At Least He's Honest. Would This Attitude Have 'Saved' Light Airplane Business??

The problem with split rim truck wheels was that when they failed, usually
innocent pedestrians or motorists were the ones killed. Had the wheel makers
Murphy-proofed their products or made them universally interchangeable, and if
truck tire personnel were required to be a grade above the epsilon minuses
usually in that position, the problem would not have existed. But it did,
because that's the customer base they sold to. The courts made the manufacture
of split rim wheels economically untenable and one piece wheels became the
standard. Of course, since there is no way for the five to ten people every
year who would have been killed if the use of split rims continued to be
identified, the courts and trial lawyers can't claim credit very easily.

Wichita made an airplane-in the case of the heavy singles and light twins that
racked up most of the judgments and settlements-that the customer base-people
with money and usually dismally trained-were not capable of handling. It had
characteristics that were suitable for day VFR use but which made IFR and
night VFR operations by minimally trained owners, most of whom did not fly
enough hours to remain current, a marginal proposition.

Research in the 1960s proved single pilot IFR operations required a major
workload reduction from the WWII-era instrumented and configured aircraft.
Single lever power control, the drum-pointer altimeter, an alternate attitude
and heading indicator (no 'needle ball and alcohol': that's for black and white
war movies) and avionics easily operable without looking down on approach were
indicated. The military in fact revised both the cockpit layout and its
approach procedures after spates of Sabre and T-33 crashes in the 1950s.

Wichita ignored all this. Its only response when we started suing them was to
'shoot, shovel,and shut up' and buy more liability insurance coverage.

Looking back, although it made my family a lot of money, product liability
insurance is like heroin. It doesn't fix the problem, it just numbs the user to
it. Outlawing liability insurance might be a good idea, even though it would
make me change careers.

Harley-Davidson motorcycles are more dangerous than any airplane, and they are
still made in America by a profitable company that is the antithesis of
judgment-proof. With the exception of the federal statute of limitations , the
liability laws are the same for H-D as Cessna, Piper, and Beech.

The real reason recip-engine singles are no longer produced is not product
liability, in any case. It's the great profitability of corporate jet
manufacture, which uses the same floor space and workforce to make a product
with unequalled profit margins once the certification and tooling costs are
paid for. The high cost of type certification and widespread abuse of
Experimental/Amateur-Built provisions are what deters interest in new personal
aircraft startups.

LGHarlan wrote:
Wichita made an airplane-in the case of the heavy singles and light
twins that
racked up most of the judgments and settlements-that the customer
base-people
with money and usually dismally trained-were not capable of handling.

Yes, that was the basic problem. Of course making the planes docile
enough to handle - and paying the certification costs of same - would
have made the planes totally unaffordable. Therein lies the inherent
problem. On the one hand, the tort system demands you make the planes
to modern standards of user-friendliness. On the other hand, the FAA
will not allow you to use modern technology without prohibitively
expensive certification.

Note that I meant what I said. Certification itself is not inherently
expensive. The people who designed the Husky spent less than $400K on
the entire design - including certification. Of course if you were to
fly your Husky through a time machine and land in 1955, you could take
it to any mechanic to fix. Not only would he be able to get all the
parts (and chemicals, for the fabric) he needed, but he wouldn't even
notice anything odd about the airplane other than the avionics. It's
easy (and cheap) to certify a design with nothing but WWII technology,
because that's what the FAA engineers understand. Try it with modern
technology, and you will be paying for their education - or adding
rivets to composite structures.

The fault is pretty much equally split between the evil and stupid FAA
bureaucrats who make modern technology impossibly expensive for GA and
the evil and greedy lawyers who will punish the manufacturers who have
no choice but to build with obsolete technology.

It had
characteristics that were suitable for day VFR use but which made IFR
and
night VFR operations by minimally trained owners, most of whom did
not fly
enough hours to remain current, a marginal proposition.

BTW - how come we're not blaming the owners here for going cheap on the
training (in those expensive airplanes) and not staying current?

Research in the 1960s proved single pilot IFR operations required a
major
workload reduction from the WWII-era instrumented and configured
aircraft.

