If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane prices are ridiculous
Mark wrote:
On Sep 13, 8:34Â*pm, j...@some silly goose wrote: And furthermore, you probably are unaware that there are LSA's that weigh more than 1320lbs too. Yeah, there are exceptions for floats and a few other things, but that has nothing to do with the original statement that you don't know the difference between actual weight and max gross weight. I don't know why you'd say that. Because you said you thought an airplane that weighed 1100 lb might qualify as a LSA. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane prices are ridiculous
On Sep 14, 10:18*am, wrote:
Mark wrote: On Sep 13, 8:14*pm, wrote: Mark wrote: On Sep 13, 5:33*pm, wrote: But this guy thinks the weight limit on a LSA is based on the actual weight. I go by what the POH says. Then why did you say you thought a Skipper that weighed 1100 lbs. would qualify as a LSA? I'll tell you why. After realizing the skipper I looked at wasn't LSA I searched the ads and found more than one of them that weighted 1100 lbs. You still don't get it, do you? The weight of an airplane isn't a determining factor in qualifying as a LSA, it is the max gross weight. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Read for comprehension. I've already explained that it seemed a possibility that there was a Piper variant which...if it weighed 1100lbs empty...would still have a very narrow, and crappy margin to still accomodate another 230lbs. I weigh less than that. Yes I get it. I got it all years ago. --- Mark |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane prices are ridiculous
Mark wrote
I'll tell you why. After realizing the skipper I looked at wasn't LSA I searched the ads and found more than one of them that weighted 1100 lbs. This led me to speculate that maybe there was a variant that did qualify. I like to believe the best in people and wanted to think I was wrong. This is what Wikipedia has to say about the Skipper's weight. Empty weight: 1,100 lb (500 kg) Useful load: 580 lb (260 kg) Max takeoff weight: 1,675 lb (760 kg) The maximum takeoff weight for a LSA is 1320 pounds...that is without floats of course. No Skipper qualifies as a LSA. Bob Moore |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane prices are ridiculous
Mark wrote:
On Sep 14, 10:18Â*am, wrote: Mark wrote: On Sep 13, 8:14Â*pm, wrote: Mark wrote: On Sep 13, 5:33Â*pm, wrote: But this guy thinks the weight limit on a LSA is based on the actual weight. I go by what the POH says. Then why did you say you thought a Skipper that weighed 1100 lbs. would qualify as a LSA? I'll tell you why. After realizing the skipper I looked at wasn't LSA I searched the ads and found more than one of them that weighted 1100 lbs. You still don't get it, do you? The weight of an airplane isn't a determining factor in qualifying as a LSA, it is the max gross weight. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. Read for comprehension. I've already explained that it seemed a possibility that there was a Piper variant which...if it weighed 1100lbs empty...would still have a very narrow, and crappy margin to still accomodate another 230lbs. I weigh less than that. All of them weigh 1,100 lb empty from the factory. They also hold 29 gal of fuel for an additional 174 lb. Do you weigh less than 46 lb? Yes I get it. I got it all years ago. Evidently not. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane prices are ridiculous
On Sep 14, 5:03*pm, Bob Moore wrote:
Mark *wrote I'll tell you why. After realizing the skipper I looked at wasn't LSA I searched the ads and found more than one of them that weighted 1100 lbs. *This led me to speculate that maybe there was a variant that did qualify. *I like to believe the best in people and wanted to think I was wrong. This is what Wikipedia has to say about the Skipper's weight. Empty weight: 1,100 lb (500 kg) Useful load: 580 lb (260 kg) Max takeoff weight: 1,675 lb (760 kg) The maximum takeoff weight for a LSA is 1320 pounds...that is without floats of course. No Skipper qualifies as a LSA. Bob Moore Thanks Bob. In actuality, a prolonged conversation has evolved around, and been drawn out here over a very incidental event whereby I briefly was mistaken, due to a plane salesman who told me his Beech was an LSA. It's really no big deal except I mentioned it here without realizing there would be an inquisition. I simply swung by the airport in my spare time, looked at his plane and decided to pass. Never flew it. Never saw his logs. Hell, never met the guy in person. We talked on the phone a couple of times. Had it been a viable