but you can get similar redundancy
(other than the engine itself obviously) on a single.

> However, it definitely is getting too expensive to keep and operate since
> the hauling type trips are getting more and more rare. We need to find a
> fast single that is easy to put a 100-lb piece of ungainly demo equipment
> into, and easy to get it back out.

Yes, it is probably almost as cheap to operate a single turbine engine
as it is two piston engines.

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> BDS wrote:
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>>
>>> Sadly, light twins have nearly become economically unfeasible for
>>> anything but multi-engine training. Between acquisition, fuel, and
>>> maintenance expenses, they've been driven to near extinction.
>>
>> If you stay current there is the arguable added advantage of the
>> extra engine, and the duplicate vacuum and electrical systems, and
>> the big plus of easy loading of heavy items. I brought a snowblower
>> home from across the country in the back of ours a few years ago -
>> try fitting one of those in the back of any single - and have
>> transported lots of equipment over the years. We went to a trade
>> show a few years back and had so much gear in the back it would
>> barely all fit into the rental car.
>
> The added safety truly is arguable. I've seen comparisons over the
> years that don't show any real advantage for twins. The added safety
> provided for an engine failure in cruise is offset by the added risk
> of an engine failure during takeoff and initial climb.

Depends on proficiency, mostly.

>
> And the fuselage of most light twins is based on a single so the cargo
> space isn't much different other than having baggage storage in the
> nose, but you won't fit a snow blower in the nose on most light twins.
>
>
>> The extra engine and duplicate systems have also come in handy. Over
>> the years we have owned this particular aircraft I have had one
>> complete engine failure (sheared oil pump shaft) and two vacuum pump
>> failures. When your engine takes a hike over the mountains of WV
>> it's nice to have another completely good one still making noise.
>
> Yes, redundant systems are nice, but you can get similar redundancy
> (other than the engine itself obviously) on a single.

mmm, not really. Where you gonna put a second generator?

>
>> However, it definitely is getting too expensive to keep and operate
>> since the hauling type trips are getting more and more rare. We need
>> to find a fast single that is easy to put a 100-lb piece of ungainly
>> demo equipment into, and easy to get it back out.
>
> Yes, it is probably almost as cheap to operate a single turbine engine
> as it is two piston engines.


Depends on the pistons 1

Bertie

[BDS]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote
>
> The added safety truly is arguable. I've seen comparisons over the
> years that don't show any real advantage for twins. The added safety
> provided for an engine failure in cruise is offset by the added risk of
> an engine failure during takeoff and initial climb.

Taken as a whole I realize the statistics say this is true. Whether those
statistics will apply to a given pilot may depend somewhat on proficiency
and recent experience, recurrency training, and how that individual
approaches his/her flying. Lack of proficiency in any aircraft can get you
killed just as easily as having a lackadaisical attitude towards flying can
when the chips are down.

> And the fuselage of most light twins is based on a single so the cargo
> space isn't much different other than having baggage storage in the
> nose, but you won't fit a snow blower in the nose on most light twins.

The rear seating area of a Seneca has its own door as does the luggage area.
Those rear seats can be taken out in less than a minute, which leaves you
with a massive space that is very easy to access. I realize the Saratoga
has the same fuselage, but the Saratoga isn't exactly fast.

OTOH, neither is a Seneca which reminds me of a radio exchange I had one
evening going through Patuxent airspace. The female controller asked for my
airspeed and then told me not to exceed 170 knots. I told her that
unfortunately that wasn't going to be a problem. :>)

BDS

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:29:33 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:


>> Yes, redundant systems are nice, but you can get similar redundancy
>> (other than the engine itself obviously) on a single.
>
>mmm, not really. Where you gonna put a second generator?

The Malibu has two alternators.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Peter Clark > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:29:33 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>
>>> Yes, redundant systems are nice, but you can get similar redundancy
>>> (other than the engine itself obviously) on a single.
>>
>>mmm, not really. Where you gonna put a second generator?
>
> The Malibu has two alternators.
>

OK, did not know that..

Still, if I was doing serious work in weather and at night, it'd have to be
a twin.


