"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote:
So what interests you?

Something that will take my daughter, my grandson, me and some luggage
to Houston, against a 15kt headwind, nonstop, with comfortable IFR
reserves.

There are always mission trade offs, perhaps its just not the plane for you.
That doesn't make it any less a good design, just not designed for your
purpose.


The SR20 is interesting, but I am still thinking the wingload is
too high for a new pilot (less than 300 hours).

Let him rent Skyhawks awhile.


This is what has been killing GA for years. There have been surveys to find
why more wealthy people do not take up aviation as a hobby. They found a
number of problems that will not change FAA hassles, pimple faced
instructors with no people skills, etc.

The other thing was the flight schools are mostly dumps with a bunch of old
ratty planes. Even a new Skyhawk is essentially an old plane.

How do we expect to grow general aviation if we REFUSE to change what we are
doing to attract new pilots? Isn't this the definition of insanity? Cessna
is unconsciously doing to aviation what Microsoft and IBM did to
technology - killing fast growth and innovation in favor of predictable
business.



Sure, 100 pounds would be more interesting, and I bet
they could go to 200 hp and get it, but would that really
make it more marketable?

It would to me.

You have to remember that these planes now come with a lot more
weight requirements due to the new FARS.

Like what, for instance?


Better crash protection for one. This necessarily adds weight. Everyone
wants more avionics now too. I wonder if the 40 could make your trip if it
only had a single 430 and long range tanks.

The only thing better in my book is the Lancair, and it's a lot more
money.

It's really in a different class, along with the SR-22. If it didn't
have a side stick, I'd rather have an SR-20 than a D-40 for the better
range & load.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM