No offense, but you're making very bold, sweepingly general statements from
your personal little world view again, a trap you so often like to fall
into.

Perhaps (and, no offense, of course), but I believe I'm exposed to
more general aviation experiences, both personal and through the
hotel, in a month than you are in a year.

There are very good, very real reasons why some rentals (and more
partnerships) specify "no touch & goes" in their written agreements.
It's the hardest thing you can do to your aircraft in "normal" (non-
aerobatic) use, period.

Further, any student knows that a touch & go is a much more difficult
maneuver to perform than a full-stop landing. It's harder on the
equipment (ask your A&P about tires, brakes, wheel bearings, etc., on
aircraft that do a lot of touch & goes), and carries with it the
increased risk of a botched go-round, etc.

This is why, by the way, your insurance goes up if you tell them that
your airplane is being used for training purposes. Actuarial tables
don't lie, and your plane is more likely to be damaged while training
a new pilot.

I do believe this thread proves the old Usenet adage that "anyone will
argue anything". For you to be questioning the rather obvious fact
that high-power/low-power engine operations are harder on an aircraft
than steady-state engine operations illustrates a remarkable, um,
quality.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"