Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

Morgans,

I think many would disagree with your definition.


Hey, that's what usenet is all about, isn't it? ;-)

Here's what I'm trying to say:

If one looks beyond the Ah's and Oh's of the excellently executed
Cessna marketing presentation, one sees two "proof of concept"
airplanes. Both are destined for market categories that are already
well filled with other company's products. As an aside: That means
there are no concepts to prove, really, other than the concept of
Cessna entering those markets. So what we really see is Cessna waking
up to market trends that have been apparent and established for years,
if not decades. What we also see is that a certified product from
Cessna in either category is years away.

And all that together, in my view, shows a failure of Cessna rather
than a success. It's still great that they might(!) enter those
markets, but the presentation was underwhelming to me in that it was
too little too late and no firm commitment.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...


And all that together, in my view, shows a failure of Cessna rather
than a success. It's still great that they might(!) enter those
markets, but the presentation was underwhelming to me in that it was
too little too late and no firm commitment.

--

It does look like Cessna is coming late to the party in both the LSA and the
"Cirrus Killer" arena. Another company showing up late to the LSA party is
Van's. They've had the RV-12 on the drawing board since before I started
building my 601 back in 2002 and they have yet to get a kit to market much
less a completed S-LSA.

Piper it seems isn't going to come and play in either sandbox and are
counting on Honda's VLJ to make them relevant. Good luck with that.

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Blueskies.,

You said vaporware - vaporware doesn't fly, maybe a vaporplane...


Something flew, yes. Was it a product from Cessna? Hardly.

Vaporware in my book is something you demo to great effect but with
nothing even remotely approaching a finished product in sight, let
alone a firm date for a finished product "on the shelves". Often, the
purpose is to keep the impressed masses from buying an available
product from the competition while playing catch-up with that
competition after you have badly dropped the ball.

IMHO, what Cessna did qualifies fully and in all aspects.

I think many would disagree with your definition.

Vaporware to most, is a plan, some nice specifications, and some 3-D cad
pictures. Have the computer crash, and what do you have to show for your
airplane? Nothing. Vapor!
--
Jim in NC

Thomas Borchert schrieb:

If one looks beyond the Ah's and Oh's of the excellently executed
Cessna marketing presentation, one sees two "proof of concept"
airplanes. Both are destined for market categories that are already
well filled with other company's products. As an aside: That means
there are no concepts to prove, really, other than the concept of
Cessna entering those markets. So what we really see is Cessna waking
up to market trends that have been apparent and established for years,

Why does this remind me of Windoze?

Stefan

The FAA recommended approach makes perfectly
good sense from a collision-avoidance point of view, but it ignores
the fact that engines are not immortal.

I suspect that the dangers from a MAC in a crowded airport envoronment
are greater than the dangers from an engine out.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 06:06:50 -0400, Cub Driver usenet AT danford DOT
net wrote:

This has always bugged me about the standard pattern as it was taught
to me, especially the bit about first overflying the field, then
flying off at least a mile before descending to the 45. Why would you
leave the vicinity of a perfectly good airport, especially when your
engine is 60 years old? The FAA recommended approach makes perfectly
good sense from a collision-avoidance point of view, but it ignores
the fact that engines are not immortal.

I'm not sure it's all that much better. Is there a standard for where
you let down to pick up the 45 entry? Which way you turn? And I
swear, the last time I flew into South County, when I made my turn to
get on the 45, about a mile out, there was a plane on downwind out
there. I'd heard him on the radio, but I didn't expect him that far
out.

Don

This has always bugged me about the standard pattern as it was taught
to me, especially the bit about first overflying the field, then
flying off at least a mile before descending to the 45. Why would you
leave the vicinity of a perfectly good airport, especially when your
engine is 60 years old? The FAA recommended approach makes perfectly
good sense from a collision-avoidance point of view, but it ignores
the fact that engines are not immortal.

It makes less sense from a collision avoidance point of view. Why would
you fly away from the airport into the path that incoming traffic would
take? That's just dumb.

Newps wrote:
It makes less sense from a collision avoidance point of view. Why would
you fly away from the airport into the path that incoming traffic would
take? That's just dumb.

As an aside I know of at least one pilot that failed his private pilot
checkride because he did the a midfield crosswind entry instead of
overflying the airport for 2 miles and re-entering on the 45. The DE
didn't like the fact that that airport's flight school taught the
midfield crosswind entry (mostly due to overlying class Bravo
airspace).

