28 years, 9000 hours [Archive]

Kobra

February 29th 08, 02:31 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:f8Fxj.1391$TT4.1330@attbi_s22...
> http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?section_id=12&article_id=884
>
> Sad to see it go, but, wow, talk about getting good use out of an
> airplane.
>
> I can't imagine just parking my plane at a salvage yard and walking
> away....

I read this article in the magazine and had my jaw on the ground the whole
time. I would have thought that Dick would have opted for partnering with
someone in 40RC and fixing it up (if practical) or buying another airplane
with a partner(s).

In reality let's face it. As we age we can't fly as much for health
reasons, vision-loss reasons, hearing-loss reasons, our hand-eye
coordination goes, our reflexes get slower, etc.

As we all head toward retirement or semi-retirement we will not make as much
money and that is a fact. Probably most of us are on a thin line with our
budgets due to our flying.

Further, I think he also just really liked the 182 with the G1000 cockpit
and buying one solo was out of the question financially. Even with a
partner it would be a tough nut to crack. He is getting older and probably
doesn't fly as much or in as harsh weather conditions as he did 10 or 20
years ago so the utility of flying for him is down.

Sad to say renting for him probably makes the most sense and even more sad
to say it will most likely be the best decision for me too when I get to Mr.
Collin's TT.

Kobra

Edward A. Falk

February 29th 08, 04:31 AM

My old Mooney has about that many hours on it. It's on its fifth engine,
fourth paint job and third windshield. I couldn't say how many panel
upgrades it's seen.

I see no reason to stop now. But then, it's built like a tank.

OK, I just finished the article. Turns out that the model has a very
poor safety record and nobody will insure it. Therefore, no buyers.

So sad.

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

Denny

February 29th 08, 12:17 PM

Well, we all find reasons to justify our actions... His airframe end-
of-life reasons are just hot air, but seem 'real' to him...
I think that at 73 his desire to fly has lessened...
He will not be working so his income has dropped sharply...
Gas is four and half bucks a gallon at the cheap airports..
And the insurance for a P210 is expensive beyond reason...
Collins already admits no one will buy his plane...
A local orthopedic surgeon is trying to sell his P210 and has not had
a single offer on it (the plane is absolutely flawless)..

I am just a few years younger than Collins... Fat Albert The Apache is
a 1957 vintage... I am thinking about retiring in a couple of years
and in looking at the money it takes to keep even an old junker like
him around, he will have to go when the time comes... I am in the
throes of another big thrash of an annual, probably around ten grand,
on top of a twelve grand thrash a couple of years ago... And as I
write the checks I think the money probably should have gone to my
broker instead of out the door... But, being addicted to having an
airplane in the hangar he will stay around for now... I am
unreasonably fond of the old heap; probably early senility affecting
my judgement......
When he does go, some one will steal a really tired looking apache
that just happens to be mechanically ready to go anywhere in the world
- if there is anyone left who can afford an airplane by then...

denny

Marco Leon[_5_]

February 29th 08, 03:46 PM

"Denny" > wrote in message
...

> When he does go, some one will steal a really tired looking apache
> that just happens to be mechanically ready to go anywhere in the world
> - if there is anyone left who can afford an airplane by then...

I know a few guys at my airfield that have given up their airplanes for
similar reasons. My question is why don't they opt to get a cheaper
alternative like an Archer, Warrior, or C172? Sure it will get you there 15
or 30 minutes later on a normal trip but you have an airplane and retain all
the joys of ownership. As I stated on another post, heck, with one or two
partners, owning a 4-seater can easily be cheaper than renting.

I know it's hard to "downgrade" from a sexy, 150 kt retract, but I'd feel
downright naked without an airplane to call my own.

Any of you guys out there ever "downgrade?" If so, how was it?

Marco

Robert M. Gary

February 29th 08, 05:10 PM

On Feb 29, 7:46*am, "Marco Leon" > wrote:
> "Denny" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > When he does go, some one will steal a really tired looking apache
> > that just happens to be mechanically ready to go anywhere in the world
> > - if there is anyone left who can afford an airplane by then...
>
> I know a few guys at my airfield that have given up their airplanes for
> similar reasons. My question is why don't they opt to get a cheaper
> alternative like an Archer, Warrior, or C172? Sure it will get you there 15
> or 30 minutes later on a normal trip but you have an airplane and retain all
> the joys of ownership.

Unless Dick's missions changes a lot (and it may) a C-172 or Warrior
wouldn't be able to do the trips he does. He's used to flying across
the country in the turbo altitudes with FAA approved known ice. A
C-172 isn't a reliable year-around cross country (literally) machine.
Flying 1000 miles in the P-210 is routine. Flying 1000 miles in a
C-172 is an adventure.

-Robert

Marco Leon[_5_]

February 29th 08, 06:05 PM

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...

>Unless Dick's missions changes a lot (and it may) a C-172 or Warrior
>wouldn't be able to do the trips he does. He's used to flying across
>the country in the turbo altitudes with FAA approved known ice. A
>C-172 isn't a reliable year-around cross country (literally) machine.
>Flying 1000 miles in the P-210 is routine. Flying 1000 miles in a
>C-172 is an adventure.

Yeah, I figured that if Riahard Collins' mission changes, it would be less
hours of the same type of flying so he'll need a more capable machine. I was
commenting on owner/pilots in general that don't fly as much but are still
spending 15 AMUs a year keeping their bird in the air.

Marco

Phil J

February 29th 08, 07:06 PM

On Feb 29, 12:05*pm, "Marco Leon" >
wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in ...
>
> >Unless Dick's missions changes a lot (and it may) a C-172 or Warrior
> >wouldn't be able to do the trips he does. He's used to flying across
> >the country in the turbo altitudes with FAA approved known ice. A
> >C-172 isn't a reliable year-around cross country (literally) machine.
> >Flying 1000 miles in the P-210 is routine. Flying 1000 miles in a
> >C-172 is an adventure.
>
> Yeah, I figured that if Riahard Collins' mission changes, it would be less
> hours of the same type of flying so he'll need a more capable machine. I was
> commenting on owner/pilots in general that don't fly as much but are still
> spending 15 AMUs a year keeping their bird in the air.
>
> Marco

AMUs. Accumulated Marriage Units? Does that equal about $1,000?

Phil

Marco Leon[_5_]

February 29th 08, 09:32 PM

"Phil J" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 29, 12:05 pm, "Marco Leon" >
wrote:
>
> Yeah, I figured that if Riahard Collins' mission changes, it would be less
> hours of the same type of flying so he'll need a more capable machine. I
> was
> commenting on owner/pilots in general that don't fly as much but are still
> spending 15 AMUs a year keeping their bird in the air.
>
> Marco

>AMUs. Accumulated Marriage Units? Does that equal about $1,000?

Depends on how you define "marriage units." Considering the subject, not
very many things are priced that low.

But yes, the AMUs I'm speaking of is 1:1,000 (but please don't let the wifey
in on that formula or our collective geese will be cooked!)