Required? So why are hundreds of us still flying WWI-era standard? I
don't think we're all Chuck Yeager. Could it be that we're simply
people who decided not to cheap out on the training and fly enough to
stay current?

Single lever power control, the drum-pointer altimeter, an alternate
attitude
and heading indicator (no 'needle ball and alcohol': that's for black
and white
war movies) and avionics easily operable without looking down on
approach were
indicated. The military in fact revised both the cockpit layout and
its
approach procedures after spates of Sabre and T-33 crashes in the
1950s.

Yes, they didn't have to worry about costs or FAA certifications.

Wichita ignored all this. Its only response when we started suing
them was to
'shoot, shovel,and shut up' and buy more liability insurance
coverage.

And given the costs of certification, what choice did they have?

Why aren't you suing the FAA bureaucrats who cause the problem? Could
it be because it's not about fault after all, but just about the money?

Harley-Davidson motorcycles are more dangerous than any airplane,
and they are
still made in America by a profitable company that is the antithesis
of
judgment-proof. With the exception of the federal statute of
limitations , the
liability laws are the same for H-D as Cessna, Piper, and Beech.

First, it's not true. Airplanes are no safer than motorcycles - much
proof to that effect exists.

Second, the certification laws are not at all the same, and neither are
the product volumes.

And third, enough people know about motorcycles that it's pretty hard
to get a judgment against the manufacturer when it's obvious that the
fault lay with the rider and/or a driver.

The high cost of type certification and widespread abuse of
Experimental/Amateur-Built provisions are what deters interest in new
personal
aircraft startups.

I won't argue the cost of type certification - it's probably a bigger
problem than product liability - but if you think amateur-built is a
serious competitor to factory built, you're kidding yourself.
Homebuilts are only a tiny segment of the market, and if you're looking
for something that is competitive with those light twins and larger
singles - you'll just keep on looking. If I could find a homebuilt
with the cabin room, speed, range, and redundancy of my 1965 Wichita
(actually Lock Haven) special, I would have already bought it.

Michael

On 21 Dec 2004 17:19:12 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

LGHarlan wrote:
Wichita made an airplane-in the case of the heavy singles and light
twins that
racked up most of the judgments and settlements-that the customer
base-people
with money and usually dismally trained-were not capable of handling.

Yes, that was the basic problem. Of course making the planes docile
enough to handle - and paying the certification costs of same - would
have made the planes totally unaffordable. Therein lies the inherent
problem. On the one hand, the tort system demands you make the planes
to modern standards of user-friendliness. On the other hand, the FAA
will not allow you to use modern technology without prohibitively
expensive certification.

Note that I meant what I said. Certification itself is not inherently
expensive. The people who designed the Husky spent less than $400K on
the entire design - including certification. Of course if you were to
fly your Husky through a time machine and land in 1955, you could take
it to any mechanic to fix. Not only would he be able to get all the
parts (and chemicals, for the fabric) he needed, but he wouldn't even
notice anything odd about the airplane other than the avionics. It's
easy (and cheap) to certify a design with nothing but WWII technology,
because that's what the FAA engineers understand. Try it with modern
technology, and you will be paying for their education - or adding
rivets to composite structures.

The fault is pretty much equally split between the evil and stupid FAA
bureaucrats who make modern technology impossibly expensive for GA and
the evil and greedy lawyers who will punish the manufacturers who have
no choice but to build with obsolete technology.

It had
characteristics that were suitable for day VFR use but which made IFR
and
night VFR operations by minimally trained owners, most of whom did
not fly
enough hours to remain current, a marginal proposition.

BTW - how come we're not blaming the owners here for going cheap on the
training (in those expensive airplanes) and not staying current?

Research in the 1960s proved single pilot IFR operations required a
major
workload reduction from the WWII-era instrumented and configured
aircraft.

Required? So why are hundreds of us still flying WWI-era standard? I
don't think we're all Chuck Yeager. Could it be that we're simply
people who decided not to cheap out on the training and fly enough to
stay current?

Single lever power control, the drum-pointer altimeter, an alternate
attitude
and heading indicator (no 'needle ball and alcohol': that's for black
and white
war movies) and avionics easily operable without looking down on
approach were
indicated. The military in fact revised both the cockpit layout and
its
approach procedures after spates of Sabre and T-33 crashes in the
1950s.

