Cirrus Killer? Cessna just doesn't get it...

Those that buy based on perception deserve what they get. I know far more
people that buy based on mission than perception.

then how do you explain SUVs?

I suspect it goes something like this:

Wife: "We need a mini-van to haul these kids!"

Husband: (To himself) "I'm not going to be caught dead driving a wimpy
mini-van!"

Husband: (To wife) "Hey, I've got an idea..."

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I've driven plenty of rented SUVs in snow, in mountain rangers across the
continent and around the world -- and none of them handles, goes or stops as
well as my 98 Subaru with IRS and Michelin snow tires.

I'm with you on that. I've got a '97 Subaru Outback that is absolutely
unstoppable in snow. It makes my old Chevy Blazer look like the POS it
was.

When will I buy a new airplane? When it's priced like my old airplane.

Amen, brother -- me, too. (Which, of course, means "never" -- but I
can live with that.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Sylvain wrote:
Ash Wyllie wrote:

The tax break was designed to help out small businesses thaat use heavy
pickups: farmers, snowplowers et al.

It seems that doctors, lawyers and dentists driving Suburbans also
qualify.


in fact, depending on how much revenue, one such business can
practically get a brand spanking new SUV every year (if I remember
correctly can deduct something like 100k a year -- providing the
thing is over 6000 lbs); in other words, they have the choice
between a brand new car for free, or to pay like the rest of
us (who are also subsidizing the SUVs), gas milleage doesn't
make much of a difference.

I find this hard to believe. Rarely can you deduct 3X what something
cost. Do you have a reference that supports this claim?

Any accountants or tax attorneys here who can comment?

Matt

Morgans wrote:

"Paul Tomblin" wrote

Only twice as heavy and more susceptable to side winds.


twice as heavy (which they really are not) means more weight on the wheels,
which give a higher coefficient of friction, plus the fact that they have
bigger tires. It also helps if you don't drive faster than your ability to
stop for the conditions.

More weight means more total friction all else being equal, but it
doesn't, to a first order, change the coefficient of friction. That is
largely a function of the materials that are in contact. The total
friction force is the coefficient of friction times the normal force
(weight in this case) clamping the two surfaces together.


If you don't like SUV's, OK, but this is a stupid argument to base the cons
on.

That's a fact. My pickup is blown around much less in cross winds than
are my minivans.


Matt

Morgans wrote:

"Dave Stadt" wrote


Quite a few people I know are moving from 4 place to 2 place airplanes.


The problem I see with that, is that so many 4 place airplanes are really
only 2 place with full fuel and luggage. If the 2 place is really a 2 place
with decent range and load carrying, there are great reasons to change.

True, but you have the flexibility for short trips of taking 4 people
with partial fuel, especially if it is a day trip and you have no
baggage. A two seater doesn't give you that option.

This is much like the argument for SUVS. You don't need all of the
capability all of the time, but one vehicle gives you a lot of
flexibility whereas a more specialized vehicle such as a pickup, does not.


Matt

Morgans wrote:

wrote


Amazing. That's exactly the airplane I'd pictured when I first read
about Cessna's new plane. A composite Cardinal.


My guess is that it will still be aluminum, but with better aerodynamic
lines. I can't see Cessna going away from what it knows, and what it is set
up for.

Yes, there is hydro and stretch forming technology now readily available
that could make a very sleep aluminum airplane. Look at the Venture
homebuilt for example. The technology was just too espensive to support
a low volume homebuilt, but think what Cessna could do with it.


Matt

Seth Masia wrote:

You'd better look up "coefficient of friction" in a physics text.

I've driven plenty of rented SUVs in snow, in mountain rangers across the
continent and around the world -- and none of them handles, goes or stops as
well as my 98 Subaru with IRS and Michelin snow tires.

I've driven a number of Subarus and also trucks and SUVS. My K1500 will
go through deep, wet snow much better than any Subaru. That simple
reason is ground clearance. I have about twice what a Sub has. If you
really believe that this doesn't make a difference, then your experience
is much more limited than you claim. Sure, in 5" of snow, the Sub will
perform as well or better. But in 12" of snow, the tables turn. My
truck is barely dragging at that point, but the Sub is pushing 5" or so
of snow.


Matt

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Jase,


Perhaps, but the point I'm trying to make is that regardless of the plane,
"Cessna" the brand isn't sexy.



Thanks! At last! What, pray, tell, is inherently good about Cessna? Let alone
"cool" or "sexy".


The good part is they make reliable airplanes that have stood the test
of time. They also have a world-wide support organization that few
other small airplane makers can match. That is the inherently good
part. As for cool and sexy, that is in the mind of the beholder, but I
think the Citation jets are both cool and sexy.


Matt

I suspect it goes something like this:
Wife: "We need a mini-van to haul these kids!"
Husband: (To himself) "I'm not going to be caught dead driving a wimpy
mini-van!"
Husband: (To wife) "Hey, I've got an idea..."
:-)

Paul and I both drive minivans.
What are you saying Jay?
Tell us what you really think.
:-))

In article , Matt Whiting
wrote:

I've driven a number of Subarus and also trucks and SUVS. My K1500 will
go through deep, wet snow much better than any Subaru.

No question about that.

I would like to take this time to point out, though, that the Subaru
wagons have *more* ground clearance than the Ford Explorer. I found
the latter to be a real dog in deep snow.