Marco

Robert M. Gary

March 1st 08, 12:29 AM

On Feb 29, 11:06*am, Phil J > wrote:
> On Feb 29, 12:05*pm, "Marco Leon" >
> wrote:

> AMUs. * Accumulated Marriage Units? *Does that equal about $1,000?

Aviation Monitary Units. A single unit is $1,000. This is because you
really can't even go into a shop for an oil change without spending
about $1,000 so why bother with the needless extra digits.

-Robert

Jay Honeck[_2_]

March 1st 08, 05:13 AM

> Any of you guys out there ever "downgrade?" If so, how was it?

I know a couple of guys who have "downgraded" to LSAs after years of buzzing
around in Barons and Mooneys. They seem mighty happy.

Personally, I expect to "downgrade" to a CT (or similar) when the kids are
out of the house, and I no longer need a 1460 pound useful load. Four
gallons per hour sounds mighty fine, most days.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Maynard

March 1st 08, 05:17 AM

On 2008-03-01, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Personally, I expect to "downgrade" to a CT (or similar) when the kids are
> out of the house, and I no longer need a 1460 pound useful load. Four
> gallons per hour sounds mighty fine, most days.

Hm. Maybe I should stop at your place on my way home with the Zodiac...
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 1st 08, 07:36 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:PB5yj.56157$yE1.49793@attbi_s21:

>> Any of you guys out there ever "downgrade?" If so, how was it?
>
> I know a couple of guys who have "downgraded" to LSAs after years of
> buzzing around in Barons and Mooneys. They seem mighty happy.
>
> Personally, I expect to "downgrade" to a CT (or similar) when the kids
> are out of the house, and I no longer need a 1460 pound useful load.
> Four gallons per hour sounds mighty fine, most days.

And another airplane up in blazes.

Bertie

Jay Honeck[_2_]

March 1st 08, 01:28 PM

> Hm. Maybe I should stop at your place on my way home with the Zodiac...

I'd love to see it. I've flown a CT, but never even sat in a Zodiac...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

LWG

March 1st 08, 01:52 PM

More like "Anti Marriage Units".
"Marco Leon" > wrote in message
...
> "Phil J" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Feb 29, 12:05 pm, "Marco Leon" >
> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, I figured that if Riahard Collins' mission changes, it would be
>> less
>> hours of the same type of flying so he'll need a more capable machine. I
>> was
>> commenting on owner/pilots in general that don't fly as much but are
>> still
>> spending 15 AMUs a year keeping their bird in the air.
>>
>> Marco
>
>>AMUs. Accumulated Marriage Units? Does that equal about $1,000?
>
> Depends on how you define "marriage units." Considering the subject, not
> very many things are priced that low.
>
> But yes, the AMUs I'm speaking of is 1:1,000 (but please don't let the
> wifey in on that formula or our collective geese will be cooked!)
>
> Marco
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 1st 08, 02:35 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:8Scyj.3765$TT4.3273
@attbi_s22:

>> Hm. Maybe I should stop at your place on my way home with the Zodiac...
>
> I'd love to see it. I've flown a CT, but never even sat in a Zodiac...

I'm sure the zodiac will live..

Bertie

Shirl

March 2nd 08, 02:19 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> I'd love to see it. I've flown a CT, but never even sat in a Zodiac...

If I missed it, sorry for the repeat, but ... what did you think of the
CT after flying it? There's one in a hangar around the corner from mine.
I LOVE the look of it and hope to fly it one day when the guy has time.
He says it outperforms the Skycatcher (I think it's around the same
price ... over $100K). He said the new one has 13" more in the fuselage
and has a different-shaped baggage door that will allow you to get
bigger items in and out with ease. This guy is a distributor, so of
course he has nothing but praise for it, but I'm curious to know what
you thought of it. If you'd consider having one, I'm guessing you
must've liked it.

Shirl

Jay Maynard

March 2nd 08, 04:11 PM

On 2008-03-02, Shirl > wrote:
> If I missed it, sorry for the repeat, but ... what did you think of the
> CT after flying it? There's one in a hangar around the corner from mine.
> I LOVE the look of it and hope to fly it one day when the guy has time.
> He says it outperforms the Skycatcher (I think it's around the same
> price ... over $100K). He said the new one has 13" more in the fuselage
> and has a different-shaped baggage door that will allow you to get
> bigger items in and out with ease. This guy is a distributor, so of
> course he has nothing but praise for it, but I'm curious to know what
> you thought of it. If you'd consider having one, I'm guessing you
> must've liked it.

A friend who's evaluated a LOT of the LSAs out there, and flown a nontrivial
number, tells me the CT has a very abrupt stall, and if you encounter that
on landing and drop the aircraft in from a few feet off the ground, the gear
has a nasty tendency to break off - at which point Bad Things happen.

I don't know that personally, and the CT wasn't on my list of candidate
aircraft anyway...

From what I've seen, though, *anything* outperforms the Skycatcher. The
aircraft is a hog, with only 425 pounds useful load - more than 100 less
than just about any other LSA. The main reason they have the number of
orders they do is that, apparently, every Cessna aircraft dealer was forced
to order 10 of them, and Cessna Pilot Centers were forced to order one. At
that rate, it's not hard to run up 400 orders.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (getting ready to order)

Mike Isaksen

March 2nd 08, 04:39 PM

"Shirl" wrote in message ...
> ... what did you think of the CT after flying it? There's one in a hangar
> around the corner from mine.
>
> .....This guy is a distributor, so of course he has nothing but praise for
> it, but I'm curious to know what you thought of it.

Just a quick data point on the LSA "distributor" issue; the LSA marketing
methods appear very different than the "old" service center concept. I think
of it more as a mini pyramid model, although I don't want to imply any kind
of scam activity.

Seems like with the market (buyers) as small as it is, and a new LSA
(supplier) coming online every month, the sales method is to offer every new
buyer a "dealer/distributorship". You buy the plane at your "dealer" cost (7
to 15% depending on which manufacturer). The deal can be even better if you
work directly with the importer. Then you run the plane as a business,
flying around in your area giving rides, expensing the whole process, and
hope you can dump the plane before the manufacturer puts out a new model.
Even that isn't so bad cause you could just turn it over to a flying club
with you holding the note.

The whole process is early enough that there's probably money to be made,
but I have too many irons in the fire to get directly involved myself. I
just hope this method works lights a fire back into recreational GA. Lord
knows we need it!

Phil J

March 2nd 08, 05:15 PM

On Mar 2, 10:11*am, Jay Maynard >
wrote:

> A friend who's evaluated a LOT of the LSAs out there, and flown a nontrivial
> number, tells me the CT has a very abrupt stall, and if you encounter that
> on landing and drop the aircraft in from a few feet off the ground, the gear
> has a nasty tendency to break off - at which point Bad Things happen.
>

I'm just a student pilot, but I am doing my training in a CT. I
haven't flown other airplanes, so I can't compare the CT stall, but as
a student pilot I haven't found the stall to be difficult to handle at
all. You get buffet so you can tell that you are about to enter the
stall. And I have certainly banged the airplane down pretty hard a
few times on my clumsy newbie landings. So far, nothing has fallen
off.