Yes, they didn't have to worry about costs or FAA certifications.

Wichita ignored all this. Its only response when we started suing
them was to
'shoot, shovel,and shut up' and buy more liability insurance
coverage.

And given the costs of certification, what choice did they have?

Why aren't you suing the FAA bureaucrats who cause the problem? Could
it be because it's not about fault after all, but just about the money?

Harley-Davidson motorcycles are more dangerous than any airplane,
and they are
still made in America by a profitable company that is the antithesis
of
judgment-proof. With the exception of the federal statute of
limitations , the
liability laws are the same for H-D as Cessna, Piper, and Beech.

First, it's not true. Airplanes are no safer than motorcycles - much
proof to that effect exists.

Second, the certification laws are not at all the same, and neither are
the product volumes.

And third, enough people know about motorcycles that it's pretty hard
to get a judgment against the manufacturer when it's obvious that the
fault lay with the rider and/or a driver.

The high cost of type certification and widespread abuse of
Experimental/Amateur-Built provisions are what deters interest in new
personal
aircraft startups.

I won't argue the cost of type certification - it's probably a bigger
problem than product liability - but if you think amateur-built is a
serious competitor to factory built, you're kidding yourself.
Homebuilts are only a tiny segment of the market, and if you're looking
for something that is competitive with those light twins and larger
singles - you'll just keep on looking. If I could find a homebuilt
with the cabin room, speed, range, and redundancy of my 1965 Wichita
(actually Lock Haven) special, I would have already bought it.

Michael

I think there's a lot more homebuilts registered each year than
factory built planes. If you can't find a homebuilt that outpreforms
your spam can you're not looking very hard. post your requirments and
I think you'll be amazed at the choices

Drew Dalgleish wrote:
I think there's a lot more homebuilts registered each year than
factory built planes.

How many homebuilts out there with more than 1000 hours on them?

If you can't find a homebuilt that outpreforms
your spam can you're not looking very hard. post your requirments and
I think you'll be amazed at the choices

I think you're the one who is going to be amazed. Here are my
requirements (which are actually less that what I currently have):

Twin engine, with a single engine absolute ceiling at gross not less
than 5000 ft (not negotiable - not interested in singles)

150 kts cruise at low altitudes (less than 8000 ft) at less than 65%
power (don't like running the engines hard) and less than 18 gph (don't
like spending money either). Must be able to burn either Avgas or
Jet-A (no special fueling issues). Note that this is a bare minimum -
my spam can does better in every respect.

5 hours endurance at 150 kts (including climb fuel and VFR reserves).
Enough useful load to carry the fuel required for that endurance and an
additional 600 lbs of pax/cargo as well as a full redundant IFR panel
(dual nav-coms, dual AI's, GPS and LORAN, stormscope, autopilot, ADF,
DME, etc). Again, these are bare minima.

Cabin room for full size adults (think Bonanza and up - not Mooney).

Not interested in building - will only buy one that is already built
and flying. No one-offs - only want a design with enough track record
to be insurable for hull (I will take whatever training and meet
whatever experience requirements they want).
I'm looking forward to your suggestions.

Michael

Just buy a King Air or Citation. In fact, I think people with your
mindset should only fly as part of a two man crew, which means a Lear,
Gulfstream or MD-80 is probably a better choice. The weakest link in
aviation isn't the engines, it's the pilot. A two man crew operating as
such is the safest way to fly.

If you thought about it you would have figured that two is a bad
number of engines for an airplane anyway, because each engine has to be
fully able to fly the airplane, in effect, for transport category
minima to be reachable. If they are not reached a jury would probably
take that as evidence you could have built a safer airplane and didn't,
you mean company, so have a ten million dollar judgment. Three is much
better. (I see some good deals on 727's and you can always talk your
A&P into the FE seat...)

If a person with your way of thinking can't write a check for a G-III
or MD80 or 737-100 or -200 you are probably too busy playing with
yourself and need to put more attention into your business. You do own
one don't you??

_________________________________

Of course the above is what the BAD Captain Kirk would say, if you
remember that episode. naturally neither myself nor any other poster
here would be that rude.

