"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...
"Tom Sixkiller" writes:

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...
"Tom Sixkiller" writes:

http:\\http://www.airplanenoise.com/article....%20Cirrus.pdf

Biased as hell, but some good statistical comparisons.

Some of those comparisons are based on flawed data (airframe life,
engine TBO).

Actually, those are OLD data (as in "revised" since publication), not
"flawed " data.

You really should work for the DNC :~)

Whatever. "Inaccurate information for the purposes of comparing current
revisions of the products under consideration".

Happy now?

No. Your implication is one of misrepresentation.

You know, we as pilots sure do a **** poor job in promoting
evolution. We whine and complain about how it's all old stuff because
the FAA gets in the way of everything, but when a new design comes
along, we sure are ready to bash it to pieces.

When the "new design" ("New and Improved") is seriously flawed, we damn well
better bash it to pieces. When the "new design" is more marketing than
engineering, it's even more appropriate.