Let's Get Real Here.

The T-34 is the airplane people WANT. Study Trade-A-Plane.

And it isn't even a particularly good airplane.

Study too why MOTORCYCLING is very successful with huge market growth
in the last 50 years and GA is not. Despite being even more
dangerous. Let me know what you think it is. Hint: The Usual Reason
is horse**** and I can prove it.


I'm too damned lazy to study it, but just assumed it was ecause you can can
drive your motorcycle to the nearest bar, blip the throttle a cople of
times, and strut inside...

Peter

On Aug 28, 9:47 am, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
The T-34 is the airplane people WANT. Study Trade-A-Plane.

And it isn't even a particularly good airplane.

Study too why MOTORCYCLING is very successful with huge market growth
in the last 50 years and GA is not. Despite being even more
dangerous. Let me know what you think it is. Hint: The Usual Reason
is horse**** and I can prove it.

I'm too damned lazy to study it, but just assumed it was ecause you can can
drive your motorcycle to the nearest bar, blip the throttle a cople of
times, and strut inside...


Well, that's one point, but you don't have freedom of movement in
three axes like an aerobatic aircraft. Thinkl about this question
seriously because in it you will find why personal aviation is nearly
dead.

"OldPhart" wrote

Didn't the Piper Pawnee carry the battery back there? I think there was
an issue of corrosion.

For those planes that do, it is legal to carry a battery back there, but not
added counterweight. To do so would void it's certification, and leave you
holding the bag if you had a problem and the insurance company didn't want
to pay. (which is nearly always)
--
Jim in NC

Bret Ludwig wrote:


Well, that's one point, but you don't have freedom of movement in
three axes like an aerobatic aircraft. Thinkl about this question
seriously because in it you will find why personal aviation is nearly
dead.

Well Bret if you know the reason you ought to tell us so we can maybe do
something about it.

OldPhart wrote:

Didn't the Piper Pawnee carry the battery back there? I think there was
an issue of corrosion.

The Navion battery is in the baggage compartment (and that coupled with
the baggage door on mine and a 12V electrical system sure makes it easy
to jump start). I'm not sure why the corrosion issues are any worse
there than in the usuall cessna cowl. If the acid were to leak out of
the box it would still fall on mental. I've got a battery box with
rubber hose dropping straight down.

The Navion with the big engine tends to be nose heavy as well. Owners
move the battery even further back (along with avionics racks) frequently.

Morgans wrote:
"OldPhart" wrote

Didn't the Piper Pawnee carry the battery back there? I think there was
an issue of corrosion.

For those planes that do, it is legal to carry a battery back there, but not
added counterweight. To do so would void it's certification, and leave you
holding the bag if you had a problem and the insurance company didn't want
to pay. (which is nearly always)

Not if it was done legally. If you couldn't move weight around in a
plane you'd never be allowed to change avionics or anything else.

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

Not if it was done legally. If you couldn't move weight around in a
plane you'd never be allowed to change avionics or anything else.

If I remember correctly, the Ryan PT-22 had a 13# lead weight that was
installed in the tail during single-pilot operation. A friend of mine loads
a 25# bag of lead shot in the baggage compartment of his RV-4 when he's
solo.

Rich S.

"Rich S." wrote in message
. ..
"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

Not if it was done legally. If you couldn't move weight around in a
plane you'd never be allowed to change avionics or anything else.

If I remember correctly, the Ryan PT-22 had a 13# lead weight that was
installed in the tail during single-pilot operation. A friend of mine
loads a 25# bag of lead shot in the baggage compartment of his RV-4 when
he's solo.

The PT-22 was stressed to allow that weight, and the structure designed for
it. The baggage compartment is designed to handle weight, and in most, a
maximum weight for the baggage compartment is specified.

I would still maintain that you can not go throwing weight into areas of a
certified aircraft that it was not designed, and certified for. To do so
would go against every tenant of certified plane repair and modification.
--
Jim in NC

Bret Ludwig wrote:


Well, that's one point, but you don't have freedom of movement in
three axes like an aerobatic aircraft. Thinkl about this question
seriously because in it you will find why personal aviation is nearly
dead.

Well Bret if you know the reason you ought to tell us so we can maybe do
something about it.


A decent amount of time having elapsed, it is now abundantly clear that Bret
knows no more than the rest of us.

We were so hopefull and, now, our hopes are dashed!

Peter :-(

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 04:37:09 -0700, Denny wrote:

Owned a 57 Lane... Yup, you developed real upper body strength after a
few hundred landings, pulling that yoke all the way to your chin...
Never thought it was a problem, though...

And a "Balked Landing" is just like doing pushups! :-))

Roger
denny