On 22 Dec 2004 11:38:42 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

Drew Dalgleish wrote:
I think there's a lot more homebuilts registered each year than
factory built planes.

How many homebuilts out there with more than 1000 hours on them?
Lots but what does this have to do with anything
If you can't find a homebuilt that outpreforms
your spam can you're not looking very hard. post your requirments and
I think you'll be amazed at the choices

I think you're the one who is going to be amazed. Here are my
requirements (which are actually less that what I currently have):

Twin engine, with a single engine absolute ceiling at gross not less
than 5000 ft (not negotiable - not interested in singles)

150 kts cruise at low altitudes (less than 8000 ft) at less than 65%
power (don't like running the engines hard) and less than 18 gph (don't
like spending money either). Must be able to burn either Avgas or
Jet-A (no special fueling issues). Note that this is a bare minimum -
my spam can does better in every respect.
Does it burn coal and natural gas too
5 hours endurance at 150 kts (including climb fuel and VFR reserves).
Enough useful load to carry the fuel required for that endurance and an
additional 600 lbs of pax/cargo as well as a full redundant IFR panel
(dual nav-coms, dual AI's, GPS and LORAN, stormscope, autopilot, ADF,
DME, etc). Again, these are bare minima.

Cabin room for full size adults (think Bonanza and up - not Mooney).

Not interested in building - will only buy one that is already built
and flying. No one-offs - only want a design with enough track record
to be insurable for hull (I will take whatever training and meet
whatever experience requirements they want).
I'm looking forward to your suggestions.

Michael

I guess I was Wrong I can't think of a single homebuilt that is worthy
of you. What kind of magic carpet are you flying?

I guess I was Wrong I can't think of a single homebuilt that is worthy
of you.

You know, I find it amazing that proponents of homebuilts seem to get
defensive when you point out that the homebuilt is not the be-all and
end-all. It's not a matter of being worthy, it's a matter of meeting
mission requirements. In this case I can't find a homenuilt to meet my
mission requirements.

I'm not against homebuilts. In fact, I own and fly a homebuilt glider
(HP-11T). I love it. It gives me performance that no certified glider
can match at anything less than twice the price. It meets my mission
requirements and saves me money and hassle.

If I could find a homebuilt to meet the mission requirements of my twin
(long range, overwater, night&IFR) I would own it. I hate dealing with
the FAA any time I want to upgrade, and I hate being locked into
obsolete and expensive parts. But there's nothing out there. I've
looked before. I would have been genuinely happy if you found
something I had missed the first time around. I would have bought it.
If someone comes up with something that meets those requirements (I
might even bend on the insurable-for-hull bit) I'll write him a check
for $100K tomorrow. That is substantially more than I have in my
existing twin.

What kind of magic carpet are you flying?

I'm flying a Twin Comanche, but a Beech Travel-Air would also work for
me.

Michael

On 22 Dec 2004 11:38:42 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

snip

150 kts cruise at low altitudes (less than 8000 ft) at less than 65%
power (don't like running the engines hard) and less than 18 gph (don't

I'm firm believer in running those big engines at 75% and don't
believe running them less is doing them any favors.

like spending money either). Must be able to burn either Avgas or
Jet-A (no special fueling issues). Note that this is a bare minimum -
my spam can does better in every respect.

5 hours endurance at 150 kts (including climb fuel and VFR reserves).
Enough useful load to carry the fuel required for that endurance and an
additional 600 lbs of pax/cargo as well as a full redundant IFR panel

You said 4 full size adults. Today that is 4 X 170 = 680# (if you are
lucky to find 4 trim adults) plus at least 20# each for baggage makes
760# after fuel.

At 9 GPH at 65% you are pretty much talking 4 cylinder engines. Even
an IO-470N will run about 12 GPH at 65%.

But figuring your optimistic 18 GPH @ 5 hours plus a half hour reserve
= 99 gallons useable so figure at least 110 to 120 gallons @ 6#/gal =
660 to 720# plus 760# for pax and baggage means about 1500# useful
load.

The hard part is going to be getting it all together. The hardest
part is the speed at 65% at low altitude loaded and that fuel burn.