Bertie

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 19:43:00 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Peter Clark > wrote in
:
>
>> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:29:33 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Yes, redundant systems are nice, but you can get similar redundancy
>>>> (other than the engine itself obviously) on a single.
>>>
>>>mmm, not really. Where you gonna put a second generator?
>>
>> The Malibu has two alternators.
>>
>
>OK, did not know that..
>
>Still, if I was doing serious work in weather and at night, it'd have to be
>a twin.

Or at least a turboprop?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Peter Clark > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 19:43:00 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Peter Clark > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:29:33 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Yes, redundant systems are nice, but you can get similar
>>>>> redundancy (other than the engine itself obviously) on a single.
>>>>
>>>>mmm, not really. Where you gonna put a second generator?
>>>
>>> The Malibu has two alternators.
>>>
>>
>>OK, did not know that..
>>
>>Still, if I was doing serious work in weather and at night, it'd have
>>to be a twin.
>
> Or at least a turboprop?
>
For that kind of stuff I'd rather have two pistons. I've had two engine
failures in pistons and six in turbines. You can become proficient enough
to handle an engine failure on takeoff but nothing is going to help you if
your only donkey quits and you're over mountains.. i'm not averse to the
odd fight in IMC in a single, even at night, I'm just saying if I was
working in an airplane every night in all weather, I'd rather have a Navajo
than a Caravan.


Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

BDS wrote:

> OTOH, neither is a Seneca which reminds me of a radio exchange I had one
> evening going through Patuxent airspace. The female controller asked for my
> airspeed and then told me not to exceed 170 knots. I told her that
> unfortunately that wasn't going to be a problem. :>)

Well, you can always dive! :-)

The one twin that looks very appealing to me is the Tecnam P2006. It
has similar fuel economy to the singles with similar performance, yet
the advantage of the second engine for the reasons you mentioned
earlier. The only problem is that it is a new airplane and you can't
get one for less than probably $400K, which is about $300K out of my league.

It also has the advantage of being one of the very few light twins with
the wing on top where it belongs!!

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Peter Clark wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:29:33 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>
>>> Yes, redundant systems are nice, but you can get similar redundancy
>>> (other than the engine itself obviously) on a single.
>> mmm, not really. Where you gonna put a second generator?
>
> The Malibu has two alternators.

Peter, you had to go and respond to the Buttnip after my filter had no
nicely automatically deleted his ignorant response. Now why did you go
and do that? :-)

Matt

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:kg6pj.129$kD5.1326
@news1.epix.net:

> Peter Clark wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:29:33 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Yes, redundant systems are nice, but you can get similar redundancy
>>>> (other than the engine itself obviously) on a single.
>>> mmm, not really. Where you gonna put a second generator?
>>
>> The Malibu has two alternators.
>
> Peter, you had to go and respond to the Buttnip after my filter had no
> nicely automatically deleted his ignorant response. Now why did you go
> and do that? :-)
>

Aww, Matt hiding from Bertie?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> BDS wrote:
>
>> OTOH, neither is a Seneca which reminds me of a radio exchange I had
>> one evening going through Patuxent airspace. The female controller
>> asked for my airspeed and then told me not to exceed 170 knots. I
>> told her that unfortunately that wasn't going to be a problem. :>)
>
> Well, you can always dive! :-)
>
> The one twin that looks very appealing to me is the Tecnam P2006. It
> has similar fuel economy to the singles with similar performance, yet
> the advantage of the second engine for the reasons you mentioned
> earlier. The only problem is that it is a new airplane and you can't
> get one for less than probably $400K, which is about $300K out of my
> league.
>
> It also has the advantage of being one of the very few light twins
> with the wing on top where it belongs!!


Nice. Does it have a gun rack?

http://www.tecnamaircraft.com/Tecnam_P2006T.htm


Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> The one twin that looks very appealing to me is the Tecnam P2006. It has
> similar fuel economy to the singles with similar performance, yet the
> advantage of the second engine for the reasons you mentioned earlier. The
> only problem is that it is a new airplane and you can't get one for less
> than probably $400K, which is about $300K out of my league.
>
> It also has the advantage of being one of the very few light twins with
> the wing on top where it belongs!!

If it can meet all of the performance figures it claims, it should be a
hit. Too bad it is not a little faster.

Finally, a Rotax powered airplane I might be convinced to get into!
--
Jim in NC