I do find the CT difficult to land, and I have heard that it is
tougher to land than some other LSAs. For me, I suspect a lot of it
is just my inexperience. But the airplane is relatively short-
coupled, and it has a very high-lift wing. I think those two features
combine to make it very twitchy in pitch on landing. It is really
easy to flare too much and float up on landing. And since it is so
light, it loses speed pretty quickly as you are floating up, so you
can stall it too high pretty easily. I think that may be where the
issue of dropping it on from too high comes from.

On the new CTLS they have lengthened the rear fuselage so it isn't
quite as short-coupled. That should make the airplane easier to
land. And they put beefier composite main gear on it as well.

From what I have read from other pilots flying the CT, once you get
used to the way the airplane responds on landing, it isn't a problem.
It's just a question of learning the right technique for this
airplane.

Phil

William Hung[_2_]

March 2nd 08, 08:35 PM

On Feb 28, 3:50*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?section_id=12&article_id=884
>
> Sad to see it go, but, wow, talk about getting good use out of an airplane..
>
> I can't imagine just parking my plane at a salvage yard and walking away.....
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Am I the only one that find this article self-serving?

Wil

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 2nd 08, 09:51 PM

William Hung > wrote in
:

> On Feb 28, 3:50*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?section_id=12&article_id=884
>>
>> Sad to see it go, but, wow, talk about getting good use out of an
>> airplane
> .
>>
>> I can't imagine just parking my plane at a salvage yard and walking
>> away..
> ..
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
> Am I the only one that find this article self-serving?

What, Dick Collin's article, or Jay's pathetic rant?

Bertie

Jay Honeck[_2_]

March 2nd 08, 10:41 PM

> Am I the only one that find this article self-serving?

In what way? Collins lost his butt in the deal, gave up his trusted old
airplane, and is facing his own advancing years. How did he benefit from
writing the article?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck[_2_]

March 2nd 08, 10:44 PM

> If I missed it, sorry for the repeat, but ... what did you think of the
> CT after flying it?

I loved it. The automotive nature of the Rotax engine, the nice, wide
cabin, the fantastic visibility, the low fuel burn, the quick handling -- it
all felt "right".
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 2nd 08, 10:58 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:32Gyj.5780$TT4.862@attbi_s22:

>> Am I the only one that find this article self-serving?
>
> In what way? Collins lost his butt in the deal, gave up his trusted
> old airplane, and is facing his own advancing years. How did he
> benefit from writing the article?

Pretty sure he menat you, **** for brains.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 2nd 08, 11:01 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:E5Gyj.58692$yE1.44008@attbi_s21:

>> If I missed it, sorry for the repeat, but ... what did you think of
>> the CT after flying it?
>
> I loved it. The automotive nature of the Rotax engine, the nice, wide
> cabin, the fantastic visibility, the low fuel burn, the quick handling
> -- it all felt "right".

Automaotive nature of a purpose designe aircraft engine?

Fjukkwit.

Bertie

William Hung[_2_]

March 3rd 08, 12:25 AM

On Mar 2, 4:51*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> William Hung > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 3:50*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >>http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?section_id=12&article_id=884
>
> >> Sad to see it go, but, wow, talk about getting good use out of an
> >> airplane
> > .
>
> >> I can't imagine just parking my plane at a salvage yard and walking
> >> away..
> > ..
> >> --
> >> Jay Honeck
> >> Iowa City, IA
> >> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> >> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
> > Am I the only one that find this article self-serving?
>
> What, Dick Collin's article, or Jay's pathetic rant?
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Dick's artice. lol
Wil

William Hung[_2_]

March 3rd 08, 12:26 AM

On Mar 2, 5:41*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > Am I the only one that find this article self-serving?
>
> In what way? * Collins lost his butt in the deal, gave up his trusted old
> airplane, and is facing his own advancing years. *How did he benefit from
> writing the article?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Hard to explain, but after a few sentences, that the feeling I got.

Wil

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 3rd 08, 12:32 AM

William Hung > wrote in
:

> On Mar 2, 4:51*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> William Hung > wrote
>> innews:c1a97d11-70a3-4ecd-91b7-31c3
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 28, 3:50*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> >>http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?section_id=12&article_id=884
>>
>> >> Sad to see it go, but, wow, talk about getting good use out of an
>> >> airplane
>> > .
>>
>> >> I can't imagine just parking my plane at a salvage yard and
>> >> walking away..
>> > ..
>> >> --
>> >> Jay Honeck
>> >> Iowa City, IA
>> >> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> >> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>> > Am I the only one that find this article self-serving?
>>
>> What, Dick Collin's article, or Jay's pathetic rant?
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Dick's artice. lol

Oh, OK. i knoda think Dick is past caring about that sort of thing...

Bertie

Alan[_6_]

March 3rd 08, 01:21 AM

In article > "Robert M. Gary" > writes:
>On Feb 28, 12:50=A0pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?section_id=3D12&article_id=3D884
>>
>> Sad to see it go, but, wow, talk about getting good use out of an airplane=
>.
>>
>> I can't imagine just parking my plane at a salvage yard and walking away..=
>..
>
>I don't always read his articles (I can't say he's my favorite author)
>so I'm not sure what he means about his decreased dutes at Flying. Is
>he semi retiring?

I believe he was editor in chief, and now Mac is, as Dick has a different
title.

I suspect that the 9000 hours in the P210 were largely paid for on expense
account traveling and speaking as the editor of the magazine. (Or were paid
for by whoever paid him to come speak, for example.) I doubt it came out of
is after-tax pocketbook.

I remember some years ago as he was writing about his decision of what to
buy, and I think he came up with buying a Cardinal. A couple years or so
later, it quietly disappeared, and the P210 came.

As most of us probably pay for the plane's costs our of our discretionary
money, the cost of a P210 is out of reach, as is the cost of the newer
versions of whatever we are used to flying.

Alan

Alan[_6_]

March 3rd 08, 01:34 AM

In article <PB5yj.56157$yE1.49793@attbi_s21> "Jay Honeck" > writes:
>> Any of you guys out there ever "downgrade?" If so, how was it?
>
>I know a couple of guys who have "downgraded" to LSAs after years of buzzing
>around in Barons and Mooneys. They seem mighty happy.
>
>Personally, I expect to "downgrade" to a CT (or similar) when the kids are
>out of the house, and I no longer need a 1460 pound useful load. Four
>gallons per hour sounds mighty fine, most days.

Looking at the price of fuel, and the fact that it will continue
to go up, the LSA aircraft sound better, until . . .

The CT seems to start around $106K, with the LS up around $128K. Other
interesting options go even higher. It sort of makes finding an old
C-150/152 sound like a pretty good idea. It looks like insurance on
an LSA may also be a good bit more expensive.

