Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote:
So what interests you?

Something that will take my daughter, my grandson, me and some luggage
to Houston, against a 15kt headwind, nonstop, with comfortable IFR
reserves.

There are always mission trade offs, perhaps its just not the plane for you.
That doesn't make it any less a good design, just not designed for your
purpose.


The SR20 is interesting, but I am still thinking the wingload is
too high for a new pilot (less than 300 hours).

Let him rent Skyhawks awhile.


This is what has been killing GA for years. There have been surveys to find
why more wealthy people do not take up aviation as a hobby. They found a
number of problems that will not change FAA hassles, pimple faced
instructors with no people skills, etc.

The other thing was the flight schools are mostly dumps with a bunch of old
ratty planes. Even a new Skyhawk is essentially an old plane.

How do we expect to grow general aviation if we REFUSE to change what we are
doing to attract new pilots? Isn't this the definition of insanity? Cessna
is unconsciously doing to aviation what Microsoft and IBM did to
technology - killing fast growth and innovation in favor of predictable
business.



Sure, 100 pounds would be more interesting, and I bet
they could go to 200 hp and get it, but would that really
make it more marketable?

It would to me.

You have to remember that these planes now come with a lot more
weight requirements due to the new FARS.

Like what, for instance?


Better crash protection for one. This necessarily adds weight. Everyone
wants more avionics now too. I wonder if the 40 could make your trip if it
only had a single 430 and long range tanks.

The only thing better in my book is the Lancair, and it's a lot more
money.

It's really in a different class, along with the SR-22. If it didn't
have a side stick, I'd rather have an SR-20 than a D-40 for the better
range & load.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

I don't understand many peoples' obsession with growth in the popularity of
GA. The skies are plenty crowded enough as it is around where I fly.

"Dude" wrote in message
news

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote:
So what interests you?

Something that will take my daughter, my grandson, me and some luggage
to Houston, against a 15kt headwind, nonstop, with comfortable IFR
reserves.

There are always mission trade offs, perhaps its just not the plane for
you.
That doesn't make it any less a good design, just not designed for your
purpose.


The SR20 is interesting, but I am still thinking the wingload is
too high for a new pilot (less than 300 hours).

Let him rent Skyhawks awhile.


This is what has been killing GA for years. There have been surveys to
find
why more wealthy people do not take up aviation as a hobby. They found a
number of problems that will not change FAA hassles, pimple faced
instructors with no people skills, etc.

The other thing was the flight schools are mostly dumps with a bunch of
old
ratty planes. Even a new Skyhawk is essentially an old plane.

How do we expect to grow general aviation if we REFUSE to change what we
are
doing to attract new pilots? Isn't this the definition of insanity?
Cessna
is unconsciously doing to aviation what Microsoft and IBM did to
technology - killing fast growth and innovation in favor of predictable
business.



Sure, 100 pounds would be more interesting, and I bet
they could go to 200 hp and get it, but would that really
make it more marketable?

It would to me.

You have to remember that these planes now come with a lot more
weight requirements due to the new FARS.

Like what, for instance?


Better crash protection for one. This necessarily adds weight. Everyone
wants more avionics now too. I wonder if the 40 could make your trip if
it
only had a single 430 and long range tanks.

The only thing better in my book is the Lancair, and it's a lot more
money.

It's really in a different class, along with the SR-22. If it didn't
have a side stick, I'd rather have an SR-20 than a D-40 for the better
range & load.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

As the numbers dwindle the ability for you to continue your enjoyment is
more threatened than by it increasing.

Much of the cost of GA is due to lack of economy of scale.

If you want to ever sell your plane, you will need a pilot to buy it.

Your ability to keep your airport open is a direct function of how many
voters your local pilot population can speak to or know.

Our ability to keep the majors (and the ever increasing threat from bizjets)
from punting us from the skies and airports) is dependent on our ability to
keep the piston friendly FBO's and flight schools in business.

I think perhaps you are letting this issue get ahead of you, and in the long
run it will end flying just the same as letting the plane get ahead of you.
Perhaps I am a bit of a chicken little on this, but the sky IS falling,
albeit slowly.





"Jeremy Lew" wrote in message
...
I don't understand many peoples' obsession with growth in the popularity
of
GA. The skies are plenty crowded enough as it is around where I fly.

"Dude" wrote in message
news

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote:
So what interests you?

Something that will take my daughter, my grandson, me and some luggage
to Houston, against a 15kt headwind, nonstop, with comfortable IFR
reserves.

There are always mission trade offs, perhaps its just not the plane for
you.
That doesn't make it any less a good design, just not designed for your
purpose.


The SR20 is interesting, but I am still thinking the wingload is
too high for a new pilot (less than 300 hours).

Let him rent Skyhawks awhile.


This is what has been killing GA for years. There have been surveys to
find
why more wealthy people do not take up aviation as a hobby. They found
a
number of problems that will not change FAA hassles, pimple faced
instructors with no people skills, etc.

The other thing was the flight schools are mostly dumps with a bunch of
old
ratty planes. Even a new Skyhawk is essentially an old plane.

How do we expect to grow general aviation if we REFUSE to change what we
are
doing to attract new pilots? Isn't this the definition of insanity?
Cessna
is unconsciously doing to aviation what Microsoft and IBM did to
technology - killing fast growth and innovation in favor of predictable
business.



Sure, 100 pounds would be more interesting, and I bet
they could go to 200 hp and get it, but would that really
make it more marketable?

It would to me.

You have to remember that these planes now come with a lot more
weight requirements due to the new FARS.

Like what, for instance?


Better crash protection for one. This necessarily adds weight.
Everyone
wants more avionics now too. I wonder if the 40 could make your trip if
it
only had a single 430 and long range tanks.

The only thing better in my book is the Lancair, and it's a lot more
money.

It's really in a different class, along with the SR-22. If it didn't
have a side stick, I'd rather have an SR-20 than a D-40 for the better
range & load.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Why is it, then, that AOPA is crowing about the record number of members?
IMO, the high cost of flying is more due to excessive liability litigation,
high fuel prices, and exhorbitant certification costs for airframes and
engines.

"Dude" wrote in message
...
As the numbers dwindle the ability for you to continue your enjoyment is
more threatened than by it increasing.

Much of the cost of GA is due to lack of economy of scale.

If you want to ever sell your plane, you will need a pilot to buy it.

Your ability to keep your airport open is a direct function of how many
voters your local pilot population can speak to or know.

Our ability to keep the majors (and the ever increasing threat from
bizjets)
from punting us from the skies and airports) is dependent on our ability
to
keep the piston friendly FBO's and flight schools in business.

I think perhaps you are letting this issue get ahead of you, and in the
long
run it will end flying just the same as letting the plane get ahead of
you.
Perhaps I am a bit of a chicken little on this, but the sky IS falling,
albeit slowly.





"Jeremy Lew" wrote in message
...
I don't understand many peoples' obsession with growth in the popularity
of
GA. The skies are plenty crowded enough as it is around where I fly.

"Dude" wrote in message
news

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote:
So what interests you?

Something that will take my daughter, my grandson, me and some
luggage
to Houston, against a 15kt headwind, nonstop, with comfortable IFR
reserves.

There are always mission trade offs, perhaps its just not the plane
for
you.
That doesn't make it any less a good design, just not designed for
your
purpose.


The SR20 is interesting, but I am still thinking the wingload is
too high for a new pilot (less than 300 hours).

Let him rent Skyhawks awhile.


This is what has been killing GA for years. There have been surveys
to
find
why more wealthy people do not take up aviation as a hobby. They
found
a
number of problems that will not change FAA hassles, pimple faced
instructors with no people skills, etc.

The other thing was the flight schools are mostly dumps with a bunch
of
old
ratty planes. Even a new Skyhawk is essentially an old plane.

How do we expect to grow general aviation if we REFUSE to change what
we
are
doing to attract new pilots? Isn't this the definition of insanity?
Cessna
is unconsciously doing to aviation what Microsoft and IBM did to
technology - killing fast growth and innovation in favor of
predictable
business.



Sure, 100 pounds would be more interesting, and I bet
they could go to 200 hp and get it, but would that really
make it more marketable?

It would to me.

You have to remember that these planes now come with a lot more
weight requirements due to the new FARS.

Like what, for instance?


Better crash protection for one. This necessarily adds weight.
Everyone
wants more avionics now too. I wonder if the 40 could make your trip
if
it
only had a single 430 and long range tanks.

The only thing better in my book is the Lancair, and it's a lot
more
money.

It's really in a different class, along with the SR-22. If it
didn't
have a side stick, I'd rather have an SR-20 than a D-40 for the
better
range & load.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Jeremy Lew" wrote in message
...
Why is it, then, that AOPA is crowing about the record number of members?

As a percentage, we are dropping as a percent of population

IMO, the high cost of flying is more due to excessive liability
litigation,

True, and the best way to beat it is to make it more likely that someone on
the jury has some knowledge of aviation.

high fuel prices,

This could be overcome by new engines, but no one seems to want to buy or
support a new engine design in the certified world. Volume would help, but
not a lot. We need to begin switching to autofuel (problem here IS lack of
volume, as it would rot in the tank before being sold at small airports) or
Jet A (turbo diesels are more complex than our current engines, and your
mechanic won't get trained because there are not enough tdi engines out
there. No one will buy one because the mechanics are not their to support
them).

and exhorbitant certification costs for airframes and
engines.

Which can most easily be overcome with - VOLUME. You see where I am coming
from?


"Dude" wrote in message
...
As the numbers dwindle the ability for you to continue your enjoyment is
more threatened than by it increasing.

Much of the cost of GA is due to lack of economy of scale.

If you want to ever sell your plane, you will need a pilot to buy it.

Your ability to keep your airport open is a direct function of how many
voters your local pilot population can speak to or know.

Our ability to keep the majors (and the ever increasing threat from
bizjets)
from punting us from the skies and airports) is dependent on our ability
to
keep the piston friendly FBO's and flight schools in business.

I think perhaps you are letting this issue get ahead of you, and in the
long
run it will end flying just the same as letting the plane get ahead of
you.
Perhaps I am a bit of a chicken little on this, but the sky IS falling,
albeit slowly.





"Jeremy Lew" wrote in message
...
I don't understand many peoples' obsession with growth in the
popularity
of
GA. The skies are plenty crowded enough as it is around where I fly.

"Dude" wrote in message
news
"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote:
So what interests you?

Something that will take my daughter, my grandson, me and some
luggage
to Houston, against a 15kt headwind, nonstop, with comfortable IFR
reserves.

There are always mission trade offs, perhaps its just not the plane
for
you.
That doesn't make it any less a good design, just not designed for
your
purpose.


The SR20 is interesting, but I am still thinking the wingload is
too high for a new pilot (less than 300 hours).

Let him rent Skyhawks awhile.


This is what has been killing GA for years. There have been surveys
to
find
why more wealthy people do not take up aviation as a hobby. They
found
a
number of problems that will not change FAA hassles, pimple faced
instructors with no people skills, etc.

The other thing was the flight schools are mostly dumps with a bunch
of
old
ratty planes. Even a new Skyhawk is essentially an old plane.

How do we expect to grow general aviation if we REFUSE to change
what
we
are
doing to attract new pilots? Isn't this the definition of insanity?
Cessna
is unconsciously doing to aviation what Microsoft and IBM did to
technology - killing fast growth and innovation in favor of
predictable
business.



