28 years, 9000 hours

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...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

In article "Robert M. Gary" writes:
On Feb 28, 12:50=A0pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp...ticle_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

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

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.

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

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...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

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

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.

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

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.