Future of Electronics In Aviation

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:33:29 -0700, Jim Stewart
wrote:

If lapin wanted to do anything other than
argue in circles, he'd get off his ass and
build a product.

Or actually earn a certificate...

B A R R Y wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:33:29 -0700, Jim Stewart
wrote:

If lapin wanted to do anything other than
argue in circles, he'd get off his ass and
build a product.

Or actually earn a certificate...

Thank you.

On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:31:30 -0700, Jim Stewart
wrote:

B A R R Y wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:33:29 -0700, Jim Stewart
wrote:

If lapin wanted to do anything other than
argue in circles, he'd get off his ass and
build a product.

Or actually earn a certificate...

Thank you.

Even a "pinch hitter" course would be a start. G

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:31:30 -0700, Jim Stewart
wrote:

B A R R Y wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:33:29 -0700, Jim Stewart
wrote:

If lapin wanted to do anything other than
argue in circles, he'd get off his ass and
build a product.

Or actually earn a certificate...

Thank you.

Even a "pinch hitter" course would be a start. G

That's the problem with guys like Le Chaud/Mx - too much education for their
experience/common sense.

Either might well have the education to teach at most universities, but
still lack the experience or common sense, to pump gas anywhere.

On Jun 23, 1:55 pm, wrote:

The bottom of the line Cessna 172 costs $235k.

Assume $50k for the engine and controls.

Assume $40k for the avionics.

That leaves the airframe at $145k.

Composite airframes are just as expensive.

What are you going to build an airframe out of that significantly reduces
that cost, Chinese rice paper?

Cessna says that a full third of the selling price goes toward
set-asides and insurance for them against possible future lawsuits
involving that airplane. The actual manufacturing cost, once that
third is removed and profit taken out, would be much lower. That
doesn't help us, of course, since lawyers and stupid juries and
irresponsible "pilots" will make sure it stays that way.


Lapin is a babbling idiot.

I have no idea why we keep arguing with him. Even if he quit
posting, someone else would take up the affordable PAV idea and make
themselves a pain with it.

Dan

The Le Chaud kid is a classic case of a solution looking for a
problem. He claims to be an EE, so it's not a shock (pun intended)
that he sees software as the solution to all problems. If all you have
is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

On Jun 24, 9:45*am, wrote:
On Jun 23, 1:55 pm, wrote:
* * * * Cessna says that a full third of the selling price goes toward
set-asides and insurance for them against possible future lawsuits
involving that airplane. The actual manufacturing cost, once that
third is removed and profit taken out, would be much lower. That
doesn't help us, of course, since lawyers and stupid juries and
irresponsible "pilots" will make sure it stays that way.

One has to wonder if Cessna would allow a that 1/3 (or 1/4 or 1/8) to
be given back to the buyer as a rebate in exchange for
indemnification.

I would imagine that life-insurance actuaries would be happy to
receive $70,000 lump-sum in exchange for various life-insurance and
other policies.

I guess it all depends on how often pilots crash.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
One has to wonder if Cessna would allow a that 1/3 (or 1/4 or 1/8) to
be given back to the buyer as a rebate in exchange for
indemnification.

Sorry, but indemnification from the buyer still leaves Cessna open to
lawsuits by family members of the buyer, passengers, any other victims on
the ground, and so on. The buyer can only speak for him or her self.

Furthermore, the owner often isn't the pilot - or even always a person.
(such as when a pilot rents a corporate or LLC owned aircraft).

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 24, 9:45 am, wrote:
On Jun 23, 1:55 pm, wrote:
Cessna says that a full third of the selling price goes toward
set-asides and insurance for them against possible future lawsuits
involving that airplane. The actual manufacturing cost, once that
third is removed and profit taken out, would be much lower. That
doesn't help us, of course, since lawyers and stupid juries and
irresponsible "pilots" will make sure it stays that way.

One has to wonder if Cessna would allow a that 1/3 (or 1/4 or 1/8) to
be given back to the buyer as a rebate in exchange for
indemnification.

Nope because how are you going to get one signed by yet to be married
wives, not yet born children, second, third and 50th owners. Not to
mention every passenger who might ever fly in the plane.

So we have found yet another topic on which you are clueless. I really
think you are MX.

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in news:8b1893ba-2e4e-42fb-
:

On Jun 24, 9:45*am, wrote:
On Jun 23, 1:55 pm, wrote:
* * * * Cessna says that a full third of the selling price goes t
oward
set-asides and insurance for them against possible future lawsuits
involving that airplane. The actual manufacturing cost, once that
third is removed and profit taken out, would be much lower. That
doesn't help us, of course, since lawyers and stupid juries and
irresponsible "pilots" will make sure it stays that way.

One has to wonder if Cessna would allow a that 1/3 (or 1/4 or 1/8) to
be given back to the buyer as a rebate in exchange for
indemnification.

I would imagine that life-insurance actuaries would be happy to
receive $70,000 lump-sum in exchange for various life-insurance and
other policies.

I guess it all depends on how often pilots crash.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

You don't know **** from shinola about aviation OR insurance OR anything
else, fjuktjard.