(dual nav-coms, dual AI's, GPS and LORAN, stormscope, autopilot, ADF,
DME, etc). Again, these are bare minima.

Cabin room for full size adults (think Bonanza and up - not Mooney).

Now you are talking bigger engines and more fuel burn which means long
range tanks in something like a Baron. According to the specs the
Aztec will do it all except for the fuel burn. At 65% you are still
looking at least at 22 to 24 GPH, but they are docile and the panel
can always be upgraded. Anything smaller has miserable single engine
performance.

I can't think of any recent/new small twin that can match the Aztec
for useful load and it comes the closest to your specs.


Anything newer that I can remember will burn a lot of fuel to meet
your specs.

Get the Geronimo conversion, put 70 grand into a new panel...well
maybe 80 grand and you'll have your machine...except for the fuel burn
and easy to find parts.

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


Not interested in building - will only buy one that is already built
and flying. No one-offs - only want a design with enough track record
to be insurable for hull (I will take whatever training and meet
whatever experience requirements they want).
I'm looking forward to your suggestions.

Michael

Roger wrote:
150 kts cruise at low altitudes (less than 8000 ft) at less than 65%
power (don't like running the engines hard) and less than 18 gph
(don't

I'm firm believer in running those big engines at 75% and don't
believe running them less is doing them any favors.

Then we'll agree to disagree. I think 65% or less and LOP is the way
to go. 1500+ hours, and only replaced 1 of 8 jugs.

You said 4 full size adults. Today that is 4 X 170 = 680# (if you
are
lucky to find 4 trim adults) plus at least 20# each for baggage makes
760# after fuel.

A plane that can put full size adults in every seat and still fill the
tanks has tanks that are too small. My normal mission is 2 full sized
adults, bags, and full fuel for long range flight. My alternate
mission is 3-4 adults, light baggage, short range. I adjust fuel load
accordingly.

My normal launch states are full tanks (allowing me 600+ lbs of payload
and a 5 hour endurance) and mains only (allowing me 800 lbs of payload
and 3 hour endurance).

At 9 GPH at 65% you are pretty much talking 4 cylinder engines. Even
an IO-470N will run about 12 GPH at 65%.

No argument. Both my certified choices feature small fours.

But figuring your optimistic 18 GPH @ 5 hours plus a half hour
reserve
= 99 gallons useable so figure at least 110 to 120 gallons @ 6#/gal =
660 to 720# plus 760# for pax and baggage means about 1500# useful
load.

Remember I said my plane does better in all respects. For me, 150 kts
happens at 15 gph at 8000, so my 90 gallon load is plenty. Also given
that with full fuel I only need to carry 2 adults and bags, we're down
to about 1200 lbs useful load. But of course with less efficient
airframe/bigger engines it might need to be more.

The hard part is going to be getting it all together. The hardest
part is the speed at 65% at low altitude loaded and that fuel burn.

Not hard at all. There are two certified twins that meet my
requiremens, and either can be had in very good condition for less than
$100K. Those twins are the Beech Travel-Air and the Piper Twin
Comanche. The Twin Comanche is somewhat more efficient and has cheaper
parts, but is more demanding to fly.

Anything smaller has miserable single engine
performance.

I only need a 5000 ft absolute ceiling on one engine at gross - my
flying is almost all in the lowlands. Therefore, I am not concerned
about the miserable single engine performance. Actually, when you
compare light twins at full gross, they all do just about the same
until you get into the cabin class.

Get the Geronimo conversion, put 70 grand into a new panel...well
maybe 80 grand and you'll have your machine...except for the fuel
burn
and easy to find parts.

I already have my machine - and it meets all my specs and then some.
Unfortunately, it is certified. If I could have an experimental I
could buy (not build) to meet those specs, I would pay up to 50% more
up front to buy it than I paid for the certified airplane.
Unfortunately, it's not there at any price.

Michael

On 23 Dec 2004 13:08:26 -0800, "Michael"
wrote:

A plane that can put full size adults in every seat and still fill the
tanks has tanks that are too small.


Not true. I can put 4 full sized adults and full fuel, and still have
over 500 pounds left for baggage! All this and I can fly 6 hours
without stopping!

The 235 is a wonderful plane....and a 182 can do it too, among many
others.

z