USA Today .. Positive GA Pub

Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:50:20 -0800, sam.trask wrote:

Yep, things never go as planned - I agree.

What if one plans for plans not going as planned?

Then everything will run as planned. It is truly the exception that proves
the rule.

Not what he said. Try reading the post.

mike

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Tony writes:

In the United States, there are several million (at least) people who
if they wanted a $400,000 airplane could just write a check for it.

One percent, you mean? So that means that 99% of the population is
excluded from GA. It might be hard to drum up sympathy for GA in that
99%.

--

I think he's currently incarcerated.

mike

wrote in message
ups.com...


Yeah, it is odd. Like you said, he seems intelligent but has let his
attitude ruin his life. Maybe he had some criminal or civil problems
chase him into a foreign country, and now he's paying the consequences.

"Ken Finney" wrote

Wow, someone else knows about the Savannah! I'd really like to get a
Savannah after I get my ticket. Pity that more people don't know about
it.

If you believe only half of what is written on the Savannah, you might think
twice.

It is an unabashed knock-off, and possibly has made itself so cheap as to be
much less safe than what it is copying. Do some reading on what is going on
with that story before you make any decisions.
--
Jim in NC

Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 19:50:20 -0800, sam.trask wrote:

Yep, things never go as planned - I agree.

What if one plans for plans not going as planned?

Then one will have a miserable life - at least I would!

I am happiest when I have significant goals that I am working towards.
I've always had something, whether it be working towards my engineering
degree a few years ago, or a certain job, etc. Currently it's a career
in aviation. So far the way I've gone about obtaining those goals did
not go exactly as planned (which is usually not a bad thing
surprisingly enough). For the most part been able to accompolish all
of my goals, even if the journey taken was not at planned.

There was a point a few years ago after I graduated college and began
working. It was kind of like what now? I'd accompolished my major
goals and didn't really have anything major I was working towards. I
was pretty unhappy until I figured out why.

Oh sure, put "Pub" in the subject line!




Jay Beckman wrote:
Good, positive press on the usefullness of GA:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...ots-usat_x.htm

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Ken Finney" wrote

Wow, someone else knows about the Savannah! I'd really like to get a
Savannah after I get my ticket. Pity that more people don't know about
it.

If you believe only half of what is written on the Savannah, you might
think twice.

It is an unabashed knock-off, and possibly has made itself so cheap as to
be much less safe than what it is copying. Do some reading on what is
going on with that story before you make any decisions.
--
Jim in NC

I don't know if "knock-off" is the correct term. There is a whole school
of design in Europe that has produced some real similar designs. I
understand that the 701 designer licensed a predecessor company to ICP (the
Savannah's builder) to make a 701 clone, but didn't limit the license so
that they couldn't compete directly with the Heinzes. But in my mind, the
Savannah is different enough from the 701 that this shouldn't be an issue
anyway. I had the opportunity the last two years at Arlington to compare
the Savannah and the 701 pretty much side-by-side. I'm not a pilot (yet),
and I'm not a airframe engineer, but it didn't appear that the Savannah was
built any less strong than the 701, in fact, the contrary seemed to be true.
I subscribe to both 701 and Savannah mailing lists, and both the builders
and pilots of Savannahs appear to be happier than the builders and pilots of
the 701s. The 701 people do seem to want to bash the Savannah people more
than the Savannah people want to bash the 701 people. There is some bad
blood out there. I understand the US distributor for the Savannah is
really, really POed that the account was "stolen" from him, and doesn't have
much to say good about ICP, Savannah, and/or Eric these days.

I'd like to know more about what you speak of.

"Ken Finney" wrote

I'd like to know more about what you speak of.

I don't recall where I read it all, it might have been the 701 site. There
were some safety issues that I thought seemed to be well supported.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote:
"Ken Finney" wrote

I'd like to know more about what you speak of.

I don't recall where I read it all, it might have been the 701 site.
There were some safety issues that I thought seemed to be well
supported.

Perhaps you are thinking of this page:

http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-photo-copies.html

No specific safety criticisms that I can see of the Savannah - just of its
STOL flight characteristics being inferior to that of the 701.

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Morgans" wrote:
"Ken Finney" wrote

I'd like to know more about what you speak of.

I don't recall where I read it all, it might have been the 701 site.
There were some safety issues that I thought seemed to be well
supported.

Perhaps you are thinking of this page:

http://www.zenithair.com/stolch701/7-photo-copies.html

No specific safety criticisms that I can see of the Savannah - just of its
STOL flight characteristics being inferior to that of the 701.

They are there. Read between the lines; if you don't choose to do so, you
will not see them.

I'm sure it would be unpopular with the lawyers to outright state that
another's design is unsafe.

See my drift?