I wonder if this isn't a bit of taking advantage of folks who are
perceived as unable to fly other aircraft for various reasons (such
as medicals, etc.) "Hey, we can charge them more..."

Well, perhaps not, since the price of a new 172 is about double that.
Even so, the basic CT felt like a nice $30K airplane. Too bad they
wanted a lot more than that for it.

I did notice that one can rent a 152 for less than one can rent an
LSA.

Alan

[email protected]

March 3rd 08, 03:55 AM

Alan > wrote:
> In article <PB5yj.56157$yE1.49793@attbi_s21> "Jay Honeck" > writes:
> >> Any of you guys out there ever "downgrade?" If so, how was it?
> >
> >I know a couple of guys who have "downgraded" to LSAs after years of buzzing
> >around in Barons and Mooneys. They seem mighty happy.
> >
> >Personally, I expect to "downgrade" to a CT (or similar) when the kids are
> >out of the house, and I no longer need a 1460 pound useful load. Four
> >gallons per hour sounds mighty fine, most days.

> Looking at the price of fuel, and the fact that it will continue
> to go up, the LSA aircraft sound better, until . . .

> The CT seems to start around $106K, with the LS up around $128K. Other
> interesting options go even higher. It sort of makes finding an old
> C-150/152 sound like a pretty good idea. It looks like insurance on
> an LSA may also be a good bit more expensive.

> I wonder if this isn't a bit of taking advantage of folks who are
> perceived as unable to fly other aircraft for various reasons (such
> as medicals, etc.) "Hey, we can charge them more..."

> Well, perhaps not, since the price of a new 172 is about double that.
> Even so, the basic CT felt like a nice $30K airplane. Too bad they
> wanted a lot more than that for it.

> I did notice that one can rent a 152 for less than one can rent an
> LSA.

Apples and oranges.

Today's quiz question: In what year was the last 152 built?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 3rd 08, 04:04 AM

wrote in :

> Alan > wrote:
>> In article <PB5yj.56157$yE1.49793@attbi_s21> "Jay Honeck"
>> > writes:
>> >> Any of you guys out there ever "downgrade?" If so, how was it?
>> >
>> >I know a couple of guys who have "downgraded" to LSAs after years of
>> >buzzing around in Barons and Mooneys. They seem mighty happy.
>> >
>> >Personally, I expect to "downgrade" to a CT (or similar) when the
>> >kids are out of the house, and I no longer need a 1460 pound useful
>> >load. Four gallons per hour sounds mighty fine, most days.
>
>> Looking at the price of fuel, and the fact that it will continue
>> to go up, the LSA aircraft sound better, until . . .
>
>> The CT seems to start around $106K, with the LS up around $128K.
>> Other
>> interesting options go even higher. It sort of makes finding an old
>> C-150/152 sound like a pretty good idea. It looks like insurance on
>> an LSA may also be a good bit more expensive.
>
>> I wonder if this isn't a bit of taking advantage of folks who are
>> perceived as unable to fly other aircraft for various reasons (such
>> as medicals, etc.) "Hey, we can charge them more..."
>
>> Well, perhaps not, since the price of a new 172 is about double
>> that.
>> Even so, the basic CT felt like a nice $30K airplane. Too bad they
>> wanted a lot more than that for it.
>
>> I did notice that one can rent a 152 for less than one can rent an
>> LSA.
>
> Apples and oranges.
>
> Today's quiz question: In what year was the last 152 built?

I'm gonna guess 79, though I was in Wichita and there weren't any there,
but rowas and rows of 172s and 172 RGs

Bertie
>
>

William Hung[_2_]

March 3rd 08, 04:28 AM

On Mar 2, 7:32*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> William Hung > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 4:51*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> William Hung > wrote
> >> innews:c1a97d11-70a3-4ecd-91b7-31c3
> > :
>
> >> > On Feb 28, 3:50*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >> >>http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?section_id=12&article_id=884
>
> >> >> Sad to see it go, but, wow, talk about getting good use out of an
> >> >> airplane
> >> > .
>
> >> >> I can't imagine just parking my plane at a salvage yard and
> >> >> walking away..
> >> > ..
> >> >> --
> >> >> Jay Honeck
> >> >> Iowa City, IA
> >> >> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> >> >> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
> >> > Am I the only one that find this article self-serving?
>
> >> What, Dick Collin's article, or Jay's pathetic rant?
>
> >> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Dick's artice. lol
>
> Oh, OK. i knoda think Dick is past caring about that sort of thing...
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Suppose you're right about Collins, but ego has no age limit.

Wil

William Hung[_2_]

March 3rd 08, 04:32 AM

On Mar 2, 7:26*pm, William Hung > wrote:
> On Mar 2, 5:41*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
> > > Am I the only one that find this article self-serving?
>
> > In what way? * Collins lost his butt in the deal, gave up his trusted old
> > airplane, and is facing his own advancing years. *How did he benefit from
> > writing the article?
> > --
> > Jay Honeck
> > Iowa City, IA
> > Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> > "Your Aviation Destination"
>
> Hard to explain, but after a few sentences, that the feeling I got.
>
> Wil

OK, I think his explanation not to sell it was to keep other pilots
from flying it was self-serving in a way that he thinks he's one of
the very few who can handle it (putting himself upon a pedestal) and
that his true reason is that he just can't justify the cost any longer
now that he has to pay for it out of his own pocket.

Wil

[email protected]

March 3rd 08, 05:05 AM

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > Alan > wrote:
> >> In article <PB5yj.56157$yE1.49793@attbi_s21> "Jay Honeck"
> >> > writes:
> >> >> Any of you guys out there ever "downgrade?" If so, how was it?
> >> >
> >> >I know a couple of guys who have "downgraded" to LSAs after years of
> >> >buzzing around in Barons and Mooneys. They seem mighty happy.
> >> >
> >> >Personally, I expect to "downgrade" to a CT (or similar) when the
> >> >kids are out of the house, and I no longer need a 1460 pound useful
> >> >load. Four gallons per hour sounds mighty fine, most days.
> >
> >> Looking at the price of fuel, and the fact that it will continue
> >> to go up, the LSA aircraft sound better, until . . .
> >
> >> The CT seems to start around $106K, with the LS up around $128K.
> >> Other
> >> interesting options go even higher. It sort of makes finding an old
> >> C-150/152 sound like a pretty good idea. It looks like insurance on
> >> an LSA may also be a good bit more expensive.
> >
> >> I wonder if this isn't a bit of taking advantage of folks who are
> >> perceived as unable to fly other aircraft for various reasons (such
> >> as medicals, etc.) "Hey, we can charge them more..."
> >
> >> Well, perhaps not, since the price of a new 172 is about double
> >> that.
> >> Even so, the basic CT felt like a nice $30K airplane. Too bad they
> >> wanted a lot more than that for it.
> >
> >> I did notice that one can rent a 152 for less than one can rent an
> >> LSA.
> >
> > Apples and oranges.
> >
> > Today's quiz question: In what year was the last 152 built?

