On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 20:01:54 -0700, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

On 12 Aug 2006 17:35:18 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" wrote:


Doubt the market is there for a 150 aerobat, either....there were 5,303 Cessna
150s of 1970 model year or later in the January 2006 FAA aircraft registration
database, and only 257 were Aerobats. That's only ~5% of the fleet...sure
doesn't look like the Aerobat was that popular.

They did everything they could not to sell them. I had family that
were Cessna dealers then.

If there had been a market for them, they would have sold. Maybe Cessna didn't
run many ads for them, but the magazines back then were publicizing the
aircraft. People knew it was available, and with its checkerboard paint, it was
pretty visible. If the factory received orders, they would have built more.

Can you point to any published statistics that show market demand for low-power
(and even 150 HP is "low power") aerobatic taildraggers?

When the FAA is forced to make GA train pilots, they will need to
require aerobatic training, and the demand will be on.

I agree with this, except for one word: Change "When" to "If." And it ain't
gonna happen. In fact, the FAA is going the OTHER way...takes just 20 hours to
get a Sport Pilot license, and none of that is aerobatic time.

The planes don't exist, and, especially, the *instructors* don't exist. Who's
going to give the instruction? Heck, who's going to teach the instructors?

When you look at the accident reports, there's no question that additional
*training* would reduce the accident rates. But specifically *aerobatic*
training? Not hardly. When you look through the probable causes, folks are
crashing because they lose control on landing and takeoff...not because of
inadvertent entry to unusual attitudes. They'd benefit more from 10 hours of

Oh, I don't know about that. Trying to imitate a lawn dart is an
unusual attitude as far as I'm concerned. Maybe i've had instructors
that were more demanding then most, but the last time I did departure
stall recovery and stall recovery from slow flight for an instructor
they wanted to see *zero* altitude loss and it is possible even with a
departure stall in a 150 or 172, but not without a lot of practice.

additional instruction in landing in gusty/crosswind conditions more than they'd
benefit from spin instruction.

I did a search on "spin" in the Probable Causes for non-training Cessna 172 and
210 accidents in the years 2002, 2003, and 2004 (about 420 accidents). Only got
two hits. On the first, the NTSB says "During takeoff, the airplane entered an
extremely steep climb, stalled, and impacted the terrain in a nose low, left
wing low attitude." In other words, not enough altitude for recovery.

A steep pull up on take off is more than just a departure stall. :-))
In a 172 a departure stall entered just because they got too slow is
still revoverable even at very low altitude as long as the plane isn't
overloaded. It takes recognizing the onset of the stall, and
releasing the back pressure, but not pushing the nose down as so many
students and pilots do.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
The only other hit referred to a spinning bearing, not a spinning aircraft.

Ron Wanttaja


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com