Sure, 100 pounds would be more interesting, and I bet
they could go to 200 hp and get it, but would that really
make it more marketable?

It would to me.

You have to remember that these planes now come with a lot more
weight requirements due to the new FARS.

Like what, for instance?


Better crash protection for one. This necessarily adds weight.
Everyone
wants more avionics now too. I wonder if the 40 could make your
trip
if
it
only had a single 430 and long range tanks.

The only thing better in my book is the Lancair, and it's a lot
more
money.

It's really in a different class, along with the SR-22. If it
didn't
have a side stick, I'd rather have an SR-20 than a D-40 for the
better
range & load.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dude wrote:

This could be overcome by new engines, but no one seems to want to buy or
support a new engine design in the certified world.

There are at least three new designs that have either obtained certification in the
last few years or are in various stages of being certified. Lycoming was involved in
one (a diesel), but I'm not sure they are still involved. I like the looks of the
Honda best myself, but it's a few years from certification. Porsche even made a stab
at it about ten years ago. They're still supporting them. The sales records support
your argument in that few people bought them, though.

On the other hand, Maule was working on adapting the SMA diesel to their aircraft
before the company actually got certification for the engine. Although Cessna and
Piper probably won't move fast, I'm sure that companies like Lancair will start using
other engines if they display particular advantages over existing ones.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

Porsche even made a stab
at it about ten years ago. They're still supporting them. The sales records support
your argument in that few people bought them, though.

This article tries to explain the disaster.
http://www.seqair.com/Other/PFM/PorschePFM.html
I don't know whether it's wisdom or hogwash.

Stefan

In article ,
Jeremy Lew wrote:
Why is it, then, that AOPA is crowing about the record number of members?

Since they send out annual renewals starting about 4 months into the
year they might have counted a few people twice. From what I can tell
they spent about my entire membership fee sending me renewal notices.
I'm going to save them the trouble by letting my membership lapse.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

Dude wrote:

Our ability to keep the majors (and the ever increasing threat from bizjets)
from punting us from the skies and airports) is dependent on our ability to
keep the piston friendly FBO's and flight schools in business.


I don't agree with that at all.

1. The majors, as obnoxious as they are, aren't interested in most airports that
you would likely want to use.

2. If the runway is 5,000 feet, or longer, the biz jets might want to share the
airport with you, but they wouldn't push you out and, instead, might get you an
ILS or some similar goodie that wouldn't have come around with a few "Cubs"
parked at the airport.

wrote in message ...


Dude wrote:

Our ability to keep the majors (and the ever increasing threat from
bizjets)
from punting us from the skies and airports) is dependent on our ability
to
keep the piston friendly FBO's and flight schools in business.


I don't agree with that at all.

1. The majors, as obnoxious as they are, aren't interested in most
airports that
you would likely want to use.


Not so, my closest airport just announced plans to kick almost half the GA
tenants off the field to make the airlines happy. The cities want the
bizjets and the airlines because they see the revenue. We are just an
irritation. One local municipal has made a commitment to support "limited"
piston GA activity because someone persuasive pointed out that a lot of jet
owners and wealthy home owners also had prop planes. Also, the press has
been full of majors, and the politicians they have lobbied, attacking GA.

2. If the runway is 5,000 feet, or longer, the biz jets might want to
share the
airport with you, but they wouldn't push you out and, instead, might get
you an
ILS or some similar goodie that wouldn't have come around with a few
"Cubs"
parked at the airport.

Or, you may no longer have your hangar. Until recently, the closest GA
friendly field was 25 minutes from my home. Now its 45. All of those
fields sell more Jet A than Avgas. The fields that are short and get less
jet traffic are dying at a rate of 1 every two years to developers. Doomed
if you are long, and doomed if you are short.

The vast number of the people who can afford and get convenience from a
small piston plane now have to drive farther than they do to get to the two
big airports. When the next vote comes up to close a small field, none of
them will care.