> I'm gonna guess 79, though I was in Wichita and there weren't any there,
> but rowas and rows of 172s and 172 RGs

85 actually, so the newest 152 one can rent is 22 years old.

And for the grand prize, what is the oldest LSA one can rent?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

William Hung[_2_]

March 3rd 08, 05:10 AM

On Mar 3, 12:05*am, wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote :
> > > Alan > wrote:
> > >> In article <PB5yj.56157$yE1.49793@attbi_s21> "Jay Honeck"
> > >> > writes:
> > >> >> Any of you guys out there ever "downgrade?" If so, how was it?
>
> > >> >I know a couple of guys who have "downgraded" to LSAs after years of
> > >> >buzzing around in Barons and Mooneys. *They seem mighty happy.
>
> > >> >Personally, I expect to "downgrade" to a CT (or similar) when the
> > >> >kids are out of the house, and I no longer need a 1460 pound useful
> > >> >load. * Four gallons per hour sounds mighty fine, most days.
>
> > >> * Looking at the price of fuel, and the fact that it will continue
> > >> to go up, the LSA aircraft sound better, until . . .
>
> > >> * The CT seems to start around $106K, with the LS up around $128K.
> > >> * Other
> > >> interesting options go even higher. *It sort of makes finding an old
> > >> C-150/152 sound like a pretty good idea. *It looks like insurance on
> > >> an LSA may also be a good bit more expensive.
>
> > >> * I wonder if this isn't a bit of taking advantage of folks who are
> > >> perceived as unable to fly other aircraft for various reasons (such
> > >> as medicals, etc.) *"Hey, we can charge them more..."
>
> > >> * Well, perhaps not, since the price of a new 172 is about double
> > >> * that.
> > >> Even so, the basic CT felt like a nice $30K airplane. *Too bad they
> > >> wanted a lot more than that for it.
>
> > >> * I did notice that one can rent a 152 for less than one can rent an
> > >> LSA.
>
> > > Apples and oranges.
>
> > > Today's quiz question: In what year was the last 152 built?
> > I'm gonna guess 79, though I was in Wichita and there weren't any there,
> > but rowas and rows of 172s and 172 RGs
>
> 85 actually, so the newest 152 one can rent is 22 years old.
>
> And for the grand prize, what is the oldest LSA one can rent?
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Long shot, but would that be the Luscome?

Wil

[email protected]

March 3rd 08, 06:05 AM

William Hung > wrote:
> On Mar 3, 12:05?am, wrote:
> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > wrote :
> > > > Alan > wrote:
> > > >> In article <PB5yj.56157$yE1.49793@attbi_s21> "Jay Honeck"
> > > >> > writes:
> > > >> >> Any of you guys out there ever "downgrade?" If so, how was it?
> >
> > > >> >I know a couple of guys who have "downgraded" to LSAs after years of
> > > >> >buzzing around in Barons and Mooneys. ?They seem mighty happy.
> >
> > > >> >Personally, I expect to "downgrade" to a CT (or similar) when the
> > > >> >kids are out of the house, and I no longer need a 1460 pound useful
> > > >> >load. ? Four gallons per hour sounds mighty fine, most days.
> >
> > > >> ? Looking at the price of fuel, and the fact that it will continue
> > > >> to go up, the LSA aircraft sound better, until . . .
> >
> > > >> ? The CT seems to start around $106K, with the LS up around $128K.
> > > >> ? Other
> > > >> interesting options go even higher. ?It sort of makes finding an old
> > > >> C-150/152 sound like a pretty good idea. ?It looks like insurance on
> > > >> an LSA may also be a good bit more expensive.
> >
> > > >> ? I wonder if this isn't a bit of taking advantage of folks who are
> > > >> perceived as unable to fly other aircraft for various reasons (such
> > > >> as medicals, etc.) ?"Hey, we can charge them more..."
> >
> > > >> ? Well, perhaps not, since the price of a new 172 is about double
> > > >> ? that.
> > > >> Even so, the basic CT felt like a nice $30K airplane. ?Too bad they
> > > >> wanted a lot more than that for it.
> >
> > > >> ? I did notice that one can rent a 152 for less than one can rent an
> > > >> LSA.
> >
> > > > Apples and oranges.
> >
> > > > Today's quiz question: In what year was the last 152 built?
> > > I'm gonna guess 79, though I was in Wichita and there weren't any there,
> > > but rowas and rows of 172s and 172 RGs
> >
> > 85 actually, so the newest 152 one can rent is 22 years old.
> >
> > And for the grand prize, what is the oldest LSA one can rent?
> >
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
> >
> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -

> Long shot, but would that be the Luscome?

You know someone that rents Luscombes, Ercoupes or the few other antiques
that got grandfathered in to LSA?

I do know a CFI that gives tail wheel endoresements in his Champ, but
if he has known you for less than 20 years you aren't going to fly it
solo.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Marty Shapiro

March 3rd 08, 07:33 AM

wrote in :

> William Hung > wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 12:05?am, wrote:
>> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > wrote
>> > > :
>> > > > Alan > wrote:
>> > > >> In article <PB5yj.56157$yE1.49793@attbi_s21> "Jay Honeck"
>> > > >> > writes:
>> > > >> >> Any of you guys out there ever "downgrade?" If so, how was
>> > > >> >> it?
>> >
>> > > >> >I know a couple of guys who have "downgraded" to LSAs after
>> > > >> >years of buzzing around in Barons and Mooneys. ?They seem
>> > > >> >mighty happy.
>> >
>> > > >> >Personally, I expect to "downgrade" to a CT (or similar) when
>> > > >> >the kids are out of the house, and I no longer need a 1460
>> > > >> >pound useful load. ? Four gallons per hour sounds mighty
>> > > >> >fine, most days.
>> >
>> > > >> ? Looking at the price of fuel, and the fact that it will
>> > > >> continue to go up, the LSA aircraft sound better, until . . .
>> >
>> > > >> ? The CT seems to start around $106K, with the LS up around
>> > > >> $128K. ? Other
>> > > >> interesting options go even higher. ?It sort of makes finding
>> > > >> an old C-150/152 sound like a pretty good idea. ?It looks like
>> > > >> insurance on an LSA may also be a good bit more expensive.
>> >
>> > > >> ? I wonder if this isn't a bit of taking advantage of folks
>> > > >> who are perceived as unable to fly other aircraft for various
>> > > >> reasons (such as medicals, etc.) ?"Hey, we can charge them
>> > > >> more..."
>> >
>> > > >> ? Well, perhaps not, since the price of a new 172 is about
>> > > >> double ? that.
>> > > >> Even so, the basic CT felt like a nice $30K airplane. ?Too bad
>> > > >> they wanted a lot more than that for it.
>> >
>> > > >> ? I did notice that one can rent a 152 for less than one can
>> > > >> rent an LSA.
>> >
>> > > > Apples and oranges.
>> >
>> > > > Today's quiz question: In what year was the last 152 built?
>> > > I'm gonna guess 79, though I was in Wichita and there weren't any
>> > > there, but rowas and rows of 172s and 172 RGs
>> >
>> > 85 actually, so the newest 152 one can rent is 22 years old.
>> >
>> > And for the grand prize, what is the oldest LSA one can rent?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jim Pennino
>> >
>> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>> >
>> > - Show quoted text -
>
>> Long shot, but would that be the Luscome?
>
> You know someone that rents Luscombes, Ercoupes or the few other
> antiques that got grandfathered in to LSA?
>
> I do know a CFI that gives tail wheel endoresements in his Champ, but
> if he has known you for less than 20 years you aren't going to fly it
> solo.
>
>

Amelia Reid Aviation at KRHV has two 1946 Aeronica Champ 7AC and a
1945 Taylorcraft L-2 availble for rent to members. More information can be
found at http://www.ameliareid.com (I am not a member, but am based at
KRHV.)