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Morgans" wrote in message
...
Y'all ought to consider changing the subject line of this thread. :-)
--
Jim in NC

Things have sure changed since I was flying. Hell, I used to have towers
ASK
me for overhead approaches just so they could see the damn airplane :-)

All this dialog about overheads not being efficient is really non
sequitur.
(that's a flight instructor word folks :-)
They are indeed efficient in high performance airplanes and in fact the
preferred approach in hot props P51-F8F- etc where engine cool down and
plug
fouling can be low power issues on extended approaches.
What's making me laugh at all this is that I think everybody is on
separate
pages discussing the "issue" :-) The poster taking the negative side seems
to think that overheads are the everyday result of some hothead hot rock
driving in through the trees and doing a Chandelle off the deck right into
somebody else's downwind. It's not that this couldn't happen, and I'm
sure,
knowing some of the idiots who own high performance airplanes, that it HAS
happened, but flying like this would be considered strictly taboo by any
pilot with an once of brains.
So either everybody flying a warbird hasn't an once of brains, or what the
poster on the negative side is saying is that these approaches are
routinely
flown by warbird pilots without consideration for regulations and local
traffic. I can assure everybody, that anyone flying an unannounced and
APPROVED overhead approach would be the exception, certainly not the rule;
not for any warbird pilots I know anyway :-)
There are idiots flying all kinds of airplanes, and every once in a while,
as sure as putting a Chimp on a computer keyboard will result in his
typing
War and Peace, one of these folks will drive on in unannounced at 46" and
2700 RPM in the old P51 and take the heads off the daisies, but believe me
gang, this type of incident is NOT what we teach people to do with
warbirds
:-))
Dudley


I read back a little, and the earliest that I saw related to some RV
drivers.

Peter

There is one point in this discussion that is being missed (for the US
pilots). The Overhead Approach (OA) maneuver, normally approved by ATC
(at controlled facilities), is a non-standard pattern entry. If there
was an incident as a result of the OA maneuver, there could be grounds
for action against the pilot(s) involved in that maneuver based on the
much larger and more prominent sections of the AIM (like the one below)
that specifically cover proper pattern entry procedures.

Chris G., PP-ASEL
Salem, Oregon

http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/Chap4/aim0403.html#4-3-3

4-3-3. Traffic Patterns
At most airports and military air bases, traffic pattern altitudes for
propeller-driven aircraft generally extend from 600 feet to as high as
1,500 feet above the ground. Also, traffic pattern altitudes for
military turbojet aircraft sometimes extend up to 2,500 feet above the
ground. Therefore, pilots of en route aircraft should be constantly on
the alert for other aircraft in traffic patterns and avoid these areas
whenever possible. Traffic pattern altitudes should be maintained unless
otherwise required by the applicable distance from cloud criteria (14
CFR Section 91.155). (See FIG 4-3-2 and FIG 4-3-3.)

EXAMPLE-
Key to traffic pattern operations
1. Enter pattern in level flight, abeam the midpoint of the runway, at
pattern altitude. (1,000' AGL is recommended pattern altitude unless
established otherwise. . .)
2. Maintain pattern altitude until abeam approach end of the landing
runway on downwind leg.
3. Complete turn to final at least 1/4 mile from the runway.
4. Continue straight ahead until beyond departure end of runway.
5. If remaining in the traffic pattern, commence turn to crosswind leg
beyond the departure end of the runway within 300 feet of pattern altitude.
6. If departing the traffic pattern, continue straight out, or exit with
a 45 degree turn (to the left when in a left-hand traffic pattern; to
the right when in a right-hand traffic pattern) beyond the departure end
of the runway, after reaching pattern altitude.



Peter Duniho wrote:
"Jim Carriere" wrote in message
...
Peter Duniho wrote:
AFAIK, there is no official definition of "overhead break" or "overhead
approach", and given that the approaches I have witnessed do involve
flight
Well... here it is. Reference AIM 5-4-26 (Chapter 5 Air Traffic
Procedures/Section 4 Arrival Procedures). It's a little hidden underneath
a lot of IFR stuff:

http://www.faa.gov/ATPUBS/AIM/Chap5/...tml#Va821cROBE

Hmmm...well, I'd agree that is as close to an official definition as we're
likely to see. However, note that it's in the context of IFR arrivals, at
airports where an "overhead maneuver pattern" has specifically been
designated. If one is to use that as the official definition, then one also
needs to accept that they are allowed only in the specific circumstances
described in that section.

I think it makes more sense to accept that the phrases "overhead break" or
"overhead approach" are used to describe a variety of similar procedures.

Pete