![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ... Stu, Wow! That's **** poor, isn't it? No, it's a wrong statement, that's all. Coming back to the original thread subject, from the reactions here, at least some owners of traditional aircraft must be really afraid of value depriciation - how else could one explain the totally non-rational reactions to the new aircraft? Well, first of all, the subject line is stupid in itself. (Will a 2000 design replace a 1947 design? Well DUH!!!!) When they come out and have incredible accident rates (more in a three year period than the plane being compared to, even with 1/50th the numbers being operated). When the recommended spin recovery is a drough chute (most spins, IIUC, are low altitude...during landing). BTW, there is no such word as non-rational. Also, the reactions are patently rational, it's the making excuses for the new designs and pompously and patronizingly dismissing other peoples OPINIONS as well as FACTS (the accident rates, etc) that's getting annoying. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|