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Alan[_6_]

March 3rd 08, 08:09 AM

In article > writes:
>Alan > wrote:

>> The CT seems to start around $106K, with the LS up around $128K. Other
>> interesting options go even higher. It sort of makes finding an old
>> C-150/152 sound like a pretty good idea. It looks like insurance on
>> an LSA may also be a good bit more expensive.

>> I did notice that one can rent a 152 for less than one can rent an
>> LSA.
>
>Apples and oranges.

Why would you make that claim?

I don't fully disagree that they are different, but in many of the
factors I was thinking of, the 152 can come out on top. For example,
some have objected to the Rotax engines, preferring Lycoming or
Continental. The 152 (or 150) is well known by service folks, pretty
much anywhere. You can take the 152 out of the country if you wish.

Yes, the 150/152 is not sexy. However, most all I have seen have at
least attitude indicator, heading indicator, and turn coordinator.
(These were popular to have in planes that might be trainers.) It
seems that many LSAs don't have any of these.

Now, the LSA has the *NEW* feature, somewhat different, some may be
more fun to fly. Yes, I even probably want one. However, at the price,
I need to convince myself it makes more sense than a cessna for half the
price (or less).

Alan

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 3rd 08, 10:40 AM

William Hung > wrote in
:

> On Mar 2, 7:32*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> William Hung > wrote
>> innews:9f3fb2d7-31b3-427f-830c-81f8
> :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 2, 4:51*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> William Hung > wrote
>> >> innews:c1a97d11-70a3-4ecd-91b7-31c3
>> > :
>>
>> >> > On Feb 28, 3:50*pm, "Jay Honeck" >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp?section_id=12&article_id=
884
>
>>
>> >> >> Sad to see it go, but, wow, talk about getting good use out of
>> >> >> an airplane
>> >> > .
>>
>> >> >> I can't imagine just parking my plane at a salvage yard and
>> >> >> walking away..
>> >> > ..
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Jay Honeck
>> >> >> Iowa City, IA
>> >> >> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> >> >> "Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>> >> > Am I the only one that find this article self-serving?
>>
>> >> What, Dick Collin's article, or Jay's pathetic rant?
>>
>> >> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > Dick's artice. lol
>>
>> Oh, OK. i knoda think Dick is past caring about that sort of thing...
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Suppose you're right about Collins, but ego has no age limit.

Well, I'm not particularly a fan, but I always thought he talked sense.
His style was always a bit too stodgy for me, but I never thought him an
asshole. That said, I hardly ever pick up a copy of Flying... I'm a big
fan of it before the name change, however!

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 3rd 08, 10:43 AM

William Hung > wrote in news:06342b36-3d88-407e-8909-
:

> On Mar 2, 7:26*pm, William Hung > wrote:
>> On Mar 2, 5:41*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>
>> > > Am I the only one that find this article self-serving?
>>
>> > In what way? * Collins lost his butt in the deal, gave up his trusted
> old
>> > airplane, and is facing his own advancing years. *How did he benefit f
> rom
>> > writing the article?
>> > --
>> > Jay Honeck
>> > Iowa City, IA
>> > Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> > "Your Aviation Destination"
>>
>> Hard to explain, but after a few sentences, that the feeling I got.
>>
>> Wil
>
> OK, I think his explanation not to sell it was to keep other pilots
> from flying it was self-serving in a way that he thinks he's one of
> the very few who can handle it (putting himself upon a pedestal) and
> that his true reason is that he just can't justify the cost any longer
> now that he has to pay for it out of his own pocket.

Well, I didn't get that from it. I don't think it's so much the flying it
par so much as it was getting old and the risk of someone getting it who
wasn't able for it killing themselves in it made him feel morally obliged
to do what he did.
That's just how I read it.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 3rd 08, 10:44 AM

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in
>> :
>
>> > Alan > wrote:
>> >> In article <PB5yj.56157$yE1.49793@attbi_s21> "Jay Honeck"
>> >> > writes:
>> >> >> Any of you guys out there ever "downgrade?" If so, how was it?
>> >> >
>> >> >I know a couple of guys who have "downgraded" to LSAs after years
>> >> >of buzzing around in Barons and Mooneys. They seem mighty happy.
>> >> >
>> >> >Personally, I expect to "downgrade" to a CT (or similar) when the
>> >> >kids are out of the house, and I no longer need a 1460 pound
>> >> >useful load. Four gallons per hour sounds mighty fine, most
>> >> >days.
>> >
>> >> Looking at the price of fuel, and the fact that it will continue
>> >> to go up, the LSA aircraft sound better, until . . .
>> >
>> >> The CT seems to start around $106K, with the LS up around $128K.
>> >> Other
>> >> interesting options go even higher. It sort of makes finding an
>> >> old C-150/152 sound like a pretty good idea. It looks like
>> >> insurance on an LSA may also be a good bit more expensive.
>> >
>> >> I wonder if this isn't a bit of taking advantage of folks who
>> >> are
>> >> perceived as unable to fly other aircraft for various reasons
>> >> (such as medicals, etc.) "Hey, we can charge them more..."
>> >
>> >> Well, perhaps not, since the price of a new 172 is about double
>> >> that.
>> >> Even so, the basic CT felt like a nice $30K airplane. Too bad
>> >> they wanted a lot more than that for it.
>> >
>> >> I did notice that one can rent a 152 for less than one can rent
>> >> an
>> >> LSA.
>> >
>> > Apples and oranges.
>> >
>> > Today's quiz question: In what year was the last 152 built?
>
>> I'm gonna guess 79, though I was in Wichita and there weren't any
>> there, but rowas and rows of 172s and 172 RGs
>
> 85 actually, so the newest 152 one can rent is 22 years old.
>
> And for the grand prize, what is the oldest LSA one can rent?

I'm guessing an E2 Cub or an Early Chief, unless someone is renting out
a Heath Parasol.

Bertie
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 3rd 08, 10:45 AM

Jay Maynard

March 3rd 08, 12:34 PM

On 2008-03-03, Alan > wrote:
> I don't fully disagree that they are different, but in many of the
> factors I was thinking of, the 152 can come out on top. For example,
> some have objected to the Rotax engines, preferring Lycoming or
> Continental. The 152 (or 150) is well known by service folks, pretty
> much anywhere. You can take the 152 out of the country if you wish.

A lot of these things are reasons I picked the Zodiac as my LSA.

> Yes, the 150/152 is not sexy. However, most all I have seen have at
> least attitude indicator, heading indicator, and turn coordinator.
> (These were popular to have in planes that might be trainers.) It
> seems that many LSAs don't have any of these.

Mine will.

> Now, the LSA has the *NEW* feature, somewhat different, some may be
> more fun to fly. Yes, I even probably want one. However, at the price,
> I need to convince myself it makes more sense than a cessna for half the
> price (or less).

Less, certainly. My Zodiac will cost six times or more what a used 152
would. OTOH, for that, I'm getting a very well equipped aircraft that will
outperform a 152 with the same engine, and it will be my airplane in a way
that a 152 would only be if I sunk $20K or more into the paint and panel and
interior. That's an intangible that really attracts me. It'll also have been
built in 2008, not 1978.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (getting ready to order)

William Hung[_2_]

March 3rd 08, 02:12 PM

On Mar 3, 1:05*am, wrote:
> William Hung > wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 12:05?am, wrote:
> > > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > > > wrote :
> > > > > Alan > wrote:
> > > > >> In article <PB5yj.56157$yE1.49793@attbi_s21> "Jay Honeck"
> > > > >> > writes:
> > > > >> >> Any of you guys out there ever "downgrade?" If so, how was it?
>
> > > > >> >I know a couple of guys who have "downgraded" to LSAs after years of
> > > > >> >buzzing around in Barons and Mooneys. ?They seem mighty happy.
>
> > > > >> >Personally, I expect to "downgrade" to a CT (or similar) when the
> > > > >> >kids are out of the house, and I no longer need a 1460 pound useful
> > > > >> >load. ? Four gallons per hour sounds mighty fine, most days.
>
> > > > >> ? Looking at the price of fuel, and the fact that it will continue
> > > > >> to go up, the LSA aircraft sound better, until . . .
>
> > > > >> ? The CT seems to start around $106K, with the LS up around $128K..
> > > > >> ? Other
> > > > >> interesting options go even higher. ?It sort of makes finding an old
> > > > >> C-150/152 sound like a pretty good idea. ?It looks like insurance on
> > > > >> an LSA may also be a good bit more expensive.
>
> > > > >> ? I wonder if this isn't a bit of taking advantage of folks who are
> > > > >> perceived as unable to fly other aircraft for various reasons (such
> > > > >> as medicals, etc.) ?"Hey, we can charge them more..."
>
> > > > >> ? Well, perhaps not, since the price of a new 172 is about double
> > > > >> ? that.
> > > > >> Even so, the basic CT felt like a nice $30K airplane. ?Too bad they
> > > > >> wanted a lot more than that for it.
>
> > > > >> ? I did notice that one can rent a 152 for less than one can rent an
> > > > >> LSA.
>
> > > > > Apples and oranges.
>
> > > > > Today's quiz question: In what year was the last 152 built?
> > > > I'm gonna guess 79, though I was in Wichita and there weren't any there,
> > > > but rowas and rows of 172s and 172 RGs
>
> > > 85 actually, so the newest 152 one can rent is 22 years old.
>
> > > And for the grand prize, what is the oldest LSA one can rent?
>
> > > --
> > > Jim Pennino
>
> > > Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > Long shot, but would that be the Luscome?
>
> You know someone that rents Luscombes, Ercoupes or the few other antiques
> that got grandfathered in to LSA?
>

No I don't.

> I do know a CFI that gives tail wheel endoresements in his Champ, but
> if he has known you for less than 20 years you aren't going to fly it
> solo.
>

I can believe it.

Wil

> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

William Hung[_2_]

March 3rd 08, 02:15 PM

On Mar 3, 5:43*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> William Hung > wrote in news:06342b36-3d88-407e-8909-
> :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 7:26*pm, William Hung > wrote:
> >> On Mar 2, 5:41*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
> >> > > Am I the only one that find this article self-serving?
>
> >> > In what way? * Collins lost his butt in the deal, gave up his trusted
> > old
> >> > airplane, and is facing his own advancing years. *How did he benefit f
> > rom
> >> > writing the article?
> >> > --
> >> > Jay Honeck
> >> > Iowa City, IA
> >> > Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> >> > "Your Aviation Destination"
>
> >> Hard to explain, but after a few sentences, that the feeling I got.
>
> >> Wil
>
> > OK, I think his explanation not to sell it was to keep other pilots
> > from flying it was self-serving in a way that he thinks he's one of
> > the very few who can handle it (putting himself upon a pedestal) and
> > that his true reason is that he just can't justify the cost any longer
> > now that he has to pay for it out of his own pocket.
>
> Well, I didn't get that from it. I don't think it's so much the flying it
> par so much as it was getting old and the risk of someone getting it who
> wasn't able for it killing themselves in it made him feel morally obliged
> to do what he did.
> That's just how I read it.
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It's my cynical side showing. :-)

Wil

Andrew Gideon

March 3rd 08, 04:23 PM

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:32:31 -0800, William Hung wrote:

> his true reason is that he just can't justify the cost any longer
> now that he has to pay for it out of his own pocket.

My take was somewhat different. This article read as someone trying to
justify a decision to himself. That is, I'm not sure he entirely
believed his presented logic that lead to scrapping the airplane.

Frankly, I thought the moral argument absurd. By that reasoning, nobody
should be selling any of those airplane thingies.

I found myself wondering if there were facts left unmentioned, as it
sounded to me like a puzzle with missing pieces.

- Andrew

[email protected]

March 3rd 08, 04:25 PM

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > You know someone that rents Luscombes, Ercoupes or the few other
> > antiques that got grandfathered in to LSA?

> I do.

I should have probably qualified that a bit.

If you look hard enough, you can probably find someone that rents out a
Sopwith Camel.

But the point is that the vast majority of LSA rentals are going to
be brand new airplanes and rental prices are directly proportional
to the airplane cost.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Marco Leon[_5_]

March 3rd 08, 04:55 PM

"Alan" > wrote in message
...
>
> I remember some years ago as he was writing about his decision of what to
> buy, and I think he came up with buying a Cardinal. A couple years or so
> later, it quietly disappeared, and the P210 came.

I think he did have a Cardinal RG at one point. He mentions it a couple of
times on his Seasonal Weather Flying series.

