What GA needs

Mxsmanic wrote:

[]
No, the people who are going to learn to fly are those with a very intense
interest in flying. They may or may not be above average. Usually they will
be average.

Are you learning to fly, Mixi?

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"He can't be as stupid as he looks, but nevertheless he probably
is quite a stupid man." Richard Dawkins on Pres. Bush"

"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Matt Barrow" wrote:

"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
Andrew Sarangan wrote:

- a small turbine engine suitable for GA aircraft with fewer moving
parts and smoother operation

I had a very good discussion at AirVenture 2007 with one of the people
in the Williams tent. My question to him was what was Williams' side of
the story with regards to the decision by Eclipse to drop their engine.
The jist of his response was that Eclipse refused to accept that just
because a jet engine is small doesn't mean it cost less than one a
little bigger.

That it could not develop the power/weight ration that the P&W did, in
accordance with Eclipse's first request. That the Williams effort ran
into
numerous (?) problems pertaining to reliability, might have also been a
factor.

Matt, go back and look at the original Eclipse weight specs and the
final weight specs. Eclipse wanted more from the engine than they
originally called for. Williams designed the engine Eclipse told them
to, then Eclipse failed to honor their own spec.

Do you have a reference for that?

IIRC, the original Eclipse weight spec (5600 +/-) was changed AFTER they
switched to the P&W.

The problem with the Williams engine was service related, not spec related.

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
t...
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:


I've read that the #1 leisure time activity in the USA is shopping. 8^(

Not TV?

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

But the rest of your statement basically boils down to not wanting to
learn something complex. And that can be further reduced to instant
gratification.

It can also be related to "mental capacity". Our current learning by rote
does not prepare one for learning complexity, nor for expanding on what we
do learn.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Dave J wrote:
I just am tired of hearing about how lazy "kids today" are. People
have been muttering about "kids today" forever. Either man has been on
a constant descent to laziness or stupidity, or much more likely, the
notion is absurd. As tempting as it is to go for the first option, the
second is much more likely.

-- dave j

My instant gratification comment isn't aimed only at the kids.
It's not a new phenomenon, just more prevalent.

"Jim Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

But the rest of your statement basically boils down to not wanting to
learn something complex. And that can be further reduced to instant
gratification.

Not instant gratification, but gratification commensurate with the
investment
required. Becoming a pilot is a huge investment for anyone who isn't
fairly
obsessed with aviation. There are other endeavors that provide much
greater
gratification as compared to the investment of time, money, and effort
required to obtain that gratification.

Are you back again, spouting from your tiny
little point of reference?

Hey, you're "driving away the potential younger pilots"! :~)

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
John Jones wrote:
On Sep 10, 5:58 pm, Dave J wrote:

By the way, cheap intergenerational shots don't help to bring in new
customers, either!

Exactly.

I think the way everyone treats him is by far the most visible
indicator as to why younger people get turned off to aviation.


You do realize MX is in his 40's don't you?
I don't think this Jones guy realizes anything more than MX does.

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

But the rest of your statement basically boils down to not wanting to
learn something complex. And that can be further reduced to instant
gratification.

It can also be related to "mental capacity". Our current learning by
rote does not prepare one for learning complexity, nor for expanding
on what we do learn.

How old are you Matt? I had you pegged at around my age, 45, maybe a little
older.

When I was in school we learned lots of things by rote memorization and I'd
be willing you did to. Multiplication, spelling and the worst of all history
in which they seemed to only care that you remembered the dates things
happened not really why they happened.

I know it's easy to blame all our ills on the current education system but
it is really a lazy approach to the problem. I know to many recent high
school grads that got perfectly good educations despite the problems in the
schools. So maybe we ought to blame the parents of those that don't to at
least some extent.

On Sep 11, 1:28 pm, Dave J wrote:


I just am tired of hearing about how lazy "kids today" are. People
have been muttering about "kids today" forever. Either man has been on
a constant descent to laziness or stupidity, or much more likely, the
notion is absurd. As tempting as it is to go for the first option, the
second is much more likely.


Every generation has complained about the next generation as being
lazy. I think it has been programmed into our genes.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
On Sep 11, 1:28 pm, Dave J wrote:


I just am tired of hearing about how lazy "kids today" are. People
have been muttering about "kids today" forever. Either man has been on
a constant descent to laziness or stupidity, or much more likely, the
notion is absurd. As tempting as it is to go for the first option, the
second is much more likely.


Every generation has complained about the next generation as being
lazy. I think it has been programmed into our genes.

When I took Latin in high school, one of the things we had to read was
a piece by Cicero complaining about the kids of the day.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.