prospect, THEN I would've gotten down to brass tacks and ALL the particulars would've been examined as should be and I would've become a student of all things Beech Skipper. It was the only Skipper I'd ever briefly considered and I never bothered to read up on them. It only went 90mph and had undisclosed repairs. Anything I've mentioned in this forum about Skippers has just been off-the-cuff, casual, and not expected to hold up in a Grand Jury investigation. In other words, I speculated as to why someone advertised one as LSA, and the answer to that will remain unknown, insignificant, and no reflection on me. The Beech Skipper is a very nice looking plane inside and out, and would make a beautiful lawn ornament. --- Mark |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane prices are ridiculous
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 07:26:28 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
So why, relatively speaking, were planes so much cheaper back in the 1970's? *LOL* So were cars you moron. -- A fireside chat not with Ari! http://tr.im/holj Motto: Live To Spooge It! |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane prices are ridiculous
On Sep 11, 1:13*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote: Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your own energy source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the electricity. The Soviets and the U.S. have already tired nuclear flight. It only works if you omitt the lead shield as the Russians did. The Russians all died. And that changes my statement how? By virtue of the fact that it can't be done. Since it has been done, it can be done. QED. -- Jim Pennino Oh, I think we all understand what I meant by... "It can't be done". If it kills the humans, it can't be done. For your information, actually it can be done now... but you don't know why. People in 1961 said it could be done too. Here's what they were thinking: http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/...-atomic-plane/ But subsequently as explained in this documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S86zR...eature=related It was abandoned for basically 3 reasons- 1) It could crash anywhere and the reactor would in effect become a dirty bomb. This was unacceptable. 2) Inability to shield the pilot from irradiation. 3) Radioactive fallout spewing out the tail due to the direct cycle system. The indirect cycle (liquid metal) technology was never achieved. It could be today. --- Mark |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane prices are ridiculous
Mark wrote:
On Sep 11, 1:13Â*pm, wrote: Mark wrote: Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your own energy source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the electricity. The Soviets and the U.S. have already tired nuclear flight. It only works if you omitt the lead shield as the Russians did. The Russians all died. And that changes my statement how? By virtue of the fact that it can't be done. Since it has been done, it can be done. QED. -- Jim Pennino Oh, I think we all understand what I meant by... "It can't be done". If it kills the humans, it can't be done. No USAF personnel were killed in the experiments, as for Soviets, unknown. snip remaining babble -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Airplane prices are ridiculous
On Sep 26, 12:41*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote: On Sep 11, 1:13*pm, wrote: Mark wrote: Electric transportation of any kind where you have to carry your own energy source is a toy unless you have an onboard nuclear reactor to provide the electricity. The Soviets and the U.S. have already tired nuclear flight. It only works if you omitt the lead shield as the Russians did. The Russians all died. And that changes my statement how? By virtue of the fact that it can't be done. Since it has been done, it can be done. QED. -- Jim Pennino Oh, I think we all understand what I meant by... "It can't be done". *If it kills the humans, it can't be done. No USAF personnel were killed in the experiments, as for Soviets, unknown.. The dead Soviets are well documented. snip babble |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AV gas prices | Stuart & Kathryn Fields | Home Built | 54 | June 5th 08 03:58 PM |
AV gas prices | [email protected] | Home Built | 0 | May 7th 08 05:41 AM |
AV gas prices | BradGuth | Home Built | 0 | May 6th 08 02:29 AM |
Ford Tri-Motor ground handling in FS2004 is ridiculous. | Bass | Simulators | 3 | December 19th 04 08:37 PM |
soaring high w/ ridiculous knowledge | The Admiral | Soaring | 0 | December 3rd 04 07:34 PM |