Marco

Kobra

March 3rd 08, 06:10 PM

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:32:31 -0800, William Hung wrote:
>
>> his true reason is that he just can't justify the cost any longer
>> now that he has to pay for it out of his own pocket.
>
> My take was somewhat different. This article read as someone trying to
> justify a decision to himself. That is, I'm not sure he entirely
> believed his presented logic that lead to scrapping the airplane.
>
> Frankly, I thought the moral argument absurd. By that reasoning, nobody
> should be selling any of those airplane thingies.
>
> I found myself wondering if there were facts left unmentioned, as it
> sounded to me like a puzzle with missing pieces.
>
> - Andrew

Andrew,

I agree with you completely. The moral descision was just fluff and icing
for the real reasons that might be hard for him to admit as the sole causes.
The biggest thing was money and second to that was age and health. That's
just what I got from it. Personally, I don't think he needs to apologize
for either. Both of those reasons are good enough and I respect all that he
has and is accomplishing in aviation.

Kobra

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 3rd 08, 06:32 PM

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in :
>
>> > You know someone that rents Luscombes, Ercoupes or the few other
>> > antiques that got grandfathered in to LSA?
>
>> I do.
>
> I should have probably qualified that a bit.
>
> If you look hard enough, you can probably find someone that rents out a
> Sopwith Camel.

Nah, never certified, but I do know someone who rents a '39 Chief out.

>
> But the point is that the vast majority of LSA rentals are going to
> be brand new airplanes and rental prices are directly proportional
> to the airplane cost.

No idea! If it's not covered in rags and leaking oil I'm not interested!

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 3rd 08, 06:34 PM

Andrew Gideon > wrote in news:fqh8mi$ilk$3
@taco.int.tagonline.com:

> On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:32:31 -0800, William Hung wrote:
>
>> his true reason is that he just can't justify the cost any longer
>> now that he has to pay for it out of his own pocket.
>
> My take was somewhat different. This article read as someone trying to
> justify a decision to himself. That is, I'm not sure he entirely
> believed his presented logic that lead to scrapping the airplane.
>
> Frankly, I thought the moral argument absurd. By that reasoning, nobody
> should be selling any of those airplane thingies.
>
> I found myself wondering if there were facts left unmentioned, as it
> sounded to me like a puzzle with missing pieces.

Made perfect sense to me, though I would have been much more reluctant to
junk than he was.

Bertie

[email protected]

March 3rd 08, 06:45 PM

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> wrote in :
> >
> >> > You know someone that rents Luscombes, Ercoupes or the few other
> >> > antiques that got grandfathered in to LSA?
> >
> >> I do.
> >
> > I should have probably qualified that a bit.
> >
> > If you look hard enough, you can probably find someone that rents out a
> > Sopwith Camel.

> Nah, never certified, but I do know someone who rents a '39 Chief out.

> >
> > But the point is that the vast majority of LSA rentals are going to
> > be brand new airplanes and rental prices are directly proportional
> > to the airplane cost.

> No idea! If it's not covered in rags and leaking oil I'm not interested!

My solo was in a 172 dripping gas which both the CFI and the FBO owner
said not to worry about. Shortly thereafter the thing was in the shop
with the wing off...

Just one of the reasons I bought my own plane.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 3rd 08, 06:49 PM

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in
>> :
>
>> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> wrote in
>> >> :
>> >
>> >> > You know someone that rents Luscombes, Ercoupes or the few other
>> >> > antiques that got grandfathered in to LSA?
>> >
>> >> I do.
>> >
>> > I should have probably qualified that a bit.
>> >
>> > If you look hard enough, you can probably find someone that rents
>> > out a Sopwith Camel.
>
>> Nah, never certified, but I do know someone who rents a '39 Chief
>> out.
>
>> >
>> > But the point is that the vast majority of LSA rentals are going to
>> > be brand new airplanes and rental prices are directly proportional
>> > to the airplane cost.
>
>
>> No idea! If it's not covered in rags and leaking oil I'm not
>> interested!
>
> My solo was in a 172 dripping gas which both the CFI and the FBO owner
> said not to worry about. Shortly thereafter the thing was in the shop
> with the wing off...
>
> Just one of the reasons I bought my own plane.
>
>

Well, the raggy ones I'm talking about are supposed to leak oil!

Bertie

[email protected]

March 3rd 08, 07:15 PM

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote in :

> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> wrote in
> >> :
> >
> >> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >> wrote in
> >> >> :
> >> >
> >> >> > You know someone that rents Luscombes, Ercoupes or the few other
> >> >> > antiques that got grandfathered in to LSA?
> >> >
> >> >> I do.
> >> >
> >> > I should have probably qualified that a bit.
> >> >
> >> > If you look hard enough, you can probably find someone that rents
> >> > out a Sopwith Camel.
> >
> >> Nah, never certified, but I do know someone who rents a '39 Chief
> >> out.
> >
> >> >
> >> > But the point is that the vast majority of LSA rentals are going to
> >> > be brand new airplanes and rental prices are directly proportional
> >> > to the airplane cost.
> >
> >
> >> No idea! If it's not covered in rags and leaking oil I'm not
> >> interested!
> >
> > My solo was in a 172 dripping gas which both the CFI and the FBO owner
> > said not to worry about. Shortly thereafter the thing was in the shop
> > with the wing off...
> >
> > Just one of the reasons I bought my own plane.
> >
> >

> Well, the raggy ones I'm talking about are supposed to leak oil!

Like a British car?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 3rd 08, 07:43 PM

wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote in news:2ftt95-acm.ln1
@mail.specsol.com:
>
>> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> wrote in
>> >> :
>> >
>> >> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >> wrote in
>> >> >> :
>> >> >
>> >> >> > You know someone that rents Luscombes, Ercoupes or the few
other
>> >> >> > antiques that got grandfathered in to LSA?
>> >> >
>> >> >> I do.
>> >> >
>> >> > I should have probably qualified that a bit.
>> >> >
>> >> > If you look hard enough, you can probably find someone that
rents
>> >> > out a Sopwith Camel.
>> >
>> >> Nah, never certified, but I do know someone who rents a '39 Chief
>> >> out.
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > But the point is that the vast majority of LSA rentals are going
to
>> >> > be brand new airplanes and rental prices are directly
proportional
>> >> > to the airplane cost.
>> >
>> >
>> >> No idea! If it's not covered in rags and leaking oil I'm not
>> >> interested!
>> >
>> > My solo was in a 172 dripping gas which both the CFI and the FBO
owner
>> > said not to worry about. Shortly thereafter the thing was in the
shop
>> > with the wing off...
>> >
>> > Just one of the reasons I bought my own plane.
>> >
>> >
>
>> Well, the raggy ones I'm talking about are supposed to leak oil!
>
> Like a British car?
>

xactly. The only thing that keeps them from rusting away.

Bertie

Edward A. Falk

March 4th 08, 06:15 AM

In article <PB5yj.56157$yE1.49793@attbi_s21>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> Any of you guys out there ever "downgrade?" If so, how was it?
>
>I know a couple of guys who have "downgraded" to LSAs after years of buzzing
>around in Barons and Mooneys. They seem mighty happy.

My 1962 Mooney is still going strong. I don't forsee any need to
downgrade in the forseeable future. The annual is usually on the order
of $4-6k and after that, all the other expenses are in the noise.

I dream of upgrading to something faster, but I suspect that's not going
to happen. I can live with the Mooney.

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/