Cessna's response to negative feedback on Skycatcher being builtin China

On 2008-01-06, Phil J wrote:
It really sucks that they set the LSA gross weight limit so low. One
of the goals of the LSA category was to encourage more people to learn
to fly, and make it less expensive.. By setting the weight limit so
low that there are hardly any older certified airplanes that qualify,
they seriously diminished the effect of the regulation. I wish they
had just limited the category to two-place, non-retractable, fixed-
pitch propeller aircraft. I don't see why they even needed to include
weight in the reg.

Well, they had to draw the line of "light" somewhere. Should a Stearman with
an STCd 600 HP engine qualify?

Yeah, it sucks that damned few certificated aircraft qualify. I'm going to
wind up spending six figures on a new airplane because of it.
--
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

Phil J wrote in news:50ae7f36-3275-4224-a8fd-
:

I took an aerobatic ride in a Citabria once years ago. It was a
blast. I'll never forget at the top of the loop looking through the
ceiling window at the ground. That is a fun airplane.

It really sucks that they set the LSA gross weight limit so low. One
of the goals of the LSA category was to encourage more people to learn
to fly, and make it less expensive.. By setting the weight limit so
low that there are hardly any older certified airplanes that qualify,
they seriously diminished the effect of the regulation. I wish they
had just limited the category to two-place, non-retractable, fixed-
pitch propeller aircraft. I don't see why they even needed to include
weight in the reg.

Don't know why they made the reg at all myself!

I didn't see much wrong with the old ones.

I think there are some ultralights that ae aerobatic. Duane Cole flew a
Cappela after he retired" and I think the Rans Shekira might be aerobatic.


Bertie

"Morgans" wrote in
:


"Martin Hotze" wrote

In which cave have you lived that you have missed all the reports
about innocent people there (and all other disgusting stuff)?

Jails are alwayas full of innocent people. What rock did you just
crawl out from under?


What would you do if some foreign troops (without declaring war or
anything else international recognised) comes to your place and
demand that they have every say and that you are nothing but a
****ing nonbeliever (and worser things)? Can you seriously come up
with some arguments what YOU would do?
Most of the people in Iraq want us there. Have you not been
following the
news of towns turning against the insurgents? Yep, sounds like they
really hate us.

It is not too much of a stretch to say that a majority of the
insurgents are from other countries than Iraq.


And they weren't there before the invasion...

Have you missed that, too?

If you believe all that you read from the liberal press, you need to
open your ears to the other news. You know, all the good stuff that
happens, that does not make the mainstream news.

You don't need to reply. I won't be reading your vile.


Now there's an open mind.

Bertie

In article ,
says...


While I have no desire to get in between you and the flight sim guy, here is
why lead was removed from auto fuel.

https://courses.washington.edu/uconj...leman_2000.pdf



Thanks for pointing to this interesting article.
Though strongly one-sided, the article is well prepared, and a good basis for
discussion - exactly the opposite of any response the flight-sim guy would have
given.

The article does not explain (nor does it purport to explain) why TEL was added
to fuels, and why it remains in aviation fuel - which goes beyond its value as
an anti-knock agent.

More significantly, the article does not clearly elucidate the main impetus for
removal of TEL from fuels - not because of concerns over atmospheric lead, for
which many believe the author has wildly overstated the case - but because of
its incompatibility with the catalytic converters mandated by the Clean Air
Act, a far more significant step in the reduction of air pollution from
automobiles.

Indeed, the case was never clearly made for widespread, low-level toxicity from
what Needleman refers to as "silent" levels of airborne lead. He correctly
points out however, the difficulty in controlling lead exposure in industrial
settings where workers handle the substance (fuel refineries, battery
manufacturers etc). In these cases, airborne exposure is only a small part of
the story - some of the worst cases involving children whose parents worked in
these settings, and who brought lead home on their clothes, their personal
articles and themselves, leading to ingestion by the children, whose brains are
far more sensitive to it.

Similarly, for someone involved in aviation today, it would be difficult to
make a realistic case for any significant danger from inhalation of airborne
lead. The concentrations, length of exposure, number of aircraft (imagine the
Los Angeles freeways in pre-catalytic converter days!!) are just not there. A
more plausible scenario would be a careless Airframe and Powerplant mechanic,
in physical contact with fuel and engine parts all day, not exercising proper
hygiene techniques and bringing the lead home to be ingested by his children
through food etc. In this day and age, I would suspect that A&P mechanics are
fully sensitized to the issue, and aware of methods to reduce exposure, though
I would not be surprised to learn that some shops lack the washroom and
lead-lockout changing rooms required to fully control the risk of exporting the
substance.

On Jan 6, 12:43*pm, Jay Maynard
wrote:
On 2008-01-06, Phil J wrote:

It really sucks that they set the LSA gross weight limit so low. *One
of the goals of the LSA category was to encourage more people to learn
to fly, and make it less expensive.. *By setting the weight limit so
low that there are hardly any older certified airplanes that qualify,
they seriously diminished the effect of the regulation. *I wish they
had just limited the category to two-place, non-retractable, fixed-
pitch propeller aircraft. *I don't see why they even needed to include
weight in the reg.

Well, they had to draw the line of "light" somewhere. Should a Stearman with
an STCd 600 HP engine qualify?

Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.comhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* * *http://www.tronguy.nethttp://www..hercules-390.org* * * * * * * (Yes, that's me!)

My first gut reaction to this question was to think "Well, no, a plane
like that shouldn't be allowed'. But then I wondered, well why
exactly shouldn't that plane be allowed as an LSA? If it is flown
under the LSA flight restrictions, why not? What is the harm?

Phil

Phil J wrote in
:

On Jan 6, 12:43*pm, Jay Maynard
wrote:
On 2008-01-06, Phil J wrote:

It really sucks that they set the LSA gross weight limit so low.
*One of the goals of the LSA category was to encourage more people
to learn to fly, and make it less expensive.. *By setting the
weight limit so low that there are hardly any older certified
airplanes that qualify, they seriously diminished the effect of the
regulation. *I wish they had just limited the category to
two-place, non-retractable, fixed- pitch propeller aircraft. *I
don't see why they even needed to include

weight in the reg.

Well, they had to draw the line of "light" somewhere. Should a
Stearman wi
th
an STCd 600 HP engine qualify?

Jay Maynard, K5ZC * * * * * * * * *http://www.conmicro.c
omhttp://jmaynard.livejournal.com* *
*http://www.tronguy.nethttp://www.hercules-390.org* * * * * * * (Yes,
that's me!)

My first gut reaction to this question was to think "Well, no, a plane
like that shouldn't be allowed'. But then I wondered, well why
exactly shouldn't that plane be allowed as an LSA? If it is flown
under the LSA flight restrictions, why not? What is the harm?


Because more would crash if it was an LSA.



Bertie

Morgans wrote:
"Martin Hotze" wrote
In which cave have you lived that you have missed all the reports about
innocent people there (and all other disgusting stuff)?

Jails are alwayas full of innocent people. What rock did you just crawl out
from under?

As of last spring, the Pentagon was reporting that more than 20 percent
of the prisoners at Guantanamo had been cleared by military review
panels for release but they were still being held prisoner, some for
more than four years. But don't let the facts get in the way of your
jingoism.

Rich Ahrens wrote in
et:

Morgans wrote:
"Martin Hotze" wrote
In which cave have you lived that you have missed all the reports
about innocent people there (and all other disgusting stuff)?

Jails are alwayas full of innocent people. What rock did you just
crawl out from under?

As of last spring, the Pentagon was reporting that more than 20
percent of the prisoners at Guantanamo had been cleared by military
review panels for release but they were still being held prisoner,
some for more than four years. But don't let the facts get in the way
of your jingoism.


PLONK!

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Rich Ahrens wrote in
et:

Morgans wrote:
"Martin Hotze" wrote
In which cave have you lived that you have missed all the reports
about innocent people there (and all other disgusting stuff)?
Jails are alwayas full of innocent people. What rock did you just
crawl out from under?
As of last spring, the Pentagon was reporting that more than 20
percent of the prisoners at Guantanamo had been cleared by military
review panels for release but they were still being held prisoner,
some for more than four years. But don't let the facts get in the way
of your jingoism.


PLONK!

I don't think that works by proxy.

Rich Ahrens wrote in news:47816ba9$0$1110
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Rich Ahrens wrote in
et:

Morgans wrote:
"Martin Hotze" wrote
In which cave have you lived that you have missed all the reports
about innocent people there (and all other disgusting stuff)?
Jails are alwayas full of innocent people. What rock did you just
crawl out from under?
As of last spring, the Pentagon was reporting that more than 20
percent of the prisoners at Guantanamo had been cleared by military
review panels for release but they were still being held prisoner,
some for more than four years. But don't let the facts get in the
way
of your jingoism.


PLONK!

I don't think that works by proxy.


It doesn;t work for some people at all!


THE CONCISE USENET LAMER GLOSSARY

Troll: Anyone who disagrees with me

PLONK!: You're a poopie head who disagrees with me so I'm going to
pretend to ignore you

Any one of a million gay lames: "I'm so far back in the closet I'm in
****ing Narnia"

I'm going to report you to Google groups: I'm going to **** and whine
like the impotent idiot I am until I turn blue in the face or am finally
laughed out of the froup.

Feel free to add your own.




Bertie