Is this the death of GA

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Owner writes:

See the stock & optional equipment he

http://skyhawk.cessna.com/pricelist.chtml

Thanks.

Looks pretty cool, although I'd want to skip the two big displays in
favor of more traditional instruments (or smaller glass instruments),
for safety reasons.


As usual, you don't know **** from shinola.

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
Jay Maynard writes:

With all that said, a fuel-efficient aircraft engine is a Good Idea,
not because of global warming (boy, have we had to shovel a lot of
that out of our driveway this winter!), but simply because it's less
expensive to operate. In aviation, that's always desirable. It's one
reason I'm even looking at a Rotax-powered aircraft, despite my
lingering misgivings about having an engine my local mechanic can't
fix.

So why are the vast majority of small aircraft powered by engines that
were designed during the Second World War at the latest?


They aren['t


Bertie

On Feb 24, 7:07*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
terry writes:
If you lived in Bombay, I might nearly be able to empathise. But you
live in Paris in a wealthy Western economy.

What does that have to do with it?
Too obvious to answer

And who says you have to stay there, are you in prison?

You have to live in a place you like, or you will be unhappy

you like a place where no one is willing to give you meaningful,
fairly paid employment?
I think that would make most people extremely unhappy.

And why do you have to be an entrepreneur or a salesman?

Because it's extremely difficult to find a job working for someone else.
Extremely difficult? Most people work for someone else. The
unemployment rate in Western Countries is rarely greater than 10%
usually much lower, which means the vast majority of people find
employment. And people are generally unemployed temporarily as they go
in and out of jobs. Permanent unemployement is a sign of a problem
that you really need to deal with.

Most people who fly airplanes are not entrepreneurs or salesman.

A surprising number of them seem to be self-employed.
many airplane owners are self employed because owning a business ,
requires taking a lot of risk , and usually considerable skills in a
particular area, a wealthy person is thus more likely to a business
owner than an employee. But most people who fly, like myself , do not
own an airplane and simply rent with disposable income from working
for other people or companies.

We just get off our butts and work .

So do entrepreneurs and salespeople.
so do garbage collectors and doctors, whats your point? As you clearly
stated you are not cut out to be an entreprenuer or salesman, neither
am I, but so what, I am not cut out for hundreds of occupations, but
you dont need to be , you only have to find one. That could be
English Teaching. People make perfectly good, if not exceptional
incomes from teaching, certainly enough to be able to learn to fly and
live a comfortable life without begging. I think the bottom line is
you dont really want to participate in the real world do you?

On Feb 24, 3:40 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:


Yeah. That walking on the moon thing.

cool.

It still takes my breath away. I'd happily place my right arm on the table.
But of course, it takes more than that..

Bertie

I was in Quebec City and we were all at my Grandmother's house. All
the English was in HUGE subtitles and all the dialogue was in
"recreated" French, complete with the beeps.

I didn't actually hear Armstrong say "one small step for man.." until
years later.

My Father was a bartender at the Ramp Restaurant just off Route 22
near Newark Airport. It was a pilot hangout -- including Buzz Aldrin
(after Apollo 11).

Apparently at that time Buzz was a very regular customer.

Dan

wrote:

I'm with you on all but the "low-carbon."

Biggest crock of shinola ever foisted upon humanity since Milli
Vanilli.

And before you call me a "oil company lackey," understand that I don't
care if the engine's powered by mouse turds.

Thus, I see Al Gore as a huge source of potential energy.


Well stated Sir. This 'carbon footprint' BS is simply the excuse for
some massive new tax scams and personal freedom restrictions that this
country has ever seen since FDR.

On Feb 24, 7:43 am, kontiki wrote:
wrote:

I'm with you on all but the "low-carbon."

Biggest crock of shinola ever foisted upon humanity since Milli
Vanilli.

And before you call me a "oil company lackey," understand that I don't
care if the engine's powered by mouse turds.

Thus, I see Al Gore as a huge source of potential energy.

Well stated Sir. This 'carbon footprint' BS is simply the excuse for
some massive new tax scams and personal freedom restrictions that this
country has ever seen since FDR.

Roger that.

Airbus writes:

What "safety reasons" would argue against a G-1000 system in favor of
traditional instruments?

Too many single points of failure, too little testing, too much complexity,
too much software, and the catastrophic failure modes of digital systems.

I had an airplane that I had to sacrifice for graduate school 4 years
ago. Now finish and looking to get back in the game, I find local
avgas prices in my area range from over $6 to over $7!!! (Up from
$2.30).

Two words: Car gas.

Make sure your plane can run on it (most can), and make sure you live in a
state that doesn't pollute all of their gas with alcohol -- and flying can
still be affordable.

We have run 9000+ gallons of regular unleaded 87 octane car gas through our
home-made fuel truck (see it he
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/new_mighty_grape.htm ) into our airplanes, at a
savings of well over $1.00 (sometimes $2.00+) per gallon.

Do the math -- it'll pay for your truck and make flying less expensive.
AND, best of all, most planes run *better* on unleaded fuel. It's one of
very few win-win situations in aviation.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Feb 24, 9:08 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
Airbus writes:
What "safety reasons" would argue against a G-1000 system in favor of
traditional instruments?

Too many single points of failure, too little testing, too much complexity,
too much software, and the catastrophic failure modes of digital systems.

Hold on...

How many single points of failure in a vacuum system?

How do you know how much testing and of what type?

"Too much complexity"? What in Sam Hill does that mean?

Holy cow -- I just saw who posted that response.

Oy.

To the real pilots with G1000 experience:

My only beef with the G1000 equipped 182 is the lack of a TC. I like
those things. Personal preference.

The system would be nigh perfect if it had synthetic topography and
obstacle display.


Dan

On Feb 24, 9:09 am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
I had an airplane that I had to sacrifice for graduate school 4 years
ago. Now finish and looking to get back in the game, I find local
avgas prices in my area range from over $6 to over $7!!! (Up from
$2.30).

Two words: Car gas.

Make sure your plane can run on it (most can), and make sure you live in a
state that doesn't pollute all of their gas with alcohol -- and flying can
still be affordable.

We have run 9000+ gallons of regular unleaded 87 octane car gas through our
home-made fuel truck (see it hehttp://www.alexisparkinn.com/new_mighty_grape.htm) into our airplanes, at a
savings of well over $1.00 (sometimes $2.00+) per gallon.

Do the math -- it'll pay for your truck and make flying less expensive.
AND, best of all, most planes run *better* on unleaded fuel. It's one of
very few win-win situations in aviation.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Pretty cool!

Any club or FBO I've been in forbid refueling in the hangar.

I never dug deep to find out why. I can only suppose they didn't want
to lose an airplane AND a building.

Dan