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

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.

This is an area where I would really like to see free market
doing its thing...

--Sylvain

Ash Wyllie wrote:

But how many high wing /piston/ fighters were made[1]?

There were several. The Fokker D-8 was an excellent fighter for it's day. France
made another in the 30s.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

ET opined

Matt Whiting wrote in news:wcn%e.1166$lb.94797
:

Oh, just the last time that I looked at an F-14, F-15, F-111 or F-18.
Ok, the -18 is maybe a little closer to a mid-wing like the F-16, but I
believe the wing is still above the CG of the airplane and that is what
defines a high wing to me.


OK, change "high wing" to "wing over your head" and my point is still
valid.... I believe all of the above have the wing out of the pilots
vision....


Whether jet fighters are high wing or midwing is an interesting question...
But how many high wing /piston/ fighters were made[1]?

-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

1. biplanes don't count.

Andrew Gideon opined

Sylvain wrote:

then how do you explain SUVs?

My brother in law has one. He explains that his accountant told him that it
saved him money somehow based upon some tax break specifically designed to
encourage purchase of that type of vehicle. Since he drives very little
(ie. the fuel cost is less of a factor in his life), it made sense.

Why there'd be such a law, I've zero idea. It seems odd to me.

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.

To my mind, cutting a few percent off of the corporate tax would have been a
better idea, and would not have cost anymore.


-ash
Cthulhu in 2005!
Why wait for nature?

In article ,
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

Too bad they don't give you the ability to stop when it snows.

no worse than other vehicles.

Only twice as heavy

many cars weigh more than my SUV.

and more susceptable to side winds.

like mini-vans?

Seriously, there is no great secret to driving in the snow.
Take it easy, take it slow, allow plenty of room. This doesn't
change one bit whether it's a regular car or an SUV.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

The key to making a high wing pretty is to move the wing as far aft as
possible. Now sweep the tail, install a stabilator, saw off the
struts, make the
tiedown rings retract, and use mostly flush rivets and your high wing
airplane is now a stunner, with far more ramp appeal than a clorox
bottle with wings. In other words, make a Cardinal.

Amazing. That's exactly the airplane I'd pictured when I first read
about Cessna's new plane. A composite Cardinal. Although I doubt Cessna
would build another retract because of product liability(?) Besides,
look how fast the SR-22 and Columbias go with fixed gear. Apparently
retracts are not required any more to make a plane go fast.

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...
In a previous article, "Morgans" said:
and their stuff, kids friends, and other general stuff. Four wheel
drive,
so you can still go when it snows, or you park in the wet grass, and get
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Too bad they don't give you the ability to stop when it snows.

Actually, with anti-lock braking, they stop very well. Common sense goes a
long way, in driving.
--
Jim in NC

"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.

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

"Dave Stadt" wrote

Most SUVs are driven by one person going to work on dry pavement.

True, for most of the time, but when you do want to go somewhere on
vacation, or the weekend, you have the capability.

Most do not pull trailers.

Some do, sometimes. Not which ones have a hitch. Lots do.

Most do not have 4-wheel drive

More do, than do not, I would guess. More vehicles with 4WD are pickups or
SUV's, though, right?

and I quite often pass
them like they were standing still in the snow with my Saturn wagon.

You still have to know how to drive in snow, which most do not. They are
worthless on ice, as is your wagon.

The safety aspect is suspect.

Ah, so true, but notice I said a "feeling" of security. g I *do* like
sitting up higher than a low car, even if they are not as safe as some cars,
though.

I'm not a fan of SUV's for everyone, but I do understand why so many people
want them. In my ideal world, I would have a SUV for times when the size is
needed, and a little gas mizer for when I am driving to work and back.
--
Jim in NC

"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.
--
Jim in NC