How much longer?

Just look at Cirrus's order book as one indication: Are people buying the
SR20, with an engine that consumes less fuel? Nope, they are buying the
SR22, with a gas guzzler. Ergo: No problem yet, in the good ole USofA.
Bigger is still better.

This is an interesting phenomenon. Cirrus is still apparently finding
enough wealthy pilots to prosper -- from where I know not. I'm extremely
happy for them, however. As long as there are Cirrus' being cranked out,
GA is still in good shape.

Unfortunately, I think the vast majority of pilots on America are closer to
my demographic, small business owners flying around in 35 year old planes
who are being squeezed by energy prices on all sides.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay,

This is an interesting phenomenon.


Isn't it?

I'm not so sure, however, that even you aren't part of the phenomenon -
no offense meant or implied, just making a non-judgmental observation.
After all, how many of those 235 horses your Dakota (?) has do you
really need? Wouldn't an Archer do 99 percent of your missions? And
with a much lower fuel bill?

How many US pilots are there complaining about all the fuel their Bo or
210 or even 182 uses? Well, I got news: Those are BIG airplanes with
BIG engines.

I live in the land of 13 USD per gallon Avgas - and I KNOW I could not
feed 550 or even 520 cubic inches. That's why I fly a Tobago at 115
knots and not a Trinidad at 150. And that's why I am in a 4-person
partnership. Single ownership in Germany? Forget it!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I'm not so sure, however, that even you aren't part of the phenomenon -
no offense meant or implied, just making a non-judgmental observation.
After all, how many of those 235 horses your Dakota (?) has do you
really need? Wouldn't an Archer do 99 percent of your missions? And
with a much lower fuel bill?

None taken. You are absolutely correct.

Which is why we're looking at entering a six-way partnership (flying club,
actually) on a 1946 Ercoupe. 85 horses, 2 seats, 4 gph. The Pathfinder
(immediate predecessor to the Dakota) is an awesome plane for hauling a
family in style -- and we'll certainly keep it -- but Atlas burns 25 gph at
takeoff, which makes buzzing down to a pancake breakfast something you tend
to think twice about nowadays.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:GXVJj.107598$yE1.37839@attbi_s21:

I'm not so sure, however, that even you aren't part of the phenomenon
- no offense meant or implied, just making a non-judgmental
observation. After all, how many of those 235 horses your Dakota (?)
has do you really need? Wouldn't an Archer do 99 percent of your
missions? And with a much lower fuel bill?

None taken. You are absolutely correct.

Which is why we're looking at entering a six-way partnership (flying
club, actually) on a 1946 Ercoupe. 85 horses, 2 seats, 4 gph. The
Pathfinder (immediate predecessor to the Dakota) is an awesome plane
for hauling a family in style -- and we'll certainly keep it -- but
Atlas burns 25 gph at takeoff, which makes buzzing down to a pancake
breakfast something you tend to think twice about nowadays.


You are an idiot. I will fly as long as there is air. Gasoline be
damned. I started without it and I'll finish withour if needs be.





Bertie

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 02:02:27 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:GXVJj.107598$yE1.37839@attbi_s21:

I'm not so sure, however, that even you aren't part of the phenomenon
- no offense meant or implied, just making a non-judgmental
observation. After all, how many of those 235 horses your Dakota (?)
has do you really need? Wouldn't an Archer do 99 percent of your
missions? And with a much lower fuel bill?

None taken. You are absolutely correct.

Which is why we're looking at entering a six-way partnership (flying
club, actually) on a 1946 Ercoupe. 85 horses, 2 seats, 4 gph. The
Pathfinder (immediate predecessor to the Dakota) is an awesome plane
for hauling a family in style -- and we'll certainly keep it -- but
Atlas burns 25 gph at takeoff, which makes buzzing down to a pancake
breakfast something you tend to think twice about nowadays.


You are an idiot. I will fly as long as there is air. Gasoline be
damned. I started without it and I'll finish withour if needs be.

Bertie

I look at it this way. Do I want to go flying? yes.
....f**k the cost. Lets go flying.
flying is about aviation not accounting.
of course it helps to be flying an efficient homebuilt.
Stealth Pilot

Stealth Pilot wrote in
:

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 02:02:27 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:GXVJj.107598$yE1.37839@attbi_s21:

I'm not so sure, however, that even you aren't part of the
phenomenon
- no offense meant or implied, just making a non-judgmental
observation. After all, how many of those 235 horses your Dakota
(?)
has do you really need? Wouldn't an Archer do 99 percent of your
missions? And with a much lower fuel bill?

