28 years, 9000 hours

wrote in :

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.



Amelia Reid Aviation at KRHV has two 1946 Aeronica Champ 7AC and a
1945 Taylorcraft L-2 availble for rent to members. More information can be
found at http://www.ameliareid.com (I am not a member, but am based at
KRHV.)

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

In article writes:
Alan wrote:

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 did notice that one can rent a 152 for less than one can rent an
LSA.

Apples and oranges.

Why would you make that claim?

I don't fully disagree that they are different, but in many of the
factors I was thinking of, the 152 can come out on top. For example,
some have objected to the Rotax engines, preferring Lycoming or
Continental. The 152 (or 150) is well known by service folks, pretty
much anywhere. You can take the 152 out of the country if you wish.

Yes, the 150/152 is not sexy. However, most all I have seen have at
least attitude indicator, heading indicator, and turn coordinator.
(These were popular to have in planes that might be trainers.) It
seems that many LSAs don't have any of these.

Now, the LSA has the *NEW* feature, somewhat different, some may be
more fun to fly. Yes, I even probably want one. However, at the price,
I need to convince myself it makes more sense than a cessna for half the
price (or less).

Alan

William Hung wrote in
:

On Mar 2, 7:32*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote
innews:9f3fb2d7-31b3-427f-830c-81f8
:





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...12&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.

Well, I'm not particularly a fan, but I always thought he talked sense.
His style was always a bit too stodgy for me, but I never thought him an
asshole. That said, I hardly ever pick up a copy of Flying... I'm a big
fan of it before the name change, however!


Bertie

William Hung wrote in news:06342b36-3d88-407e-8909-
:

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 f
rom
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.

Well, I didn't get that from it. I don't think it's so much the flying it
par so much as it was getting old and the risk of someone getting it who
wasn't able for it killing themselves in it made him feel morally obliged
to do what he did.
That's just how I read it.


Bertie

wrote in :

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?

I'm guessing an E2 Cub or an Early Chief, unless someone is renting out
a Heath Parasol.



Bertie

wrote in :

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.


Bertie

On 2008-03-03, Alan wrote:
I don't fully disagree that they are different, but in many of the
factors I was thinking of, the 152 can come out on top. For example,
some have objected to the Rotax engines, preferring Lycoming or
Continental. The 152 (or 150) is well known by service folks, pretty
much anywhere. You can take the 152 out of the country if you wish.

A lot of these things are reasons I picked the Zodiac as my LSA.

Yes, the 150/152 is not sexy. However, most all I have seen have at
least attitude indicator, heading indicator, and turn coordinator.
(These were popular to have in planes that might be trainers.) It
seems that many LSAs don't have any of these.

Mine will.

Now, the LSA has the *NEW* feature, somewhat different, some may be
more fun to fly. Yes, I even probably want one. However, at the price,
I need to convince myself it makes more sense than a cessna for half the
price (or less).

Less, certainly. My Zodiac will cost six times or more what a used 152
would. OTOH, for that, I'm getting a very well equipped aircraft that will
outperform a 152 with the same engine, and it will be my airplane in a way
that a 152 would only be if I sunk $20K or more into the paint and panel and
interior. That's an intangible that really attracts me. It'll also have been
built in 2008, not 1978.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (getting ready to order)

On Mar 3, 1:05*am, wrote:
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?


No I don't.

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.


I can believe it.

Wil

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mar 3, 5:43*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
William Hung wrote in news:06342b36-3d88-407e-8909-
:





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 f
rom
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.

Well, I didn't get that from it. I don't think it's so much the flying it
par so much as it was getting old and the risk of someone getting it who
wasn't able for it killing themselves in it made him feel morally obliged
to do what he did.
That's just how I read it.

Bertie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's my cynical side showing. :-)

Wil

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:32:31 -0800, William Hung wrote:

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.

My take was somewhat different. This article read as someone trying to
justify a decision to himself. That is, I'm not sure he entirely
believed his presented logic that lead to scrapping the airplane.

Frankly, I thought the moral argument absurd. By that reasoning, nobody
should be selling any of those airplane thingies.

I found myself wondering if there were facts left unmentioned, as it
sounded to me like a puzzle with missing pieces.

- Andrew