How common are aircraft partnerships compared to outright ownerships?

Gig 601XL Builder wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote:

Nobody but you mentioned 172SPs. The OP certainly didn't

Don't get hung up on my mention of the SP model. The OP mentioned "newer
(but not brand new)" C172s. Thus, I assumed post-1998 models, which are
all fuel injected and most contain more advanced avionics than a typical,
older Warrior.

In order to accurately reflect my experience, I used SP since that was what
it was, but I certainly could have included the R model in my assumption
about how long a checkout would take when going from a Warrier to either of
these models.

and again I wans't talking about SPs

You weren't? Then why didn't you say so when you first stated, "If you are
current in a Warrior and anybody REQUIRES 3-5 hours checkout in a
Skyhawk they are just making money off you." Instead, you made a blanket
statement that seems to imply all 172 models.

Given the "newer (but not brand new)" quote from the original post, you
were no more at liberty (and therefore no more right or wrong) to assume a
pre-1998 model than I was to assume a post-1998 model.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote:

Nobody but you mentioned 172SPs. The OP certainly didn't

Don't get hung up on my mention of the SP model. The OP mentioned "newer
(but not brand new)" C172s. Thus, I assumed post-1998 models, which are
all fuel injected and most contain more advanced avionics than a typical,
older Warrior.

In order to accurately reflect my experience, I used SP since that was
what
it was, but I certainly could have included the R model in my assumption
about how long a checkout would take when going from a Warrier to either
of
these models.

and again I wans't talking about SPs

You weren't? Then why didn't you say so when you first stated, "If you
are
current in a Warrior and anybody REQUIRES 3-5 hours checkout in a
Skyhawk they are just making money off you." Instead, you made a
blanket
statement that seems to imply all 172 models.

Given the "newer (but not brand new)" quote from the original post, you
were no more at liberty (and therefore no more right or wrong) to assume a
pre-1998 model than I was to assume a post-1998 model.



Well Peter the OP did mention that they were switching to Cessna because the
vintage aircraft they were looking for was during the Piper bankruptcy isn't
that pre-1996?

You'll have to forgive me. When I think Skyhawk I think Fixed Gear,
Non-constant speed prop, carbureted engine. I think you really know what I
meant and are just being argumentative.

Gig 601XL Builder wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote:

You'll have to forgive me. When I think Skyhawk I think Fixed Gear,
Non-constant speed prop, carbureted engine.

Fair enough. With that clarification, I agree with you that three-to-
five hours does seem excessive for a Warrior pilot, if indeed the features
you listed are the features of the C172 to which the pilot is
transitioning.

However, I honestly didn't know if your initial statement included the
newer model 172s, which have enough differences (IMO) to warrant a longer
checkout. Therefore I sought further clarification. FWIW, when I think
Skyhawk, I think of the abilities and features of the newer models.
Therein is the nature of our disagreement.

I think you really know what I meant and are just being argumentative.

Eh? I disagreed with your comment about the three hour checkout and
provided the reasons for my disagreement. You now dismiss all of this as
argumentative and hide behind the excuse that I knew what you meant all
along, as if I am some type of mind reader? That's just silly.

If you look again at my first post in this thread, it only asked what model
to which you were referring. You are welcome to quote the words from my
post that you interpreted as argumentative.

Need I remind you that in your follow-up, it was you who lobbed a personal
barb by questioning how many hours it took me to solo, as if you expected
this to demonstrate some level of incompetence.


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote:


I think you really know what I meant and are just being argumentative.

Eh? I disagreed with your comment about the three hour checkout and
provided the reasons for my disagreement. You now dismiss all of this as
argumentative and hide behind the excuse that I knew what you meant all
along, as if I am some type of mind reader? That's just silly.


Ok. sorry but the vast majority of flying Skyhawks are not the newer SPs but
the older "plain old Skyhawks."


If you look again at my first post in this thread, it only asked what
model
to which you were referring. You are welcome to quote the words from my
post that you interpreted as argumentative.

Need I remind you that in your follow-up, it was you who lobbed a personal
barb by questioning how many hours it took me to solo, as if you expected
this to demonstrate some level of incompetence.

That was a joke. You had made a comment that the Carb heat issue would take
3 to 5 hours of check flight time to learn. If that is the case for you and
as I said I didn't think would then the learing to fly the whole plane would
be on the order of 3 or 4 hundred hours. Like Newp so perfectly put it.
"Pull out the carb heat below the green arc. Push it in aboove the green
arc. There. You're checked out."

Gig 601XL Builder wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote:

That was a joke.

From the Steven P. McNicoll school of comedy, no doubt.

You had made a comment that the Carb heat issue would take
3 to 5 hours of check flight time to learn.

Well, at least get the quote correct. For the record, I stated the
following:

"I have about 450 hours in a C172SP and I would probably need a couple of
hours of instruction/flying just to become familiar with carb heat usage if
I hypothetically needed to rent an older C172 model."


"Probably need a couple hours" is not three to five hours, at least in my
book.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Gig 601XL Builder wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote:

Ok. sorry but the vast majority of flying Skyhawks are not the newer SPs but
the older "plain old Skyhawks."

Well, Gig, I have to thank you. Your statement above was screaming for a
reference to back it up but instead of putting the burden on you, I decided
to try to prove or disprove it myself.

Therefore, I visited the FAA website and discovered that the FAA registered
aircraft database is offered there as a free, downloadable zip file.

Without a database management tool on my PC, I then downloaded the Open
Source database product called MySQL. Fortunately for me, there was a
Windows install routine that made installation and configuration rather
painless.

I then created a couple of tables and imported the aircraft reference data
and the master registration data from the FAA zip file (data current as of
August 5th, 2005).

The end result? I was able to query the two tables to see exactly how many
C172s manufactured from 1997 onward are registered compared to the number
of C172s manufactured prior to 1996.

Note that it appears that 1986 was the year Cessna ceased production of
C172s until the GA Revitalization Act, but for some reason there are three
aircraft in the database with a 1988 MFG date and 1 with a 1994 date
(perhaps this was a test A/C?).

Of course, there is the legitimate argument that not all aircraft
registered are actively flown. Logic suggests that this would be more
applicable to older aircraft than newer, so the pre-1996 numbers could be
lowered by some degree. Here are the results:


Number of C172s registered, pre- and post-General Aviation Revitalization
Act (C172s produced from 1997 onward are all the modern, fuel-injected,
more advanced avionics models we have been discussing):

1997 onward - 2,305
1986 and prior - 24,251

So, about 91% of all registered C172s are pre-1996. I suppose that
qualifies as a vast majority.


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder wr.giacona@coxDOTnet wrote:

Ok. sorry but the vast majority of flying Skyhawks are not the newer SPs
but
the older "plain old Skyhawks."

Well, Gig, I have to thank you. Your statement above was screaming for a
reference to back it up but instead of putting the burden on you, I
decided
to try to prove or disprove it myself.
So, about 91% of all registered C172s are pre-1996. I suppose that
qualifies as a vast majority.



Good researching Peter. 10:1 Sounds about right.