None taken. You are absolutely correct.

Which is why we're looking at entering a six-way partnership (flying
club, actually) on a 1946 Ercoupe. 85 horses, 2 seats, 4 gph.
The
Pathfinder (immediate predecessor to the Dakota) is an awesome plane
for hauling a family in style -- and we'll certainly keep it -- but
Atlas burns 25 gph at takeoff, which makes buzzing down to a pancake
breakfast something you tend to think twice about nowadays.


You are an idiot. I will fly as long as there is air. Gasoline be
damned. I started without it and I'll finish withour if needs be.

Bertie

I look at it this way. Do I want to go flying? yes.
...f**k the cost. Lets go flying.
flying is about aviation not accounting.
of course it helps to be flying an efficient homebuilt.


Exactly. Once the technology was licked ther was always going to be a
way.

In article Bertie the Bunyip writes:
"Jay Honeck" wrote
Which is why we're looking at entering a six-way partnership (flying
club, actually) on a 1946 Ercoupe. 85 horses, 2 seats, 4 gph. The
Pathfinder (immediate predecessor to the Dakota) is an awesome plane
for hauling a family in style -- and we'll certainly keep it -- but
Atlas burns 25 gph at takeoff, which makes buzzing down to a pancake
breakfast something you tend to think twice about nowadays.

You are an idiot. I will fly as long as there is air. Gasoline be
damned. I started without it and I'll finish withour if needs be.

Bertie

And if stopping global warming demands that we all stop burning fossil fuels
(i.e. stop flying)? If you believe that global warming is a real effect of
man burning fossil fuels, and that it is a problem, you should be looking at
curtaling actions that burn those fuels --- including flying.

Replacing all the light bulbs in your house with compact flourescent lamps
will only save a few percent of your total electrical use, which will be
swamped by the increased use of the increasing population.

You say you started without - how? Even gliders seem to need tows.


Alan

"Alan" wrote ...
Bertie the Bunyip writes:
I will fly as long as there is air. Gasoline be damned.
I started without it and I'll finish withour if needs be.

You say you started without - how?
Even gliders seem to need tows.

Maybe he'll build an electric motor rope launch skid powered by wind
turbines.

On 2008-04-07, Mike Isaksen wrote:

"Alan" wrote ...
Bertie the Bunyip writes:
I will fly as long as there is air. Gasoline be damned.
I started without it and I'll finish withour if needs be.

You say you started without - how?
Even gliders seem to need tows.

Maybe he'll build an electric motor rope launch skid powered by wind
turbines.

You don't even need a winch. Just find a suitable hill and bungee launch
off it - it's *people* giving the initial run of energy for the glider.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6-EeuEi-KY

In any case, a winch is quite frugal, our Jaguar 4.2L based winch uses less
than 1/3rd gallon to launch a glider (in comparison, an aerotow to 2000'
uses about 2 gal). An electric winch would be even better - electric
motors have ideal characteristics for winch launching since they have
huge amounts of torque at low RPM, so it would give a really good pull
from a standing start. The challenge in building an electric winch is
the cost. Building a gasoline powered winch is cheap - a 6 or 8 cylinder
engine out of a scrapped car costs very little and works very well. The
batteries for an electric winch would be expensive however you cut it,
without getting on to obtaining a suitable traction motor.

Finally, there's always hang gliding. Find a suitable slope, and run
into the wind. Of course this demands a certain level of fitness that
seems to be absent from a large proportion of the population.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.

"Mike Isaksen" wrote in news:KRwKj.1375$XC1.1247
@trndny08:


"Alan" wrote ...
Bertie the Bunyip writes:
I will fly as long as there is air. Gasoline be damned.
I started without it and I'll finish withour if needs be.

You say you started without - how?
Even gliders seem to need tows.

Maybe he'll build an electric motor rope launch skid powered by wind
turbines.



Could do. There's lots of ways you can winch launch. The current world
record distance flight was launched off the back of a car. Probably a
thirty second tow, if that.
Point is, there's a million ways to skin a cat. If neceesity dictated, a
way would be found.


Bertie